firefox-translations-models/evaluation/de-en/iwslt17.bergamot.en

This is James Risen.
You may know him because he won the Pulitzer Prize as a New York Times reporter.
Long before someone ever heard of Edward Snowden, Risen wrote a book in which he published spectacularly that the NSA had tapped illegally telephones of Americans.
But it is another chapter that should leave a lasting impression.
In it, he describes a catastrophic US intelligence operation in which the CIA literally handed over drafts for a nuclear bomb to Iran.
If that sounds crazy, read it.
It is an incredible story.
But do you know who did not like the chapter?
The US government.
For almost 10 years, the government has investigated Risen and called on him to name its alleged sources.
In this process, he became a symbol of the government's pattern of condemning whistleblowers and making spy on journalists.
According to the First Amendment, the media have the right to publish secret information.
But it is impossible to apply this right if media do not receive this information and if it cannot protect the courageous identity that they reveal.
So when the government knocks at Risen, he did something that many brave reporters did before him: he refused and said that he would rather go to jail.
Between 2007 and 2015, Risen was at risk of going to prison.
But then, just days before the process, something extraordinary happened.
Suddenly, although they said for years that it would be essential in their case, the government's demands of Risen were abandoned.
The reason: In the time of electronic surveillance, reporters and sources can hide less and less.
Instead of failing and causing rise to statements, his digital footprints could also do it for him.
And so the investigators, without his consent, have secretly provided his telephone documents,
as well as his email data, financial and banking information, its credit information, and even travel records with the list of its flights.
In the midst of this information, they found evidence they used to condemn Jeffrey Sterling, a CIA whistleblower and Risen's alleged source.
Unfortunately, that is just one of many cases.
President Obama promised to protect whistleblowers when he started. But instead, the judiciary has condemned more than all US governments before it combined.
Now you can imagine how this can be a problem, especially because the government considers too much of its work to be secret.
Since the 11th In September, almost every national security article was the result of a whistleblower going to a journalist.
We are therefore jeopardising press relations, which are to be protected by the first Amendment, because the government has more and more opportunities to spy on everyone.
But just as government technology allows to circumvent the rights of reporters, the press can also use technologies to better protect their sources.
They can do this from the moment they contact, instead of in retrospect, in the witness stand.
Today, there is communication software that did not yet exist when Risen had written his book, and it is much more secure than normal emails or phone calls.
One such technology is SecureDrop, an open-source transmission system for whistleblowers, originally developed by the celebrity of the Aaron Swartz we have gone, and has now been developed by the Freedom of the Press Foundation where I work.
Instead of sending an email, go to a message site, such as the Washington Post here.
There you can upload documents or send information, as with any ordinary contact form.
These are then encrypted and stored on a server to which only the respective news agency has access.
So the government cannot obtain more information secretly, and much of the information it would request would not be available from the outset.
However, SecureDrop is only a small part of the whole to ensure that press freedom in the 21st century. century to protect.
Unfortunately, governments around the world are constantly developing new espionage technologies that endanger us all.
It is up to us to ensure that not only technology experts like Edward Snowden have an opportunity to bring out misdeeds. It is just as important that we protect the next whistleblower,
who wants to tell people about abuses in the care of soldiers and wants to report on overcrowded hospitals. Or the next environmental staff who sounds the alarm to contaminated water from Flint. Or an Wall Street insider who warns us about the next financial crisis.
After all, these technologies have been made not only for those who want to expose crimes, but also to protect all of us.
Thank you.
[On the 3rd The biggest data leak in history was published on April 2016.] [The Panama Papers reveal that the rich and the powerful have hidden sums of money in tax havens.] [What does this mean?] [We asked Robert Palmer of Global Witness for an explanation.] This week we were released from news of 11 million documents from Panama-based law firm Mossack Fonseca
The publication of these documents gives a small insight into the secret world of tax havens.
We get an impression of how customers, banks and lawyers go to companies such as Mossack Fonseca and say: "Okay, we need an anonymous company. Can you set it up?"
We actually see the emails, sharing messages, how the whole system works, how it works.
This has already led to the first very direct consequences.
Iceland's Prime Minister has resigned.
There are also reports that an ally of the brutal Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad has letterbox companies in tax havens.
It is claimed that a trail of 2 billion dollars leads to Russian President Vladimir Putin, a close friend from childhood, a famous cellist.
Now there will be a lot of rich people out there and others who are nervously waiting for the next release, and for the next revealed documents.
Now it sounds like the plot of an agent thriller or a John-Grisham novel.
It seems crying away from you, me, ordinary people.
Why should this concern us?
But the truth is: if the rich and powerful are able to hide their assets in tax havens and not pay all their taxes, then this means less money for important public services such as health care, education, roads.
And that concerns us all.
For my organization, Global Witness, these revelations are phenomenal.
Around the world, media and leaders are discussing how secret tax havens used by a few to hide and conceal their assets -- something we have been discussing and exposing for ten years.
I think many people seem very confusing this whole world, and it is hard to understand how these tax havens work.
I always imagine it like a matryoshka doll.
So you have a company in another company, in another company, which makes it almost impossible to really understand who is behind these structures.
It can be very difficult for law enforcement and tax authorities, as well as for journalists or civil society to really understand what is happening.
I also find it interesting that there are fewer reports on this matter in the USA.
Probably because there were no prominent Americans who occurred in these revelations, this scandal.
Now it is not that there are no rich Americans who hide their assets in tax havens.
But the principle by which these tax havens function, Mossack Fonseca has fewer American customers.
If we had a data leak from the Cayman Islands or even from Delaware, Wyoming or Nevada, we would see many more cases and examples that have connections to the USA.
In fact, in some US states you need less information, you have to provide less information to start a company than to get a library card.
This type of lack of transparency in the USA has allowed employees of school districts to shed down school children.
It has allowed fraudsters to rip off particularly vulnerable investors.
It is this kind of behavior that affects us all.
Here at Global Witness, we wanted to find out what all this looks like in practice.
How does it work?
So we sent a covert investigator to the offices of 13 law firms in Manhattan.
Our investigator spent as an African minister who wanted to bring suspicious money to the USA to buy a house, a yacht, a private jet.
It really shocked us that everyone except for one lawyer suggested how he could transfer his money.
These were all preliminary discussion. None of these lawyers accepted us as clients, and of course no one was given money. But it shows the problem with this system.
It is also important not to consider this as individual cases.
It is not a question of a single lawyer who has made suggestions to our undercover investigator.
It is not a question of a single leader, involved in a scandal.
It is about how the system works, which establish corruption, tax evasion, poverty and instability.
And to manage this, we need to change the rules of the game.
We need to change the rules to make this kind of behavior more difficult.
This may all sound very gloomy as if we could do nothing about it; as if nothing has ever changed; as if the rich and powerful are always there.
But as a born optimist, I see that something has begun to change.
Over the last few years, we have seen advances towards more transparency regarding the owners of companies.
The issue was paid to political attention by British Prime Minister David Cameron at the G8 summit in Northern Ireland in 2013.
Since then, the EU has been registering in central registers at national level, who is really behind companies in Europe and who controls them.
One of the unpleasant facts is that the US is lagging behind.
Representatives of both parties have introduced a bill in both parliamentary chambers, but it does not make the progress that we would like to see.
We would really like to see how these Panama revelations, this huge insight into the world of tax havens, is being used as a means to ensure greater transparency in the US and globally.
For us at Global Witness, this is a moment for change.
We need ordinary people who get angry when they see how other people can hide their true identity behind bogus companies.
We need managers in business who stand up and say: "Intransparency is not good for business."
We need leaders who recognise the problem and work to end this kind of lack of transparency through laws.
Together, we can finally put an end to the lack of transparency that still makes this kind of tax evasion, corruption and money laundering possible.
This is the story of how I once almost kidnapped and landed in the trunk of a red mazda.
One day after I completed my design studies, I made a backyard sale.
A guy in the red Mazda stopped and looked at my things.
He bought one of my works of art.
He was alone in the city and was making a road trip throughout the country. After that he would go to the Peace Corps.
I invited him to a beer. He enthusiastically told me how he wanted to change the world.
It was late. I became tired.
While we paid the bill, I made the mistake to ask him, "Where are you sleeping tonight?"
He made the whole thing worse: "I don't know yet."
And I thought, "Oh, man!
What do I do now?"
Who does not know the situation?
Do I need to offer a sleeping place now?
But I just got to know him! He says he would go to the peace corps, but I don't know if he really plans to do so. I don't want to land in the trunk of a Mazdas!
This is a small trunk!
Then I heard myself say, "I have an air mattress. You can sleep in my living room."
A voice in my head said, "Uh, how please?"
At night, I was lying in bed, staring at the ceiling and thaking, "Oh man! What did I dry myself?
A stranger sleeps in my living room.
What if he's crazy?"
I became so afraid that I went out of bed, shelled on tiptoes to the door, and locked my bedroom door.
But he was not crazy.
We are still in contact.
The work of art he bought of mine depends today in his classroom. He is a teacher now.
This was my first experience as a host. It has completely changed my perspective.
Perhaps the people who were sold as strangers to me in childhood were actually friends waiting to be discovered?
Houseing people on my air mattress was normal for me. When I moved to San Francisco, I took the air mattress with me.
Let's make a leap in time, two years later...
I am unemployed, almost broke, my roommate is moving out and the rent is increased.
I learned that there was a design conference in the city at that time. All hotels were fully booked.
I think creativity can be able to turn fear into fun.
I wrote to my best friend and new roommate Brian Chesky: "Brian, I was thinking about how we could earn something. Our apartment becomes a designer bed and breakfast. Young designers can stay with us, Wi-Fi and a desk included, plus a mattress and breakfast every morning.
Ha!"
We created a website and thus founded "air mattress and breakfast" [AIRBed aNd Breakfast à Airbnb].
Three happy guests were allowed to sleep on wooden floors on the air mattress for 20 dollars.
They found it great, and we too.
I'm sure our cheese ham romeletts tasted completely different because we did it for our guests.
We toured with them throughout the city. When we said goodbye to our last guest and fell into the castle, Brian and I stared at us.
Had we just discovered that we could make new friends at the same time and pay for our rent?
Things got rolling.
My former roommate, Nate Blecharczyk, joined us as a developer.
We wanted to find out if you could make a business concept out of it.
This is how we presented ourselves to the investors: "We want to create a website where people publicly post pictures of their private spaces, their bedrooms, their bathrooms -- the type of room whose doors you close when visit comes by.
Through the Internet, they can then invite strangers to stay overnight with them.
That will be the next big thing!"
We waited for the rocket to ignite.
But didn't do it.
No one who is still completely comforted would invest in a business that allows strangers to sleep in other people's homes.
Why?
Because we as children have all learned that strangers are dangerous.
If you have a problem, you remember the things you can do well. We were able to design.
At the art academy, we had learned that design is much more than just appearance and feel -- it's the overall experience.
We had learned how to design objects, but now we wanted to build immense trust through design, between people who had never met before.
Can design do something like this?
Is it possible to build confidence with design?
I would like to give you a taste of what degree of confidence we were seeking.
It is a 30-second experiment. It will force you out of your comfort zone.
Thumbs up when you are ready.
Take your phone in your hand.
Now I would like you to unlock your phone.
Give your unlocked phone to your left seat neighbour.
This slight hint of panic you feel now -- -- is exactly what hosts feel when they open the door for the first time.
Because the only thing that is even more personal than your phone is your home.
Visitors can not only read your text messages, they see your bedroom, your kitchen, your toilet.
What does it feel like to hold a stranger's unlocked phone in his hands?
Most feel the responsibility.
This is how most guests feel when they stay elsewhere.
This is the only reason why our company can exist.
Just like that, who actually has Al Gore's mobile phone?
Could you please announce on Twitter that he is running for the office of President?
You can return cell phones now.
You have now experienced what kind of trust we want to build. I would like to tell you about some discoveries.
What if we had changed a small detail of this experiment?
What if your neighbor had introduced himself with his name; if he had told him where he comes from, what his dog or his children are called?
Imagine you have 150 reviews, all of which say, "He can really hold very well unlocked phones!"
How would you feel if you had to leave your phone?
A well-designed feedback system strengthens confidence decisively.
In the beginning we did some things wrong.
It was hard for people to make negative judgments.
Ultimately, we decided to wait until both hosts and guests had submitted their reviews before we put them online.
Last week we discovered something new.
We conducted a study with Stanford. We examined how likely it is for people to trust each other, depending on how similar they are in terms of age and place of residence.
Not surprisingly, we trust the people most who are most similar to us.
The more differences we find, the less we trust.
This is a natural social bias.
It becomes exciting when adding the call to a person -- in our case by reviews.
If you have less than three ratings, nothing changes.
But if you have more than ten, everything changes.
A good reputation stands out in common.
So the right design can help us overcome some of our deeply rooted preferences.
We also learned that trust depends on how much one reveals oneself.
Here you can see the reactions to a guest's first message.
If you tell too little, such as "Hi!", you get an answer.
If you tell too much, such as: "I have problems with my mother" -- -- the request is not accepted.
So there is an optimal degree of openness, e.g. B. "Great works of art in your apartment! I'll go on holiday with my family."
How can you make it possible to create this degree of openness with design?
We use the size of the text field to recommend the correct amount of text. We also give tips on which topics to write something.
Our entire company builds on the hope that the right design can help to overcome our prejudices against strangers.
Where we had not expected, the large number of people who were more than willing to take advantage of these prejudices.
Here you can see how many people make use of our offer.
You can see three things.
First, incredibly good luck.
Secondly, the tireless work of our team.
Thirdly, a need that had not been met before.
For us, the business is going very well.
Of course, there are also times when not everything is going smoothly.
There were guests who have celebrated parties without permission or devastated apartments.
Hosts have left guests in the rain.
At the beginning of the project I worked in customer service. All calls came directly to my phone.
I was at the forefront of if trust was broken.
There is nothing worse than these calls. It hurts if I just think about it.
The disappointment you hear in the voice of the callers was and will always be our greatest motivation to improve.
Fortunately, out of the 123 million overnight stays brokered, only a fraction each had a problem.
Because people rightly trusted each other.
When trust works, wonderful things can come into being.
One of our guests made holidays in Uruguay. There he suffered a heart attack.
His host went to the hospital.
He even donated blood for the necessary surgery!
Here is his assessment:
"Perfect house for travelers who are prone to heart attacks due to sedentary activities.
The area is beautiful and equipped with plenty of hospitals.
Javier and Alejandra are real guardian angels who save your life, even though they don't really know one.
You drive one to the hospital in your own car when you die, and wait while you get a bypass.
Because they don't want you to feel lonely, they bring books by.
They allow you to stay longer without calculating the extra nights.
I can only recommend it!"
Of course, not every stay is possible.
But these relationships behind the pure money transaction are exactly what you want to achieve with the share economy.
When I stumbled upon this term for the first time, I asked myself:
How does the idea of sharing fit into account with money transactions?
This is about economic trade.
But now simply calling it "renting industry" does not do justice to the cause.
Share Economy describes a trade that promises human relationships.
People reveal part of themselves, and that changes everything.
If you travel away today, it can be compared with fast food. It is efficient and reliable, but less authentic.
However, what if travel were a rich buffet of local impressions?
What if a group of residents there were waiting to fill you thoroughly and show you at a pub pentour district that you have never heard of;
or if you could learn to cook from a five-star chef?
Today, apartments are designed according to the principle of privacy.
What if we were to design apartments from scratch to combine?
What would that look like?
What if cities were to accept the ideas of sharing together?
I imagine cities that enable us to society and relationships, instead of loneliness and isolation.
This project has already begun in South Korea's capital Seoul. Many parking spaces that belonged to the government,
residents were now offered. Students looking for a place to stay,
were placed on people whose children had moved out. Incubator programs have been launched,
to finance new start-ups in the share economy. Through our platform alone, 785 000 people in 191 countries will be hosted by a stranger or even host tonight.
So the idea doesn't seem to be as crazy as we were taught.
We did not reinvent the wheel.
There was also hospitality before.
There were similar websites before us.
So why did ours work?
Apart from luck and timing, we realized that the components of trust can be used to find the right design.
Design can help us overcome deeply rooted prejudices.
I find this amazing,
downright overwhelming.
I have to think about it every time a red Mazda passes me.
We know, of course, that design cannot solve every problem.
But if it could help us, if it had this big impact, I wonder what we can use for soon.
Thank you.
What do you think if you look at me?
A believer? An expert?
Maybe even a sister.
Or suppressed, brainwashed, a terrorist?
Or simply a delay in the security check at the airport.
That is true.
I do not blame you for your negative impressions.
That's what the media represent people who look like me.
One study found that 80% of the coverage of Islam and Muslims is negative.
Studies show that Americans think most people are not knowing Muslims.
It is probably not the people talking to their Uber drivers.
For all those who have never known a Muslim before, it is great to meet you.
I tell you who I am.
I am a mother, a coffee lover -- double espresso, with cream extra.
I am introverted,
a wannabe fitness fanatic,
and I am a practicing, spiritual Muslim.
But not as Lady Gaga sings, because, baby, I was not born that way.
I have decided to do so.
When I was 17 years old, I made the decision to come out.
No, not as a homosexual person, like some of my friends, but as a Muslim. I decided to wear the hijab, my headgear.
My feminist friends were horrified: "Why are you underping yourself?"
The funny thing was: At that time it was a feminist declaration of independence for me, namely to the pressure I felt at the age of 17, adapting to a perfect and unreachable ideal of beauty.
I have not only passively accepted my parents' faith.
I have wung with the Qur'an.
I read it, I read it, think, questioned, doubted and ultimately believed.
My relationship with God was not love at first sight.
It was trust and slow devotion, which deepened with every reading of the Koran.
The beauty of rhythm sometimes makes me cry.
I recognize myself in it. I feel that God knows me.
Have you ever felt that someone perceives you, understands you completely, and yet somehow loved?
That's what it feels like.
Later I married and, like all the good Egyptians, began my career as an engineer.
I later, after my marriage, had a child, and basically lived the "Egyptian-American Dream".
Then that terrible morning came in September 2001.
Many of you probably remember exactly where they were there.
I sat in my kitchen, had finished breakfast, looked at the screen and saw the word "holy message".
There was smoke, planes flew into buildings, people jumped out of the buildings.
What was it?
An accident?
A technical fault?
My shock quickly turned into indignation.
Why should you do something like this?
I changed the TV channel and heard: "... Muslim terrorists ...," " ... in the name of Islam ...," " ... Jihad ...," "... bombs Mecca!"
Oh, my God.
Not only has my country been attacked, but in no time the deeds of others have turned me from one citizen into a suspect.
On the same day we had to drive through the Midwest of the USA to move to a new city and start postgraduate studies.
I remember -- when we drove in silence -- so deep it was chewing into my seat, and I was the first time I was afraid to be recognized as a Muslim.
We moved into our apartment that night, in a new city where it felt like a completely different world.
And then I heard, look and read the warnings of the national Islamic organizations, which said: "Be vigilant", "Be careful", "Stay in well-lit areas", "Do not sum you up".
I stayed inside the whole week.
Then it became Friday of that week -- the day on which Muslims gather to pray.
And again the warnings were: "Don't go on this first Friday, the mosque could be a destination."
I looked at the extensive reporting.
The feelings were understandably unfiltered and I also heard about attacks on Muslims or from people who were considered Muslims, dragged and beaten outside.
There were real arson attacks on mosques.
I thought: we should stay at home.
But something didn't feel right.
Because the people who attacked this country attacked our country.
I got people's anger at the terrorists.
Imagine yourself! I was also furious.
It is not easy to explain yourself all the time.
I have nothing against questions, I love questions.
It is the allegations that are tough.
Nowadays we can actually hear people say, "There is a problem in this country -- it's called Muslims.
When will we get rid of them?"
Some people want to banish Muslims and close mosques.
They speak of my community as if of a tumor in the body of the USA.
The only question arises: Are we malicious or benign?
They know that a malignant tumour is removed as a whole and a benign tumour is kept only under observation.
The alternatives are pointless because the question is wrong.
Muslims, like all other Americans, are not a tumour in the body of the USA, but a vital organ.
Thank you!
Muslims are inventors and teachers, first responders and Olympians.
Will the closure of mosques make America safer?
It may keep a few parking spaces free, but not stopping the terror.
The regular visit to a mosque leads to people looking at other faith more tolerantly and to show greater civic participation.
And as a head of the police in the Washington area, DC recently told me that people are not actually radicalised in mosques.
They are radicalized in their basement or in bed in front of a computer.
In the radicalization process, it was found that it starts online. First, the person is cut off from their community, even by their family, so that the extremist group can brainwash, which leads the person to believe that the terrorists are the true Muslims, and anyone who abhors their behaviour and ideology has fallen away from believers.
If we want to prevent radicalisation, we must encourage people to go to the mosque.
Some will still claim that Islam is a violent religion.
After all, a group like IS justifies its brutality with the Qur'an.
As a Muslim, as a mother, as a human being, I believe that we must do everything to stop a group like IS.
But we would submit to their imagination if they were recognized as representatives of 1.6 billion believers.
Thank you!
ISIS has so much to do with Islam as the Ku-Klux Klan with Christianity.
Both groups claim their ideology based on their "Holy Book".
But if you take a look at them, they don't drive what they read in their "Saint Scriptures."
It is their brutality that makes them read these things in Scripture.
An outstanding Imam recently told me an amazing story:
A girl came to him because they intended to join the IS.
I was really surprised and asked him if she was in contact with radical religious leaders.
He said the problem was exactly the opposite. Every clergy she had spoken to silence she silenced and told her that her anger, her sense of injustice in the world, would only get her into trouble.
Inspired by nothing and something that would have made sense to her anger, she was a main goal for the instrumentalisation of extremists who promised her a solution.
This imam restored the connection with God and her church.
Instead of blaming her for her anger, he showed her constructive ways for real change in the world.
What she learned in the mosque, she prevented her from joining the IS.
This was an insight into how the Islamophobia affects me and my family.
But how does it affect ordinary Americans?
How does it affect everyone else?
How does the 24-hour consumption of fear affect our democracy every day, our thoughtlessness?
One study -- actually several neuroscientific studies -- show that if we are afraid, at least three things happen.
We are more likely to accept an authoritarian system of government, conformity and prejudice.
A study shows that when test subjects are presented with negative reports on Muslims, they agree to more military attacks on Muslim countries and the curtailment of the rights of American Muslims.
This is not just an academic problem.
If you look at when the mood against Muslims shot up -- between 2001 and 2013 -- then this happened three times, but never in connection with terrorist attacks.
It happened in the run-up to the Iraq war and during two parliamentary terms.
So Islamophobia is not simply the natural reaction to Muslim terror, as I expected.
It can indeed be a tool for manipulating the public to undermine the foundation of a free society that has reasonable and well-informed citizens.
Dealing with Muslims is an early warning sign.
We may be the first to feel it, but the toxic air of fear is harming us all.
The allocation of collective guilt is not just about having to explain oneself.
Deah and his wife Yusor were a young married couple who lived in Chapel Hill, North Carolina, where they were both attending school.
Deah was an athlete.
He was at the Faculty of Dentistry, talented, promising ...
His sister would tell me that he was the sweetest, most generous person she knew.
She visited him there and he showed her his CV. She was stunned and said:
"When did my little brother become such an accomplished young man?"
Just a few weeks after Suzanne visited her brother and wife, her neighbor, Craig Stephen Hicks, murdered her, as did Yusor's sister, Razan, who was visiting in the afternoon. He did it in their home, as in an execution, after posting statements against Muslims on his Facebook page.
He shot at Deah eight times.
Fanaticism can be not only immoral, but also deadly.
So back to the beginning.
What happened after 9/11?
Have we gone to the mosque or stayed safely at home?
We discussed it and it was not an easy decision for us, because it was what America we want to leave to our children: one that would control us through fear, or one in which we can freely practice our religion.
We decided to take the mosque.
With our son in the child seat we drove in silence, with our full pressure to the mosque.
I took him out, took off my shoes, went into the prayer hall, and what I saw let me stop.
The hall was completely filled.
Then the Imam made an announcement, thanked and welcomed our guests, because half of those gathered were Christians, Jews, Buddhists, atheists, believers and non-believers who had come not to attack us, but to assist us.
At this moment I collapsed.
These people were there because they had preferred courage and compassion for panic and prejudice.
What will you choose?
What will you choose at the moment of fear and fanaticism?
Will you be on the safe side?
Or you will join those who think we are better than the ones.
Thank you.
Thank you!
Helen Walters: So Dalia, you seem to have met a nerve.
But I ask myself what do you say to those who may say that you are holding a TEDTalk, a thinker with a depth, working in a noble think tank, so there is an exception and not the rule.
What would you say to those people?
Dalia Mogahed: I would say you are not mistaken. I am perfectly normal.
I am no exception.
My story is not uncommon.
I am as usual as it is allowed.
If you look at Muslims around the world, and I did the most important ever study on Muslims around the world, people want ordinary things.
They want prosperity for the family, they want work and they want to live in peace.
So I am not an exception in any respect.
If people appear as an exception to the rule, then the rule has often been broken, and they are not the exception to the rule.
HW: Thank you. Dalia Mogahed.
What started as a platform for hobbyists is about to become a billion-dollar business.
Control, environmental monitoring, photography, film and journalism: these are some of the possible applications for commercial drones. This is made possible in research institutions around the world.
Before air parcel delivery invaded our social consciousness, an autonomous fleet of aircraft at the FRAC Centre in France built a six-metre-high tower of 1,500 bricks live in front of the public. A few years ago, they started flying with ropes.
Through confusion, aircraft achieve high speed and acceleration in the smallest of spaces.
You can also build independently active structures.
They have learned to bear loads, to deal with turbulence and to respond to natural laws in general.
Today we want to show you some of our new projects.
Our goal is to cross the boundaries of what is possible in the autonomous flight.
For a system to function autonomously, it must collectively know where the mobile objects are in the room.
In our laboratory at ETH Zurich, we often use external cameras to find objects. This will enable us to focus on the rapid development of dynamic tasks.
For today's demos, we use a new localization technology from Verity Studios, an offshoot of our laboratory.
There are no external cameras.
Each flying machine has internal sensors to determine the position in the room, calculations on board determine what the machine should do.
External commands are available at the highest level. e.g. B. “start” and “land.”
This is a so-called rear starter,
an aircraft that tries to kill two birds with one stone.
Like other starboard flying, it is efficient in forward flight, much more efficient than helicopters in all their variations.
Unlike most rigid adults, it can float, and it has great advantages when take-off and landing, and is very versatile.
However, there is always a downside.
One limitation of rear starters is that they react sensitively to turbulence such as gusts of wind.
We are developing new controls and algorithms to improve this.
The idea behind this is that the aircraft can regain the optimal position in any position in any position and the performance can be improved by practicing.
Okay.
During our research, we often ask ourselves fundamental abstract questions that come to the core of the matter.
One such question would be: What is the smallest possible number of movable parts for controlled flights?
There are practical reasons to want to know the answer to such a question.
Helicopters are known, for example, as machines with a thousand moving parts that come together to injure you.
Decades ago, trained pilots were able to fly remote-controlled aircraft, which had only two moving parts: a propeller and a stern rudder.
We recently discovered that flies worked with only one.
This is the monomother, the mechanically simplest remote-served aircraft. It was recently invented.
It has only one movable part, a propeller,
no flaps, hinges and ailerons, no other actuators or control surfaces, only one propeller.
Although it is mechanically simple, a lot happens inside so that it can fly stable and move everywhere in the room.
However, it does not have the elegant algorithm of the rear starter. To get it flying, I have to throw it just right.
The chance to throw it just right when you all watch me is small, so I'll show you a video that was filmed last night.
If the monompider is an exercise in frugality, this machine here, the omnicopter with its eight propellers, is an exercise in abundance.
What to do with all this abundance?
You see that it is stable stable.
That is why he is ambivalent in his orientation.
This gives him the extraordinary ability,
to move in space in all directions, no matter in which direction he is turned or even how he rotates.
Of course, it is complex, mainly in the area of interactive rivers from the eight propellers.
Some can be represented in models, the rest is learned directly when flying.
Let us look at that.
If flying machines are to be part of our everyday lives, they must be extremely safe and reliable.
This machine here consists of two separate two-propeller aircraft.
This turns clockwise
and the other counterclockwise.
When they are assembled, they behave like a high-performance quadrocopter.
However, something goes wrong -- a motor or propeller is cancelled, the electronics or a battery -- the machine can fly further, if limited.
We will now demonstrate this by making half flightless.
The last demonstration investigates synthetic swarms.
The large number of autonomous, coordinated units enables a range of aesthetic expression.
We took commercially available micro quadcopters -- each weighs less than a disk of bread -- and equip it with localization technology and algorithms.
Each unit knows where it is in the room and is self-directed. Therefore there is no upper limit.
Hopefully you will motivate these demonstrations to come up with new revolutionary ideas.
The particularly safe machine over there wants to become a flying lampshade on Broadway.
Of course, it is difficult to predict the impact of this technology.
For guys like us, the reward lies in the development and the creative act.
It serves as a reminder of how wonderful and enchanting our universe is, and that it allows creative, clever creatures to shape them in such a spectacular way.
The fact that this technology has such massive commercial and economic potential is the icing on the cake.
Thank you.
1.3 billion years ago, in a very distant galaxy, two black holes encircled each other ever faster, thus converting the mass of three suns into pure energy in a tenth of a second.
This brief moment they shone brighter than all the stars together in all the galaxies of the entire universe known to us.
It was a very big bang.
However, they do not release their energy in the form of light --
we are finally talking about black holes.
The entire energy was released into the space-time structure itself and the universe exploded in gravitational waves.
Let's first set the events in time.
1.3 billion years ago, several cell life had just emerged on Earth.
Since then, the earth has produced a lot: corals, fish, plants, dinosaurs, humans and -- God is attached to us -- even the Internet.
About 25 years ago, a group of particularly brave people -- Rai Weiss from MIT, Kip Thorne and Ronald Drever from Caltech -- decided to build a huge laser detector to search for gravitational waves created by colliding black holes, for example.
Most of them thought they were crazy.
But enough people recognized them as crazy geniuses, so the US National Science Foundation financed their idea.
After decades of development, construction, conception and extremely hard work, they built the LIGO detector: the laser interferometer- gravitational wave observatory.
In the following years, the precision of LIGO was significantly increased, which improved the detection performance enormously.
Therefore, it is now called Advanced LIGO.
At the beginning of September 2015, LIGO was launched for a final test run to clarify some minor, persistent problems.
On the 14th On September 2015, just a few days after the detector was commissioned, the gravitational waves of the two colliding black holes rushed through the earth.
You walked through you and me
and also through the detector.
Scott Hughes: Only two moments in my life were more emotional than this one:
the birth of my daughter
and the farewell to my death sick father.
Basically, these were the fruits of my life's work.
All that I worked for is no longer science fiction! AA: This is my very good friend and colleague Scott Hughes, theoretical physicist at MIT. He has been studying gravitational waves from black holes for 23 years and their signals measurable by observatories such as LIGO. But what are gravitational waves?
A gravitational wave is a crimp in the structure of space and time.
When the wave passed, the space and its entire content are stretched in one direction and compressed into the other.
To illustrate the illustration, lecturers often perform a really silly dance in courses on the theory of relativity.
"Turn and dive, stretch and dive."
The problem is that gravitational waves are extremely weak, even ridiculous.
On the 14th September, for example, each of us was stretched and compressed when the waves hit. The elongation of an average person was 10 high -21.
This means that 20 zeros after the comma, followed by a 1. That's why the LIGO employees were declared crazy.
With a five-kilometre-long laser detector, and this is absurd, this length would have to be accurately measured to less than one thousandth of the radius of an atomic nucleus. This is grotesque.
At the end of his classic text on gravity
Kip Thorne, a co-founder of LIGOs, described the hunt for the waves as follows: "The technical difficulties in building such detectors are tremendous.
But physicists are inventive and with the support of the public opinion, all obstacles will certainly be overcome."
Thorne published this in 1973, 42 years before his success.
Back to LIGO. Scott likes to claim that LIGO is more ear than an eye.
I want to explain what that means.
Visible light has a wavelength that is much smaller than things around us: facial features, the size of your phone.
This is quite practical. This is how you can make a picture or map of things by perceiving the light coming from several points around you.
With sounds, it is different.
Audible sounds have a wavelength of up to 15 meters.
That is why it is very difficult, actually impossible to create a picture of things that mean a lot to you:
the face of your child, for example.
Instead, we listen to certain characteristics such as pitch and height, rhythm and volume to close the story behind it.
"Now is talking about Alice."
"And Bob interrupts her."
"Dummer Bob."
The same applies to gravitational waves.
We cannot use them to make simple images of objects in space.
But by paying attention to changes in the amplitude and frequency of the waves, we can listen to their stories.
At least for LIGO the measured frequencies are in the audible range.
So if we convert wave patterns into sound, we can hear the universe literally speak.
Listening to gravity can tell us about about the collision of two black holes, which my colleague Scott has been dealing with for a long time.
SH: Two black, non-rotating holes, simply chirping: wupped!
If the two bodies turn very quickly, you hear the same cherry porcelain with an additional key change. It sounds like this: wu-wu-wu-wu-wu-wu!
It is a kind of movement vocabulary, embossed in the waveform.
AA: On the 14th September 2015 -- a date that at least I will never forget -- LIGO heard the following: [Burring noise] Someone who knows what to listen to recognize this as a sound of -- SH: ... two black holes with 30 times each of the mass of suns that spin about as fast as the rods of your mixer.
AA: Let's think briefly about what that means.
Two black holes, the densest bodies in space, one with a mass of 29 suns, the other with a mass of 36 suns, orbiting a hundred times per second before they collide.
Imagine these forces.
Fantastic.
And we know about it because we have heard it.
This is the continuing importance of LIGO.
LIGO paves an entirely new way to explore the universe as it has never been possible before.
In this way we can listen to space and hear the invisible.
We cannot see much in space -- practically or basically --.
A supernova, for example. I would like to know why massive stars explode in supernovae.
They are very useful. From them we learned a lot about space.
However, the exciting physical processes occur in the core, which is hidden behind thousands of kilometres of iron, carbon and silicon.
We will never see through it, as these are opak.
Gravitational waves penetrate iron as if it were transparent glass. The Big Bang: I would incredibly like to explore the first minutes of space, but we will never see it, because the Big Bang is covered by its own afterlapse.
With the help of gravitational waves, it should be possible to look back to the beginning.
And the most important thing: I am optimistic that there are things in space that we have never seen before, which we will probably never see and of which we have no idea. Things that we only discover by listening.
In fact, LIGO found things in the first attempt we did not expect.
My colleague at MIT, Matt Evans, an important member of the LIGO project, says on this topic: ME: The type of stars that black holes produce black holes, as LIGO observes them, are the dinosaurs of the universe.
They are enormous, ancient bodies from prehistoric times. The black holes are the sarow bones for our archaeological work.
LIGO gives us a completely different perspective on what happened in space, the formation of the stars and ultimately on how we emerged from this chaos.
AA: The challenge now is to be as brave as possible.
Thanks to LIGO, we know how to build great detectors and listen to the noise and cold of the cosmos.
We need ideas for new observatories -- a whole new generation of observatories on Earth and space.
For what could be more beautiful than listening to the Big Bang itself?
Now is the time of great dreams.
Dream with us.
Thank you.
Some time ago I tried an experiment.
For a year I would say, "Yes!" I was afraid of.
No matter if it made me nervous, put me in unpleasant situations, I forced myself to say "yes."
Did I want to speak in public?
No, but yes!
Did I want to be live on TV?
No, but yes!
Did I want to start playing?
No, no, no, but yes, yes, yes.
And a crazy thing happened: doing exactly what I was afraid of, removed my fear.
My fear of keeping speeches, my social fear -- puff, gone.
The power of a word is impressive.
"Yes" has changed my life.
"Yes" changed me.
But there was a certain yes that deeply changed my life, in an unexpected way. It started with a question of my little ones.
I have three incredible daughters, Harper, Beckett and Emerson. And Emerson, the smallest, calls all "sweeties" for inexplicable reasons,
as if she were a waitress from the south.
"Honey, I need milk for my beak cup."
She once asked me if I could play with her when I was on the go. And I said, "Yes."
This Yes was the beginning
a new attitude to life in my family. From then on, I vowed to always play with them as soon as you ask me to do so. No matter what I'm doing, or where I'm going, I always say yes -- every time.
Almost. I'm not perfect, but I'm trying hard.
It has a magical effect on me, on my children, on our family.
But it also has an amazing side effect: only recently I understood actually completely that the "yes" saying to play with my children saved my career.
I have a real dream job.
I am an author. I think things out, awaken you to life.
Dream job.
No.
I am a titan.
Dream job.
I cream television. I produce television.
I do television, on a large scale.
In this TV season, I am responsible for bringing 70 hours of program into the world.
Four TV programs, 70 hours of television. Three to four shows are in production at the same time.
Each ship offers hundreds of jobs that did not exist before.
The budget for an episode of a TV station can be between three and six million dollars.
Let's say five.
A new episode every nine days four shows, every nine days 20 million dollars of television, four television programs, 70 hours TV, three shows that are in production at the same time, times four, 16 episodes simultaneously: 24 episodes: Grey's, 21 episodes: Scandal, 15 Episodes: How To Get Away With Murder, 10 Episodes: The Catch, 70 Hours, TV,
350 million dollars for one season.
In America, my television series are run successively on Thursday night.
Around the world, my series run in 256 regions in 67 languages for 30 million viewers.
My brain is global, and 45 of these 70 TV hours are shows that I have created myself, and not only produced, so on top of that. I have to find time, really quiet, creative time to gather my fans around the campfire and tell my stories.
Four TV series, 70 hours of television, three, sometimes four, shows at the same time in production, 350 million dollars, campfires that burn around the world.
Do you know who is doing this?
Nobody, that's why I'm a Titan.
Dream job.
I do not want to impress you with that.
I say it because I know what you think when the word "author" falls.
I tell you to do it so much so that all of you who work so hard, whether you run a company, a country or a classroom, take me seriously when I speak of work, so that you understand that I don't just type around the computer and fantasize it, and it is true when I say: I understand that a dream job is not about dreaming.
It's all a job, all work, all reality, all blood, all sweat -- no tears.
I work a lot, hard and I love it.
When I am engrossed in the work, there is no other feeling.
My work always creates a country out of nowhere.
It's like making troops, as if I painted on a screen.
As if you would make a high note, ran a marathon.
One feels like Beyoncé.
And all this at the same time.
I love working.
She is creative, mechanical, strenuous and intoxicating, funny and disturbing, clinical and maternal, cruel and reasonable. And the best thing about it is the buzz.
There is such a change in me when the work is going well.
A buzz begins in my head, and it grows and grows, and the buzz sounds like a busy road, I could go to it forever.
Many people accept when I explain the buzz to them that I talk about writing that the letter gives me pleasure.
Don't get me wrong, it does.
But the buzz -- when I started working and working, when I started working and working, building, creating and working, I discovered this cause, this hum, this energy. The humming!
The sum is more than writing.
The sum is action and activity. The humming is a drug.
The humming is music. The humming is light and air.
The humming is God's voice in my ear.
And if you have such a buzz, then you cannot help but strive for size.
The feeling of being unable but to strive for size, no matter what price.
This is called the sum.
Or maybe it means being a workaholic.
Maybe it's sad genius.
Perhaps it's ego.
Maybe it's the fear of failure.
I don't know.
I only know that I am not made for failure, and I only know that I love the buzz.
I just want to tell you, I am a titan, and I know I don't want to question it.
To make one thing clear: the more we become, the more broadcasts, the more episodes, the more overcome boundaries, the more work there is, the more things at the same time, the more I observe, the more I write history, the more expectations there are.
The more I work to be successful, the more I need to work.
And what did I say about work?
I love work, right?
The land I create, the marathon I run, the army, the canvas, the high tone, the sum, the sum, the sum.
I like this humming. I love the buzz.
I need the sum. I am the sum.
Am I just this sum?
And then the buzz stopped.
Revised, overused, excessive, burned out.
The humming stopped.
Now my three daughters are used to the truth that their mom is one working titanium.
Harper tells people, "My mom won't be there, but you can write to my nanny."
And Emerson says: "Hittle, I want to go to Shonda Land."
It is the children of a titan.
They are baby titans.
They were 12, 3 and 1 when the sums stopped.
The humming of the engine fell silent.
I didn't love my work anymore. The engine was out.
The humming did not come back.
My humming was broken.
I did the same things as always: the same titan work, 15 hour days, worked through weekends, no regrets, nothing, a titanium does not sleep, does not give up, with all my heart, clear eyes, whatever.
But there was no sum.
There was silence in me.
Four television programs, 70 hours, three productions simultaneously, sometimes four.
Four television programmes, 70 hours, three productions at the same time ...
I was the perfect titanium.
I was a showy titanium,
Everything was grey, I just didn't have fun.
And that was my life.
All I did.
I was the humming and the humming was me.
So what do you do when what you do suddenly fades the work you love?
I know some may think, "Heel you, stupid author's titanium."
But you know, you do it, you do, you work, you love what you do, to be a teacher, a banker, to be a mother, to be a painter, to be a Bill Gates, you simply love another and that gives you the buzz, if you know the buzz, what the buzz feels like, if you already know the humming, if the buzz stops, who is you?
What are you?
What am I?
Am I still a Titan?
If the song of my heart stops, can I survive in silence?
And then my "Southern Waiter" asks me a question.
I'm on my way out, late and she says, "Mom, do you like playing?"
And I want to say no when I become aware of two things:
Firstly, I have to say yes to everything and second, secondly, she did not call me "jumeate".
She no longer calls anyone "sweetheart".
When did that happen?
I miss it when I am a Titan and make my sums feel at risk, and here everything changes before my own eyes.
And so she says, "Mom, do you like playing?"
And I say, "Yes."
There is nothing special about that.
We play and their sisters join us, we laugh a lot and I read very dramatically from the book "Everybody Poops".
Nothing exceptional.
But it is outstanding because my pain and panic, in loneliness and lack of buzz, I can do nothing but watch.
I am focused.
I am silent.
The land I create, the marathon I run, the army, the canvas, the high tone - they no longer exist.
All that exists are sticky fingers and wet kisses, delicate voices, crayons and the song that is about letting go, or whatever the girl let go of "The Ice Queen".
Everywhere is peace and simplicity.
The air in this place is so scarce that I can hardly breathe.
I can hardly believe that I breathe.
Playing is the opposite of work.
And I am happy.
Something in me is resolved.
A mental door opens and an energy boost comes in.
And that doesn't go right away, but it happens.
I feel it.
The buzz is slowly coming back.
No full volume, barely there, it's quiet, barely audible, but it's there.
Not the buzz, but a buzz.
And now I feel like I know a magical secret.
But let us stay at the point.
It is love. That's all.
No magic. No secret. Only love.
It is something we have forgotten.
The sum, the amount of the amounts, the titan sums, that is just the replacement.
If I ask you who you are, when I tell you who I am, if I describe myself with the help of broadcasts and television lessons and how functional my brain is, then I have forgotten what the real buzz is.
The sum is not a force and it is not specific.
It depends on the joy.
The real humming is dependent on love.
The buzz is the stream that comes from the lust of life.
The real buzz is self-consciousness and peace.
The real buzz ignores the pressure of history, the tasks to be done, the expectation and the pressure.
The real humming is simple and original.
The real humming is God's voice in my ear, but perhaps God whispered to me the wrong words, because which God told me that I am a titan?
It is just love.
We all need a little more love, much more love.
As soon as my child wants to play with me, I will say yes.
I make this a solid rule so that I can free myself from all guilt as a workaholic.
It is law, I have no other choice. I have no other choice if I want to hear the sums again.
I wish it was so simple. I'm not good at playing, I don't like it.
Playing is not something like working.
The truth hurts,
but I don't like playing.
I always work because I love it.
I prefer to be at work rather than home.
This admission is painful, because what kind of person works rather than being at home?
Well, I.
Let's be honest, I call myself "Titan" --
I must have problems.
That I am too relaxed is none of it.
We race around the garden, back and forth, back and forth.
We do small dance parties,
we sing and play ball.
We burst soap bubbles.
I feel mostly stiff, absent and confused.
I always reach for my phone.
But it is ok.k.
My children show me how to live and the sums of the universe fill me.
I play and play until I ask myself: Why did we ever stop playing?
You can do it too! Always say yes if your child wants to play with you.
Maybe you think I'm naive, a daydreamer.
You are right, but you can do it too!
You have time!
And do you know why? They are not Rihanna or a Muppet show figure.
Your child finds you less interesting than you think.
It is only 15 minutes.
My little ones want to play with me for at most 15 minutes until they think they want to do something else.
It is a wonderful 15 minutes, but only 15 minutes.
After 15 minutes a ladybug or biscuit replaces me.
And if my teen daughter talk to me for 15 minutes, I am Mother of the Year.
It is only 15 minutes, it does not need more.
Everyone can apply 15 minutes at a time, even on a bad mood day!
15 minutes at a time!
No mobile phone, no laundry, no distraction.
The day is short: dinner, which make children bed ready for bed.
But 15 minutes are in it!
My children are my oasis of well-being, my world. It does not have to be children. It is important to feel the sum, to have a place for his peace of mind.
It is not about playing with your own children. It's about joy,
to "play" in general.
Treat yourself to 15 minutes!
Find out what is good for you.
Find out and keep it.
I'm not perfect in it. I scam and I win. Meeting friends, reading books, enjoying the day --
"Do you want to play?" looks briefly for everything I gave up when I got my first TV show when I became a Titan in the training when I wanted to surpass myself more and more.
15 minutes at a time, why not treat yourself to a full 15 minutes?
What can be wrong with it? Nothing!
The humming returned in my spare time. The buzz seems to return when I don't work.
Work does not work without games.
It takes time, but after a few months a door opens, the energy flows in and I find myself in my office. I hear an unknown melody, it fills me and my soul. It leads me to new ideas. The hum has made its way back. I use it to the fullest and love my work again.
I like the humming, but I don't love it.
I do not need it.
I'm not the humming, the humming is not me ... no more.
Bubbles and sticky fingers, dinner with friends.
That is my humming.
The humming of life.
The hum of love.
The humming of the work is part of me, but only a part. And I am so grateful for that.
It's me snake that I'm a Titan. I have never seen a Titan playing journey to Jerusalem.
I said yes to less work and more games.
And yet I have everything under control. My brain is still functional. My campfires are still burning.
The more I play, the happier I and my children are.
The more I play, the more I feel as a good mother.
The more I play, the clearer my head.
The more I play, the better I work.
The more I play, the more I hear the humming. The land I create, the marathon I run, the troops, the canvases, the high tone, the sums, the sums, the other, the right humming: the humming of life.
The more I feel this humming, the more this unusual, trembling, naked and new feeling of life spreads in me. Less Titan -- more I!
The more I feel exactly this buzz, the more I know who I am.
I am an author. I think things, I awaken you to life.
This is part of the job, which means living his dream.
That is the dream of this job,
because a dream job should be a little dreamy.
I said "Yes" to less work and more games.
Titans have no chance here.
"Do you want to play?"
Thank you nicely.
I am a neurosurgeon.
Like most of my colleagues, I have to deal with human tragedies every day.
I know how your life can change from one second to the other, after a serious stroke or after a car accident.
For us neurosurgeons, it is very frustrating that the brain, unlike other body organs, has a very low ability to self-heal.
After a severe injury to the central nervous system, patients often have a permanent, severe disability.
This is probably the reason why I became a functional neurosurgeon.
What is a functional neurosurgeon?
A doctor who tries to improve the nerve functions through various surgical measures.
Surely they have heard of one of the most famous, the "deep brain stimulation". One implants an electrode deep in the brain to influence the circuits of the neurons in such a way that neurological function improves.
It is really an amazing technology. It has improved the fate of patients with Parkinson's disease who suffered from severe trembling and severe pain.
Neuromodulation, however, does not mean neuro-cure.
The dream of functional neurosurgeons is the restoration of the brain.
In my opinion, we are approaching this dream.
I would like to show you that we are very close.
With a little help, the brain can help itself.
The story began 15 years ago.
At that time, I was a senior physician and worked day and night in the emergency room.
I often provided patients with traumatic brain trauma.
You have to imagine that in traumatic brain dreamata, the brain swells and the cranial pressure increases.
To save life, you have to reduce the intracranial pressure.
For this you sometimes have to remove a part of swollen brain mass.
Instead of throwing away the swollen brain mass, we decided to analyze the mass of the brain with Jean-Francois Brunet, one of my colleagues, a biologist.
What do I mean by that?
We wanted to let cells grow from this tissue.
This is not an easy task.
Making cells grow from a piece of tissue is comparable to very small children who are taken out of your families.
It is necessary to find the correct food, temperature, humidity and the environments to make it flourish.
This is exactly what we had to do with these cells.
After many attempts, Jean-Francois managed it.
He saw this under his microscope.
That was a big surprise for us.
Why?
It looked exactly like a stem cell culture. With large green cells surrounded by small, immature cells.
Perhaps you know from biology lessons that stem cells are immature cells that can turn into any cell type of the organism.
The adult brain has stem cells, but very few. They are hidden in deep, small niches of the brain.
It is surprising to get this type of stem cell from the surface tissue of the brain mass in the surgery.
We made another fascinating observation: normal stem cells are very active -- they share very quickly.
They never die, they are immortal.
But these cells behaved differently.
They shared slowly and after a few weeks they even died.
So we saw a new, strange cell population that looked like stem cells but behaved differently.
It took us a long time to understand where they came from.
They are from these cells.
These blue and red cells are called Doublecortin-positive cells.
We all have them in our brain.
They make up 4% of our cerebral cortex cells.
They play a very important role in our development.
At the stage of the fetus, they ensure the folding of the brain.
But why are they kept us?
We do not know that.
We believe that they are involved in healing the brain, as we find them in higher concentrations close to brain injuries.
However, this is not so certain.
One thing, however, is clear -- we received our stem cells from these cells.
We are facing a potential source of cells that enables brain healing.
We had to prove that.
So we decided to develop an experiment.
We wanted to take a piece of brain mass from the non-linguistic area and then cultivate the cells exactly as Jean-Francois did
and then mark them in color to be able to track them in the brain.
In the last step, we reimplantated them at the same individual's escape point.
We call this autologous transplant -- autotransplantation.
One of our first questions was: What happens if we reimplantate these cells into normal brain tissue? And what will happen if we reimplantate the same cells in damaged brain tissue?
Thanks to the help of Prof. We were able to work with monkeys Eric Rouiller.
In the first scenario, we reimplanted the cells into a healthy brain, and we observed that they disappeared completely after a few weeks, as if they had been removed, they go back home. The space is already occupied, they are not needed there, so they disappear.
In the second scenario, we added an injury and reimplanted exactly the same cells and now the cells remained -- they grew into mature neurons.
Here you can see what we could observe under the microscope.
These are the cells that have been reimplanted.
The proof they show is these small points. These are the cells that we colored in vitro, in the culture.
Of course we could not stop here.
Do these cells also help a monkey to recover from brain injury?
So we trained monkeys with a manual skill task.
They had to take feed pellets from a tray.
They did very well.
When they had reached a stable level of skill, we violated the motor skills in the motorized cortex.
The monkeys were paralysed, they could not move their hand.
Just as it would happen in people, they spontaneously recovered to a certain extent, just like a stroke.
The patients are paralysed and then they try to recover with the help of plastic brain mechanisms. They recover to a certain extent, as well as in the monkey.
When we were sure that the monkey had reached its degree of spontaneous recovery, we implanted its own cells.
On the left side they see the monkey, which spontaneously recovered.
It can provide approximately 40% to 50% of its original service prior to the injury.
It is not so precise and not so fast.
Now see when we reimplantated the cells: The same monkey, two months after reimplantation.
I can tell you that these were very exciting results for us as well.
Since that time we have found out a lot more about these cells.
We can freeze them and use them later.
We can use them in other neuropathological models, for example in Parkinson's disease.
But our dream is still to implant them in humans.
I really hope that I will soon be able to show you how the human brain gives us the means to heal itself.
Thank you.
Bruno Giussani: Jocelyne, that's wonderful, I'm sure that right now, several dozen people in the audience, maybe even the majority, think: "I know someone who can need it."
I certainly.
Of course, the question of what are the biggest obstacles before you can start clinical trials on humans.
Jocelyne Bloch: The biggest obstacles are the authorities. Based on these great results, you need to fill in about two kilograms of papers and forms to go through this type of studies.
BG: That's understandable, the brain is very delicate, etc.
JB: Yeah, but it takes a long time, a lot of patience and an almost professional team.
BG: Look to the future -- You have completed the research and tried to get permission to start clinical trials. If you continue to look into the future, how many years it takes for someone to come to the hospital and this therapy will be available.
JB: It's hard to say.
Initially, it depends on the approval of the clinical trial.
Will the authority allow us to start it soon?
Then you have to carry out this study with a small group of patients.
It takes a long time to select the patients to perform the treatments and evaluate whether it is useful to do this kind of treatment.
Then you have to apply this to a multicentre study.
First of all, you really have to prove that it is useful before you can offer this treatment to everyone.
BG: And that it's safe, of course. JB: Of course.
BG: Jocelyne, thank you for visiting TED and for telling us about it.
BG: Thank you.
Democracy.
We in the West make a big mistake to take them for granted.
We see democracy not as the fragile plant it really is, but as an inventory of our society.
We tend to regard them as an unchangeable condition.
We believe that capitalism inevitably leads to democracy.
That is not true.
Lee Kuan Yew from Singapore and his great imitators in Beijing have proven beyond doubt that it is quite possible to have flourishing capitalism and impressive growth, while politics remains completely undemocratic.
In fact, democracy is dwindling with us, in Europe.
At the beginning of the year, when I represented Greece -- the newly elected Greek government -- as finance minister in the Eurogroup, it was unmistakably made clear to me that the democratic process of our country -- our elections -- should not affect the austerity programmes that were implemented in Greece.
At that moment, I thought that there might not be a better justification for Lee Kuan Yew or the Chinese Communist Party, or some of my rebellious friends who repeatedly told me that democracy would be abolished if it changed anything.
At this point, I would like to present you with an economic model for a genuine democracy.
I ask you, together with me, to believe again that Lee Kuan Yew, the Chinese Communist Party and even the Eurogroup succumb to a misconception, we could save us democracy, but that we need a true and defence-like democracy.
Without democracy, our societies are being sworn to mean, our future, and our great new technologies are being wasted.
On the subject of waste, I would like to draw your attention to an interesting contradiction that is currently threatening our economies.
I call it the "twin summit paradox".
You know a summit. They know and recognize him as the mountain of debt that casts its long shadow over the USA, Europe and the whole world.
We all recognize the mountain of debt,
but only a few recognize his twin.
A mountain of unused cash, which belongs to wealthy savers and corporations, but which are too fearful, to invest it where it would be productive and could bring incomes that could be paid off the mountain of debt and also produce all the things that humanity desperately needs, for example "green" energy.
I call them two figures.
Over the past three months, 3.4 trillion US dollars have been invested in the US, England and the eurozone combined, in all the wealth-producing goods, such as industrial plants, machinery, office buildings, schools, roads, tracks, equipment and so on and so on.
3.4 trillion US dollars sound like a lot of money until it is compared to the 5.1 trillion US dollars that were around in the same countries and our financial institutions at the same time, and did absolutely nothing but flat up the stock markets and uphold the house prices.
In this way, debt and unproductive capital form the twin summits, which do not compensate for by the usual market mechanisms.
The result is stagnant wages, more than a quarter of 25-54 year olds in the US, Japan and Europe unemployed, and consequently a low overall economic demand, which, as in an infinite loop, reinforces the pessimism of investors, fearing a low demand, promoting it themselves by not investing. Just like Oedipus father, who out of fear, the prophecy of the oracle could come true that his son would kill him if he grows up,
unintentionally leads to the circumstances that cause Oedipus to kill him.
This is my strife with capitalism --
his very lavish nature. All the unproductive capital should be used to improve our lives, develop human talents and finance all the technologies, "green" technologies that are crucial to saving the Earth.
So is democracy the solution?
I believe. But before we continue: What do we mean by democracy?
Aristotle defined democracy as the form of society in which the free and the poor as the majority control the government.
The Athenian democracy, of course, excluded too many --
Women, foreigners, and of course slaves.
However, it would be a mistake to reduce the importance of Athenian democracy as a result of these exclusions.
The decisive factor in Athenian democracy was and is that it included the working poor, and not only gave them the right to freedom of expression, but is more important and more decisive that it granted them the right to political co-determination with equal emphasis on matters of state concerns.
The Athenian democracy did not last long --
Like a candle that glows very brightly, it is also quickly burned out.
However, our present liberal democracies do not have their roots in ancient Athens,
but in the Magna Carta, in the glorious revolution of 1688, even in the American Constitution.
While Athenian democracy focused on the free citizens and strengthened the working poor, our liberal democracy is based on the values of the Magna Carta, which was ultimately a statute for rulers.
For liberal democracy only arose when a complete separation of politics and the economy was possible and the democratic process was limited to politics, while the economy -- that is, the world of corporations - - - became a democracy-free zone.
In today's democracies, since then this separation of politics and business began, a relentless struggle has been taking place between the two by gradually infiltrating politics and removing it.
Do you wonder why the politicians are no longer the way it used to be?
It is not due to a degeneration of their DNA.
It is because you can be in the government today, and yet not in power, because power has migrated from politics into the economy and the areas are separate.
I mentioned my strife with capitalism.
If you think about it, it is something like a herd of predators, which has decimated the animals that it dies on so lastly, that it died in the end.
It is similar with the economy that has allowed politics to such an extent that it is harming itself by the self-induced economic crisis. The power of the corporations is growing, political goods are being tied up, inequality is increasing, overall economic demand falls and the corporate directors are too frightened to invest the cash of their companies.
The more successfully capitalism drives out of democracy to the "demos" the more the twin summits, and the greater the waste of human labour and the prosperity of humanity.
If that is true, it is obvious that we need to bring politics and the economy back together, and it would be better if the "demos" remained in control, as in ancient Athens, apart from the exclusion of slaves, women and foreigners.
By the way, this is not a new idea.
The Marxist left had this idea 100 years ago and it was not particularly good.
The lesson from the debacle of the Soviet Union should be that the working poor regain a position as in ancient Athens only by miracle, without creating new kinds of brutality and waste.
But there is one solution: to abolish the working poor!
Capitalism does it by replacing low-wage workers with automation and robots.
The problem is that as long as business and politics are separate areas, automation is making the twin summits higher, the waste of severe, and the social conflicts deeper, as it will -- very soon, as I believe -- in countries like China.
We must therefore reshape the economy and reunite the areas of economics and politics, taking care that we democratise the reunited area, otherwise we end up in a pathological surveillance hyper-birdy surveillance, which makes the film "Matrix" seem like a documentary.
So the question is not whether capitalism will survive the technical achievements it has produced --
the more interesting question is whether capitalism is replaced by a dystopia, similar to the "matrix", or by something similar to society in "Star Trek", in which machines serve people and people put their energy into the exploration of the universe, or in a high-tech version of the ancient Athens "Agora", indulge in long conversations to the meaning of life.
I believe we can be optimistic.
So what would it take to have this "Star Trek"-like utopia instead of the "matrix"-like dystopia?
In the practical implementation, I would like to give you a few examples, very briefly.
In the area of companies: Please introduce yourself a capital market in which you earn money while you are working and in which your capital follows you from one job to the next, from one company to the next, and the company -- no matter what you are currently working in -- is the property of those who are currently working in the company.
Then all incomes come from capital and revenues and the concept of wage labour is completely outdated.
No more distinction between those that belong to the companies, but who do not work in it, and employees who work there, but to whom the company does not belong. No more tug-of-wear between capital and labour, no large gaps between investment and saving, and ultimately no towering twin peaks.
In the sphere of global political economy, please briefly imagine that our national currencies have a freely fluctuating exchange rate, in a universal, global, digital currency spent by the IMF [International Monetary Fund], and the G-20 [group of the 20 largest emerging economies], in the interest of all of humanity.
Continue to imagine that all world trade is traded in this currency -- let's call it "the cosmos" in units of "cosmos" -- and each government shall enter into a common fund the sum that corresponds to the trade deficit or trade surplus of the country.
Also imagine that this fund invests in "green" technologies, especially in parts of the world where investment funds are scarce.
This is not a new idea.
It is basically what John Maynard Keynes had proposed at the Bretton Woods Conference of 1944.
The problem was that the technical means had not been implemented at the time.
Today we have them, especially against the backdrop of a reunited politics and economy.
The world I describe to you is at the same time libertarian, in which it prefers privileged persons, and Marxist, because it will have buried the separation of capital and labour in the bin of history, and Keynesian, globally Keynesian.
But above all else it is a world in which we can imagine a genuine democracy.
Let us awaken in such a world
or will we sink into a "matrix"- similar dystopia?
The answer depends on how we decide together politically.
It is in our hands, and we do it better democratically.
Thank you.
Bruno Giussani: Yanis ...
You describe yourself as a libertarian Marxist in your biography.
How relevant is Marx's analysis today?
Yanis Varoufakis: If anything of what I just said is relevant, then Marx is relevant.
The reason for the reunification of politics and business is ... If we do not, technological developments will create such a massive decline in macroeconomic demand, which Larry Summers calls "long-term stagnation".
By transferring this crisis from one part of the earth to the next, as we are currently experiencing, it will not only destabilise our democracies, but also the countries whose interest in liberal democracy is small.
If this analysis is true, then Marx is quite relevant,
just like Hayek, that's why I'm a libertarian Marxist, and like Keynes, and that's why I'm completely confused.
BG: Actually, and now we are probably.
YV: If you are not more confused, you don't think enough.
BG: This is a very Greek, a kind of philosophical explanation -- YV: Actually, it was Einstein who said that. BG: In your presentation, you mentioned Singapore and China and yesterday at the dinner of the speakers you said very clearly what you are thinking of the West's view of China.
Want to repeat it here?
YV: There is a great deal of hypocrisy.
In our liberal democracies we have the appearance of a democracy.
As I said in my presentation, we have limited democracy to politics, while the area where the most of it is happening, -- the area of the economy -- is a completely democracy-free zone.
In a way, if I may say so provocatively, China today is similar to the England of the 19th century. century.
For -- remember -- we tend to connect liberalism with democracy -- this is a mistake, historically.
Liberalism, Liberals, like John Stuart Mill --
he was particularly sceptical about democratic development.
What can be seen now in China is very similar to the development we had in England during the industrial revolution, especially the transition from the first to the second.
To accuse China of doing what the West in the 19th century. Century itself has done, smells tremendous after hypocrisy.
BG: I am sure that many listeners are curious about your experience as Greek Finance Minister at the beginning of the year.
YV: I guessed that comes.
BG: Yes ...
What do you look back on the first half of the year six months later?
YV: Very exciting, from a personal point of view, and very disappointing, because we had the opportunity to make a new start with the Eurozone,
not only Greece, but the Eurozone,
Indeed, to abandon ourselves to be said of complacency, and the constant denial that a massive line of faults was taking place through the eurozone, and continuing to run, which is severely threatening the development of the whole European Union.
We had the opportunity, on the basis of the Greek proposal -- which, incidentally, was the first proposal to reveal this denial --
to get it right. Unfortunately, the powers within the eurozone, within the Europgruppe, have continued to choose denial.
But you know what is coming.
This is the experience of the Soviet Union --
If one tries to keep an economic system that is not viable to keep alive through political will and authoritarianism, one will perhaps be able to delay it for a while, but when change occurs, it happens abruptly and destructively.
BG: What change do you prepect?
YV: There is no doubt that the eurozone has no future if we do not change its structure.
BG: Have you made any mistakes in your time as Minister of Finance?
YV: Every day.
BG: For example? YV: Anyone looking back -- Serious...
If there is a finance minister, or any minister who, after 6 months in office, especially in such a tense situation, claims that he has not made a mistake, then that is a dangerous person.
Of course, I made mistakes.
The biggest mistake was to sign the application to extend the debt program at the end of February.
I believed that there was an honest interest on the part of the donors to find a common solution.
But that did not exist.
They simply wanted to bring down our government simply because they did not want to deal with the distortions that were caused by the eurozone.
They did not want to admit that they had been implementing a disastrous programme in Greece for 5 years.
We lost a third of our nominal GDP.
It's worse than during the "Great Depression".
No one from the troika of the donors, who imposed this policy on us, confessed: "This was a colossal mistake."
BG: Despite all this, and despite the aggressive tone of the conversations, you still seem to be quite pro-European.
YV: Absolutely.
My criticism of the European Union and the euro zone comes from someone who lives and loves Europe.
My biggest fear is that the eurozone will not survive.
Because if it does not survive, the released centrifugal forces will be demonic and destroy the European Union.
This will not have catastrophic consequences for Europe alone, but for the entire global economy.
We are probably the strongest economy in the world.
If we allow ourselves to take the path of postmodern in 1930, after which it seems to me, it will be just as detrimental to the future of Europeans as well as the non-Europeans.
BG: We very much hope that you are wrong on this point.
Yanis, thank you for being at TED.
YV: Thank you.
Most of Roy Price have never heard of most, although he is likely to be on the age of 22 mediocre minutes of your life on 19. April 2013 is responsible.
Probably also for 22 very entertaining minutes, but not for very many of them.
This goes back to the decision Roy made three years ago.
Roy Price is a senior executive at Amazon Studios,
the TV production company of Amazon.
He is 47 years old, slim, has an Igelfrisur and describes himself on Twitter as "Films, TV, Technology, Tacos".
Roy has a very important job because he is responsible for choosing the shows and content that Amazon will produce.
Of course, this is a very highly competitive industry.
There are so many TV series that Roy can't choose any.
He has to find shows that are very, very good.
In other words, he needs to find shows that are on the far right of this curve.
This curve is the rating distribution of over 2500 TV series on the IMDB website. The rating goes from 1 to 10 and the altitude shows shows how many shows receive this review.
If your show is rated nine and higher, this is a winner.
Then you have a successful show.
These are shows such as "Breaking Bad", "Game of Thrones", "The Wire" -- all the shows that are addictive, where, after watching a squadron, your brain asks, "Where is there more of these episodes?"
This kind of show.
On the left side, here at this end, shows such as "Toddlers and Tiaras" -- -- that should tell you enough what's going on at this end of the curve.
Roy Price isn't worried about getting to the left side of the curve, because I think you need special intelligence to beat "Toddlers and Tiaras".
He is more concerned about the central bulging, the average television -- the shows that are neither good nor bad, they simply do not inspire.
So he has to make sure that he is really on the right side.
The pressure is available, and of course it is also the first time that Amazon is doing something like that, so Roy Price doesn't want to risk anything.
He wants to create success.
He needed guaranteed success, so he holds a competition.
He takes many ideas for TV shows and selects eight candidates for TV shows through an evaluation, then he produces the first episode of each of these shows and puts them online where everyone can watch them for free.
And if Amazon spends things for free, do you access, right?
Millions of viewers watch these episodes.
However, they don't know that they are being watched while watching these shows.
They are watched by Roy and his team who take in everything.
They record when you start the show, when you pause, which parts you skip or view again.
They collect millions of data to decide which show to produce with this data.
In fact, they collect the data, process it, and it comes from it, and it reads: "Amazon should make a sitcom over four Republican US Senators."
They did this show.
Does anyone know the name of this show?
Yes, "Alpha House", but it seems that not many can remember this show because it wasn't that good.
It's just an average show -- in the truest sense of the word -- since the average of this turn is 7.4 and Alpha House lands at 7.5 -- slightly above average, but not exactly that what Roy and his team worked on.
At about the same time at another company, another manager has placed a top show through data analysis. His name is Ted, Ted Sarandos, the manager for programming of Netflix. Like Roy, he is always looking to find this one super show and he also uses data for it, but he does it somewhat differently.
Instead of hosting a competition, he and his team have looked at the existing data about the Netflix viewers, i.e. the reviews they give the shows, their course, which shows they like, etc.
Then they use this data to find out these little details about the audience: which shows they like, which producers, which actors.
When they had all the parts together, they took a risk and decided not to make a sitcom over four senators, but a drama series about a senator.
Do you know this show?
Yes, "House of Cards". Netflix landed a hit, at least for the first two seasons.
"House of Cards" gets a 9.1 rating on this corner. So exactly where they wanted to go.
Of course, the question is: what happened here?
There are two very competitive, data-savvy companies.
They connect these amounts of data with each other and it works great for one of them, but not for the other company.
Why is that?
Because somehow the logic says that this should work with everything.
If you collect millions of data, for a decision you make, then you should be able to make a good decision.
There are 200 years of statistics as a back-up.
You optimize it with very powerful computers.
The least you can expect is good television, right?
If data analysis doesn't work that way, then this is somewhat frightening because we are living in a time when we are moving more and more to statistics to make serious decisions, far beyond television.
Does anyone know the company Multi-Health Systems?
Nobody. Ok, that's even good.
Multi-Health Systems is a software company and I hope that no one in this room will ever come into contact with this software. If you come into contact with it, you are in prison.
If someone is in jail here in the US and asks for release, it is likely that the data analysis of this company will be used to determine whether a release is done or not.
Just like Amazon and Netflix. But instead of deciding whether a show will be good or bad, it is decided whether a person will be good or bad.
Medium-screen TV, 22 minutes, this can be really bad, but even more years in prison are worse.
Unfortunately, there is evidence that this data analysis, despite the many data,
not always produced the best results. This is not because a company like multi-health systems does not know how to use data.
The data most experienced companies are also wrong.
Yes, even Google sometimes makes mistakes.
In 2009, Google announced that they can predict outbreaks of flu, the bad way, through data analysis of Google's research.
It worked wonderfully and was a big news sensation. The success culminated in a publication in the magazine "Nature".
It worked flawlessly, year after year, until it suddenly stopped working,
and no one could say why.
It just didn't work, this was once again a sensation, including the revocation of publication in the magazine "Nature".
Even the most savvy companies like Amazon and Google sometimes misunderstand something.
Despite all these mistakes, data is increasingly flowing into decisions of life -- at work, in law enforcement, in medicine.
So we should ensure that data is helpful.
I also know a lot of difficulties with data. I work in computer-aided genetics -- an area where some very smart people use unimaginable amounts of data to make serious decisions on how to choose cancer therapy
or the development of a medicine. Over the years, I have recognized some patterns about the difference between successful decisions based on data and unsuccessful decisions. This pattern should be spread.
Do you ever have to solve a complex problem, do mainly two things:
First, you break down this problem into its individual parts so that you can analyze the individual parts; as the second, you put the items back together to make a decision.
Sometimes you need to do this several times, but there are always two things: come apart and put it back together.
And now the most important thing: data and data analysis are only good for the first part.
Data and data analysis, no matter how powerful, can only help to disassemble a problem and understand its parts.
They are not suitable to reassemble the parts and then make a decision.
There is another tool for this and we all have it: our brain.
If there is something that the brain is good at, it is to put together parts and pieces again, even if the information is incomplete, then make a good decision -- especially if it is an expert's brain.
That's why I think Netflix was so successful because they used data and reason where they belong in the process.
They use data to better understand their audience what they would otherwise not have been capable of. But the decision on how to take all these parts, reassemble and make a show like "House of Cards" from it, that was not in the data.
Ted Sarandos and his team made this decision for this show, which meant that they would take a great personal risk with this decision.
Amazon, on the other hand, did this in the wrong way.
They used data to control all their decisions, first when they competed for TV ideas, then when they chose "Alpha House" as a show.
It was a sure decision because they could always say, "The data tell us."
It did not lead to the desired result.
Data is helpful for better decisions, but I believe things go wrong when data is starting to control our decisions.
No matter how powerful they are, data is just a tool, and to not forget that, this device is quite useful.
Thank you will be very ...
Before there was data, this was the device for decisions.
Many people know it.
It is also called "Magic 8 Ball". It is amazing. To make decisions using a yes or no question, you just need to shake the ball to get an answer. "Most likely" -- right here at this moment.
I will later fight it out with a technical demo.
I have made some decisions in my life so far, although I should have listened to the ball afterwards.
But, as you know, if you have the data available, you want to replace it with something much more complex, such as data analysis, to make better decisions.
But this does not change the basic structure.
So perhaps the ball becomes smarter and smarter. Ultimately, it is up to us to make decisions if we want to achieve something extraordinary at the end of the right corner.
And I find this very encouraging news that, despite the large amount of data, it still pays off to make decisions, be an expert in being an expert on what you are doing and taking risks.
Because in the end it is not the data, but the risks with which you land at the right end of the curve.
Thank you nicely.