After SpaceX earlier this year, Anthropic might be the second massive IPO in History. This has been much awaited for. Obviously I had to try and build the cap. table of the company and this has been more difficult than I thought for one main reason : Google and Amazon have invested through convertible notes but the companies have capped ownerships, respectively at 14.99% and 12% (if I understood correctly). These onwnerships do not appear in my tables (except through some preferred shares but this is not precise enough). As a result, the founders’ ownership which in my table is 31% for the 7 co-founders seems to be 10% according to others so there is a big discrepancy.
Beyond the individual event, I wanted to show the impact of these two initial public offerings on the IPO statistics that I have been compiling for over 15 years.
The result is quite telling: with over 1,000 capitalization tables analyzed, we can see the impact of two major “outliers” on the averages for fundraising, sales, profits, and market capitalizations (though not on initial fundraising rounds, sales multiples, or the number of employees). Statistics like these highlight why median values are more significant than averages!
I just want to finally add that among these 1000+ cap.tables only 49 had raised $1B+ and 4 had raised $10B+ at IPO. In addition only 40 had marlet cap. over $10B (the first being Google in 2004 and the 2nd came in 2011) and only 2 had market cap. over $1’000B (that is a trillion dollars). The world has definitemy changed in the last 15 years and even more this year…
This is the title of a recent article by The New Yorker. The full article is here. it begins with a rather remarkable claim : “There are a handful of truly monumental collective achievements in our history: Machu Picchu, the Great Wall of China, the Pyramids of Giza, and perhaps, if we’re being generous, the Roman aqueducts. Modern global civilization has made one contribution to this eternal pantheon. It is not the moon landing. It is the semiconductor supply chain.”
What is also remarkable in the article is the illustration of a unique ecosystem. Thousands, probably hundreds of thousands of people have contributed to that industry. Initially in Silicon Valley has shown below, in the 60s, 70s and 80s. Today, it is an international ecosystem. the article describes that a design may begin in Silicon Valley at Apple or nVidia, is then produced in Taiwan at TSMC with the unique expertise of Dutch company ASML.
TSMC stands for Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company. It was founded by Morris Chang who had worked at Texas Instruments before. ASML stands for Advanced Semiconductor Materials Lithography. It was founded in 1984 in part as a spin-off of Philips. Today the industry is totally intertwined in-between the three continents with quite a few geopolitical implications and risks.
The end of the article includes “The main thing people don’t understand is that semiconductors are the most complicated things people do.” […] “Rockets are simple.” […] “It’s just so much harder. Rockets are an amazing accomplishment, yes. We don’t have a rating scale for complexity, but rockets are maybe a five or a six.” […] “Semiconductors are an eleven.” […] And yet we take it for granted that we can build them. We shouldn’t. The chief determinant of that unlikely success has been not individual genius in the lab, or individual prowess in the boardroom, but collective planning and coördination at a breathtaking scale. Globalization has become tainted in our eyes, as if it necessarily constitutes a zero-sum enterprise. And its mercenary form—which is also its most common form—has indeed inflicted harm. But the global semiconductor supply chain reflects an alternative pathway. It has united its participants in the pursuit of something profoundly difficult that could not have been achieved in the absence of intercontinental solidarity. […] Stonehenge has frequently been investigated as a technological mystery. We look at the enormous rock slabs retrieved from far-off sites by archaic peoples and can’t help but suspect that these ancients availed themselves of some precocious technology lost to history—a present from aliens, perhaps. But we know how they built it. There isn’t any mystery. They gathered as many people and animals as they could, and distributed ropes, and together they hauled those tremendous slabs a great distance. This didn’t diminish their achievement. It made it, if anything, even more sublime.
This article stroke me. I know well the semiconductor industry as it was in part built with startups, hence the name Silicon Valley. Usually, time induces erosion, fossilisation as also nicely shown in the second figure. The semiconductor shows the opposite. It is at the origin of the personal computer, the mobile phone, the Internet and for better or worse Artificial Intelligence. Sometimes a little bit of history and high-level vision helps and I thank the New Yorker often for that kind of perspectives.
“Fig. 1: A chart for the business ecosystem as it evolved in Silicon Valley. As with so many “new” innovations they have close roots to a successful predecessor, or build right on the foundations of the previous infrastructure, and indeed the first company shown is “Bell Telephone Laboratories” in 1947. From the great intellectual pool of inventors and scientists at Bell came numerous important figures like Claude Shannon, or William Shockley, and it was Schockley that would help anchor tech in the South Bay Area. From his firm would flee the disaffected employees, the “traitorous eight”, as Shockley called them, to found “Fairchild Semiconductor”, and from there on new firms would sprout and momentum would build. This chart well documents the explosive growth throughout the 1960’s and 70’s, and the businesses of the 1980’s that still persist today (Atmel, Xilinx, etc). A great look at the hardware based underpinnings of early Silicon Valley and how it branched and changed.” (Curtis Bird, 2022)
Fig. 2: This comes from a presentation by Aart de Geus, EPFL Alumni and CEO of Synopsys. More here. The adult age of innovation means processes, experienced managers so you need to survive the tornadoes that Geoffrey Moore describes so well. Aart de Geus summarizes these permanent metamorphoses through a parallel management of teams, customers, investors, products and their cycles, but also managers, leaders, implementation. All these things are interdependant and it is often underestimated. In a talk he gave to EPFL in 2007, he showed the history of Synopsys acquisitions in the form of the animal below! His sense of humour was certainly very useful. This sense of humour hides the humbleness of the individual who succeeded without giving any lesson. If there is one lesson in all this, is that you must try, be curious and flexible. Success may come.
What the F… is this post doing here? Well, I just absolutely needed to talk about what I consider to be an amazing art creation. I discovered Luanda Kinshasa by Stan Douglas at Fondation Pinault a few years ago, apparently in early 2022. This is a unique 6-hour video that I really encourage you to discover!!
I could never find much more except a short extract on vimeo.
Then I learnt in early 2026 about a record published by The Vinyl Factory.
The “final” icing on the cake came with Parallax, the “largest monographic exhibition devoted to Stan Douglas in France for over thirty years” at Musée du Jeu de Paume.
I made a presentation of all this in a pdf as well as in Powerpoint,
and of course watch Something Ventured, here is his piece [Valentine] So we had our meeting. I went to Steve’s house. And we talked, and I was convinced it was a big market… just embryonically beginning. Steve was in his Fu Manchu look, and his question for me- “Tell me what I have to do to have you finance me.” I said, “We have to have someone in the company… who has some sense of management and marketing and channels of distribution.” He said, “Fine. Send me three people.” I sent him three candidates. One he didn’t like. One didn’t like him. And the third one was Mike Markkula. Mike Markkula worked for me at Fairchild before he went to Intel.
and one of my favorite quote “Founders are genetically impossible by choice. There were only two true visionaries in the history of Silicon Valley. Steve Jobs and Bob Noyce [Intel’s founder]. Their vision was to build great companies… Steve was twenty, un-degreed, some people said unwashed, and he looked like Ho Chi Min. But he was a bright person… Phenomenal achievement done by somebody in his very early twenties… Bob was one of those people who could maintain perspective because he was inordinately bright. Steve could not. He was very, very passionate, highly competitive.” By the way, Bob Noyce mentored Steve Jobs.
Paul Graham is famous as a cofounder of Ycombinator. Paul Graham is probably a little less famous for his essays that can be found on his website, paulgraham.com. Most to say all his essays are worth reading.
Paul Graham just gave an interview that is about 20 minutes long, Paul Graham On Startups, Ambition, and Great Founders. You can listen to it, you can read the transcripts. You can also read what I liked or liked less !
What I like :
– Most of starting a startup is the same. Most of starting a startup is always the same, right? In, you know, microprocessors or AI or like in the internal combustion engine, it’s always the same stuff.
– That um the way you make a new Google is not by attacking them head on. You have to wait for things to change so much that their model is obsolete. […] And that’s what openAI is. I don’t use Google anymore. I don’t use searches. That what I really wanted from searches was not web pages. I wanted information. And I’m sure everyone’s now had this experience.
– [Can you tell me a story about a founder where when they started YC, they were maybe not ambitious enough and then they became very ambitious during the batch?] So the one case where you see founders it’s not that they lack ambition, it’s more like they’ve been trained not to show it. Because when you’re young, you’re often in situations where you’re supposed to be obedient, you’re not supposed to like go off and do what you want, you’re supposed to do what people tell you. Maybe you have pushy parents. Who tell you to do what they want, right? And so you’ve never you’ve never let yourself go. That’s the one case. But even then I would argue that the person was ambitious, they’d just been trained not to show it.
– [About the word formidable]. We already had this word before we started YC, like for a certain a certain kind of person. And I described it in an essay. I said, I think that it’s someone who can get what they want. Do you get what you want? Because how formidable are you if you don’t get what you want. It’s someone who gets what they want in any situation. And so if you invest in them and you have stock in their company and they have stock in this company, your interests are aligned. If they get what they want, you get what you want. So that’s why investors want people who are formidable. Pretty good. Yeah, because they get a part of what the founder gets.
What I like less
– [How does being in a batch like YC give founders an advantage?] One is starting a startup is normally a very lonely business. […] . And so this is like working in an office with all these colleagues, except you’re all working on your own startup. So there’s that. You have colleagues. You can also learn from the what the other startups are doing at the same time you are. So you have some technical problem. Probably somebody in the batch had that problem. You can just ask them how they solved it, right? And another advantage is what we call the YC GDP. Which is you have some sort of product, you can sell it to the startups in your batch.
This looked a little weak to me as an advantage. I think the real advantage is the access to an external network and PG does not say it.
It’s been a while since I published a cap. Table here, more than one year. And with three recent events, the IPOs of SHEIN and Pasqal and the possible acquisition of Hugging Face by nVidia, my pdf file has just reach 1’000 cap. tables.
Before discussing the 3 latest tables, let me comment briefly the situation. The world has changed !
– First companies do not go public the way they did initially. Usually it took 5 to 7 years to validate a business then a startup went public. Now companies continue to stay private even when highly profitable. They are also acquired by huge private equity funds like in the case of EPFL spin-off Nexthink.
– Second, by doing so, the shareholding does not represent anymore a linear history of the development of the startup until its IPO. There are secondaries, that is the possibiliy for existing shareholders to sell some of their stakes to third parties. So a cpa table at IPO does not represent anymore the intiial stakes of all these actors.
– Third, there has been a small trend of compânies going public through SPACs. To make it simple, startups go public by being acquired by an existing public entity, often an empty shell with cash, which will be renamed with the name of the acquired startjup. This is the case of Pasqal. Pasqal IPO went through a SPAC process with BLEICHROEDER ACQUISITION CORP. II as a sponsor. It made the cap. table a little tricky so it is a best effort more than usual.
So here are 4 cap. tables: SHEIN, Hugging Face, Pasqal and also SpaceX (which IPO occured last May)
– SHEIN is the typical cap. table that I knew of. Four young founders (aged 29, 27, 30 and 26 at the time of the foundation) develop a high-growth company with a lot of venture capital, though they did it many years after inception. The company is highly profitable with a huge workforce, which does not seem to own a lot of equity. So not so typical, usually employees have 20% of a company and venture capital comes early in the development of the company. Any comment ?
– Hugging Face looks a little similar. Three young founders (aged 28, 32 and 31 at inception) with a lot of venture capital since day 1. As the company is still private all the figures are assumptions based on what the press said, and I am missing some crucial elements liked pre-seed rounds and options.
– Pasqal is a different animal. Founders are older (50 on average). The CEO is not a founder. Again there is a lot of venture capital but the SPAC structure has made all this more difficult to analyze !
– SpaceX has been a highly visible IPO last my because of its founder of course. All the numbers are highly unusual. Again this was not an easy exercise given the relatively high age of the company.
So in conclusion, I am happy to have reached the 1’000 milestone and I will try to update the statitics at the end of the pdf and the lessons learned since my previous series of articles :
– the series of 7 articles in April 2020 entitled Data about equity of 600 startups.
– the article Updated data in equity of 800 (former) startups in August 2021
– more generally all the articles with the tag #600startups.
I would have loved to include Anthropic and OpenAI in that list but I fear continuing the exercise will be difficult, gibe my remarks above. It’s been fun though !!!
In this long video, Yves Meyer addresses the question of his vocation for the beauty and truth of mathematics from the moment 9 minutes 41 seconds.
I’m going back to my childhood. My childhood was completely ruined, shattered by the Algerian War. I was 15 years old. Especially since I was in Tunisia, which was entirely within a Muslim world. This war seemed absolutely horrific to me. So, I was 15 when it started. In fact, it lasted seven years, and it was truly terrible. And, uh, at that time, we, as children and teenagers, were completely confronted with the fact that the press was entirely censored because you couldn’t say that the war existed, you certainly couldn’t talk about the existence of torture, and so on. And it was either censored or lying. Hence the idea — a rebellious teenager has always existed; even people who wear a tie today, like me, were rebellious teenagers — and it led me to seek the truth for myself, and no longer believing in anyone was, for me, a form of rebellion, a defiance of will. And the charm of mathematics for me was that I was the sole judge of truth. I could prove the teacher wrong. In fact, my teachers were very rarely wrong because they gave excellent lessons. I did occasionally make mistakes while teaching. But you can stop the teacher by telling them they’re wrong, simply that there’s a sign error, or that the argument from authority doesn’t work in mathematics since you can’t say, “You’re going to believe this result, I’m going to prove it to you, and therefore you are the judge of truth.” It’s very strange when you think about it deeply. When I was a child, when physicists told me — my physics teacher — that Michelson and Morley had done such and such an experiment, it was actually, despite the respect I have for physics today, an argument from authority. I was forced to believe that this experiment had been done. I couldn’t possibly verify for myself, through my own intellectual resources, that the result was truly true. Because of my mindset, which was one of rebellion and insubordination, mathematics seemed to me the only discipline where I could control everything myself, and that seemed absolutely essential. So, in my adult life, as an adult mathematician, I first sought truth and beauty. Truth was something I held dear in my childhood because of the political experience of the Algerian War. And beauty, because I was very sensitive to beauty as a resident of Tunis. Beauty was everywhere. The almond trees in bloom in February were breathtakingly beautiful.
I discovered Célia Pelluet at a conference in Angers last week and she made me laugh a lot. She does something unusual: stand-up comedy, through popular science and the position of women in the field, which is as male-dominated as, or even more so than, others. Here’s a great example: “Politics Isn’t Quantum”:
Back to Sylvia Serfaty’s beautiful book. It’s a simple yet subtle book about a vocation for mathematics. “It all started for me at fifteen. […] I proved a more general inequality.” [Page 11] “That day, it suddenly dawned on me that being a mathematician was also a classy, meaningful profession that could make me dream, just as much as being an artist or a writer.” [Page 16] But it’s also about rivalry: One of them had singled me out — I learned it indirectly — as “the girl to beat.” [La fille à abattre][Page 19]
These are shared memories and feelings, often encountered during our studies. Her high school teacher, L. Koechlin, who decided against entering her in the national mathematics competition, said, “Perhaps what he made us give up was the possibility of dreaming a little longer.” [Page 21] She went back to see him during her preparatory school years. “It was a good year, when he passed the agrégation, and I was admitted to the advanced mathematics program M’.” [Page 33]
These are also mixed feelings about those years in preparatory classes. Stéphane Hoguet, looking so much like Dave Gahan, the singer of Depeche Mode [Page 22], was undoubtedly her mentor. “Stéphane Hoguet taught at the Lycée Louis-le-Grand for a grand total of two and a half years (we were his first year). […] I learned of his death. He was 35 years old. […] I have always wondered how many vocations he would have inspired, how many mathematicians he would have launched into the stratosphere, if he had lived longer and taught for another thirty years.” [Pages 36-7]
She is less enthusiastic about her M’ professor. “It was rumored that until a certain time, perhaps ten years earlier, he had refused to have girls in his class. I don’t know if it was true, but there were some telling signs.” [Page 33] or about her physics professor: “An ENS? Well, try ENS Lyon then.” […] When he saw her again, her M’ professor shook her hand courteously and congratulated her. Our physics professor called out to her as a parting gift, “Go ahead and help women advance!” Had she applied this injunction to herself? It was a little late for encouragement. [Page 35] (You may check as a comparison the experience of Malcolm X here.)
But the “crude jokes and dubious traditions” seem to have had a motivating rather than discouraging effect. Sylvia Serfaty entered Ulm among the top students in a class that had never before included so many girls: six out of 42. Of the four who went on to study mathematics, three were daughters of mathematicians. Social mobility and class defectors exist at all levels.
I don’t know if the book will speak to everyone in the same way — obviously not, that’s a rather silly remark! And on the specific subject of mathematics, it resonates even more when you recognize yourself in the journey. I remember a few teachers’ names: Gérard Falézan, Brigitte Doisneau, Mr. François, Michel Poupaud (Melvil’s father), who also died prematurely, and of course Stephen Boyd. Like Sylvia Serfaty, the non-science teachers were just as important. I only need to think of my French teacher, Yvonne Rollet. And there are even more faces and names that brought so much imagination and inspiration. Not forgetting the friends, sometimes rivals, never enemies! Corinne, Claire, Isabelle, Frédéric, Patrice, Roger, Philippe, Vincent, Peter, Lieven, Laurent… Girls and boys.
Sylvia Serfaty describes the world of research, its grandeur and sometimes its pettiness (as I have also tried to illustrate it here at times). She also mentions the famous Fields medal with a caution I had rarely encountered: “A more accurate comparison would be to say that the Fields Medal is the equivalent of the Oscars, the Palme d’Or at the Cannes Film Festival, or a literary prize. It is awarded by the committee, which chooses based on its own assessment and relying on letters of recommendation solicited from expert and recognized mathematicians, thus striving to also reflect the opinion of the community, where certain groups promote their protégés. […] In other words, it is a scientific choice, but also a political one in the broadest sense, and necessarily subjective. It is therefore clear that the four selected, the only ones who will be remembered, are not necessarily better than the six or eight who are left out. […] Highlighting only them and their work is like only going to see films that have won an Oscar or a Palme d’Or.” [Pages 132-33] One may check about this the article about Perelman (whom you can discover at pages 136-38).
The ending takes a more philosophical turn, mentioning foxes, hedgehogs, birds, and frogs as analogies for the way mathematics is done. You will also meet before the mysterious Ramanujan.
The latin word testamentum (« testament ; testimony ») is itself translated from the Ancient Greek: διαθήκη / diathếkê (« testament, contract, agreement »)
Those two words are curious. This link between testament and testimony. It reminds me of a joke my friend Georges told me. Grün’s eldest son converted to Christianity so he could marry a Catholic. Since nothing worse could happen to a devout Jewish father, Grün sank into a deep depression and locked himself in his room. Then the door opened and an old man with a white beard entered. It was God: “Why are you crying, Grün?” – “Shouldn’t I be crying? My son has been baptized!” – “But Grün, mine too!” – “Yes, and what should I do now?” – “Do as I do: make a new testament!”
More seriously, this is the third time I’ve mentioned these two words in a blog that is primarily a personal account and, after almost 20 years, is undoubtedly becoming something of an intellectual testament. What remains after all these decades?
By the end of the year, I might have compiled over 1,000 startup capitalization tables. About 750 posts ! A passion for mathematics that has never wavered. Not to mention literature and a rather complete failure to get a translation of a beautiful novel published (in my opinion, of course!).
And then there’s Street Art, more or less skillfully published or hidden here. More than 10,000 pieces collected virtually.
All this should have remained in French only, but I felt a need to translate the French post of yesterday… In his latest and more than magnificent novel, Himintungl yfir heimsins ystu brún (“Planets above the World’s Edge”, Benedikt, Reykjavík, 2024) and in French, Corps célestes à la lisière du monde, Jón Kalman Stefánsson writes on page 190 this verse from Catullus “Pedicabo ego vos et irrumabo” hastening to add “a verse that I will not have the audacity to translate here”.
What unites here the tenth novel translated into French by my revered Icelander with the essay Betraying Through Loyalty (Trahir par fidélité), written by Aurélien Barrau and subtitled Against the End of the World with Alexander Grothendieck (more on the 20th-century mathematician here), could well be another quote translated from Icelandic by Eric Boury.
La vérité importe-t-elle plus que l’Amour ?
Voici les questions
Does truth matter more than love?
These are the questions
The two authors share this tragic preoccupation which I found again by a strange coincidence in a third reading in recent days, that of What if Stefan Zweig could speak… by Camille de Toledo (Et si Stefan Zweig pouvait parler… here in pdf) and I could have cited for the umpteenth time that of Wilhelm Reich in Listen Little Man, which you will find without too much difficulty on this blog with its search engine.
But before returning to Grothendieck (I will not write anything more about the Icelandic novel which can be read without any hesitation), I will add some visual memories of this break away from work.
It’s very difficult to give an overview of Aurélien Barrau’s excellent essay, written in such a distinctive style. I wrote (in French only) about this author last year regarding his vision of scientific research as a poetic and revolutionary act. He revisits similar themes in his analysis of Alexander Grothendieck’s choices, leading one to wonder if he wasn’t not only the greatest mathematician of the 20th century, but rather the greatest mathematician in the history of the discipline. In the introduction, page 16:
“Grothendieck is a lord in rags. A prince in tatters. Poor by choice and alone by necessity. Modest by inclination but misunderstood by obligation.
Perhaps he was a genius in spite of himself, thanks to a deep and persistent wound.
Touched by grace and faithful to beauty, whatever the cost.
Angel and poet. Saint and martyr. Revolutionary and scholar.”
Page 29: “Normal mathematicians can sometimes painfully reach the summit of a mountain, thanks to superhuman efforts from the valley floor, but Grothendieck flew from one peak to another.”
Page 19: “Grothendieck not only saw from a higher vantage point, he saw different colors, he heard different melodies, he discerned the elsewhere in the here that no one had yet been able to imagine.”
Page 27: “Grothendieck publicly improvising a demonstration much shorter and distinctly more elegant than the speaker’s, before a stunned audience. Grothendieck understood that this gesture was undoubtedly humiliating for his colleague and bitterly regretted it.”
Stefansson, Zweig and Grothendieck are brought together here in the fundamental and ultimately tragic idea that truth, beauty and love are inseparable and perhaps too often irreconcilable…
Stefansson, Zweig et Grothendieck sont réunis ici dans l’idée fondamentale et finalement tragique que vérité, beauté et amour sont indissociables et peut-être trop souvent inconciliables…
One can also delve deeper into Grothendieck’s work with the lecture “Grothendieck’s Thousand and One Mathematical Pages” by Bertrand Toen (in French):
or by listening to Alain Connes:
– on France Culture in the Scientific Conversation: What kind of man was Alexandre Grothendieck? Quel homme fut donc Alexandre Grothendieck ?
– The legacy of Alexandre Grothendieck. With Alain Connes.
Post-Scriptum of the next day : The reader who has arrived here might wonder why such recent posts about topics that have little to do with technological innovation and startups. For twenty or even thirty years, I tried to remain a technician, not to say an expert, on these subjects. But I am forced to acknowledge that this topic touches on many others, from sociology to psychology, including politics, the arts, and the sciences. I cannot escape them. This latest post is perhaps even more mysterious because of its title. It also reminds me, in a completely different vein, of Maurice Pialat’s famous remark, “If you don’t like me, I can tell you that I don’t like you either.”
Montaigne has become my guide, my compass. In these extraordinary times, there is no better source of inspiration and reflection. I would be curious to know if Jón Kalman Stefánsson counts him among his influences. Reverend Pétur, the main character in *Celestial Bodies at the Edge of the World*, is too close to Montaigne for the question not to arise quickly.
For the past few days, I have been reading one of the last Essays, De la physionomie (Book III, Essay 12). Here is the note from the edition prepared by Bernard Combeaud: “This essay revolves entirely around the problematic relationship between appearance and being. Most of the places where we can display or disguise what we value, what we think we are worth, what we think as well as what we disguise: our words, our customs, our gestures, our actions, our physionomie, our writings, but also clothing, haughtiness, ostentation, culture, or philosophy, which we flaunt at will in one’s speeches or books, in the form of quotations, will be successively invoked here. The emblem of this chapter is the figure of Socrates, with his outwardly “vile form” and his inwardly beautiful soul. But no less emblematic here are the peasants bent over after their work, who know how to die so simply, they whom philosophy has never prepared for such a moment. Or even the author’s own good looks, which saved his life on two occasions when he fell victim to trickery amidst the turmoil of the Wars of Religion. Monstrous civil wars, where injustice appears as justice, where values are overturned, for then appearances can only deceive universally. Thus, it appears that none of the artifices we rely on can guide us as surely as nature. This is somewhat like Montaigne’s philosophical testament.”
When I was a teenager, on a late evening, I saw a very strange movie. Firemen were burning books. I quickly understood it was an adaptation of Fahrenheit 451. But I only discovered at the end that the moviemaker was François Truffaut. The final scene is beautiful and moving. Here is is. Please watch it to honor Olivier Nora.
