>> it had. transformative experiences with the play out. .. 7 and a half hours to watch, that it had a similarly epic origin story that would be fun to tell and we were right. and the question of forum i think isa more crucial one . this book is an oral history which is to say we the authors are not really in it. it's told through the voices of those 250 people we interviewed, a critics and historians and bad decision came to us pretty early on. it's like the first time we ever

met in real life was to talk about this project and we knew each other that way and have mutual friends talking about this project and i don't remember which one off us said and it was like yes that is the extent. but later we had to come up with a reason why. >> is never occurred to us that we would be present in the story. we were both fans of the filmmaker and a thin blue line and he's never in that movie but only very briefly so we were interested in these kind of works where the author is invisible but also hiding in plain sight and we find that fascinating so that was kind of a formal dare between the two of usus to have zero original writg between the two of us.

>> and then after a dramatic series of events. >> we wanted to remove that as much as possible because it is not our story. it's to a tiny extent and then we have the audience but it is truly a story of the actors and everyone and all those people that suffered and all the activists that fought in the 80s and 90s and we wanted to get out of the way of the story as much as possible especially because so many of the people we were interviewing were world-class. so if you are going to interview frank rich or the idea of

interrupting a monologue to provide my thoughts on what he has to say seems so dumb so the more we could let them tell the story that they were so enthusiastic to tell, the better the book. >> the idea of interacting george in any context is basically impossible. >> he's actually still talking. [laughter] did you tape, edit? this idea that you are not present on the page hel how didt work? >> some of them are taped and some of them are transcripts. but we type very quickly. i once came upon him when we

were in london typing away. some of them were typed into some of them were transcribed with a very gracious research assistant who was helpful and we credit them for about the book from the 80s and '90s wed sort of pulled from other secondary sources. we would edit the quotes and wee didn't insert any language. we didn't feel like what was fair game in th and the documeny film would be fair game here. so we wanted to give the feeling that you are attending a party where everyone has had two drinks, so they are a little more honest. that involves placing them together on the page in such a

way that it creates a conversation. one playwright agent under the impression that they would get to see every section that he appeared and we said no. but in general people were up for the process. we were not dragging these stories out of people. working on this for essentially years, can you talk about --

>> she's been part of my life since i was like 8-years-old because i read the books as a kid and was a fan and loved them, but i had an opportunity to write about her, but it was while i was editing and we got the idea of giving a new historicaloi biography of her because i was writing these tiny little notes about stuff that i found incredibly fascinating. it's about the minnesota massacre which is the famous event in 82 that deserves to be more famous. famous. famous mainly in minnesota but it involves dakota indians rising up against the federal

government and killing 600 or so white settlers in the space. a very dramatic event that icchanged the entire political d economic situation on the great plains, and this was so interesting to me because it's the back ground of little housee on the prairie, while the most famous significant work. shee mentions it in the novel ad it comes up in various ways. she never explains what it is so a fine job writing for this note about it but it wasn't enough, so a lot of the history in the

biography got into the origins they are because i felt it was so interesting than models when you read them as an adult you can see all of these major historical event appearing out of the darkness so that is the impetus in the biography. >> let's return to this idea of the legacy. in 15 years, 20 years, how will these books, how will we be thinking about them?

>> it might be useful to return for a moment to the topic of the panel which is icons. whewhen i think of icons i don't think necessarily as this sort of traditional religious meaning of the term. and often i think of it in the sense of a kind of character of religious icons as two-dimensional figures but also often involving a kind of flattening of the thing that becomes an icon. the idea is specifically one version of her that has to do with our own dreams and beliefs and the movies we love and her twitter feed, but it doesn't incorporate necessarily the whole person so it's interesting for me to think of these books

when the goal of both of the for example is a much more complete and complex story than she was willing to tell about herself and so thinking 15 to 2425 year5 years from now how these things will be viewed, my hope is that all these books will help these icons to be viewed as three-dimensional objects. that's the goal is to try to create therapies once existed. do we need to go to the idols or raise your hand?

a member you are on c-span when you raise these questions. the [inaudible] it's okay. sorry. this is better than anything that's been on. when you mention the icons we think of buildings and not people, but my impression is from a building, the william fox building that is on university square on hill street and which i would encourage people to go see. there's some great wonderful buildings and that is one of the surviving ones. when i looked up about william fox, the one-dimensional picture i got was decidedly negative

more than the dark side you talked about. my understanding i did this a while ago, he was criminally prosecuted for bribing a judge by his case went to the u.s. supreme court multiple times he was charged with fraud. i believe there was a horrific family scandal, so i wonder i could be wrong but i wonder if you can talk about those even darker sides. [laughter] i always thought how appropriate is it fox news is named after. [laughter] >> that was a lot of stuff right there. you raised that question because the bribery charge was a significant part i think in a way that if a significant role in the way that he is rememberedhe's remembered,theret

occurred in that he described the federal judge -- bribe the federal judge. when he lost control of the company in 1930, they were at the height of their prosperity, they were taken over basically by incompetence and feeds his ego feeds. heap of 25 years of his life into the companies regarded them as children and somebody beat his children to death almost in one case to death and the other almost. he fought as hard as he could to maintain control and then i think he went off the rails psychologically and he fraudulently filed for bankruptcy in 1935, i'm sorry,

1936. he wasn't bankrupt. that's another thing sometimes you read this he lost all his fortune but that isn't true. it is a fraudulent filing36 for bankruptcy and he did bribe the judge. however, the only way he was going t to get jobs is because e fought to try to maintain control of the companies and he had lost city was extremely bitter about that and the second point is heated and offered a bribe, the judge sent someone to him to say the judge's daughter is getting married. could you loan him some money at the wedding and it was the kind of loan we would all like to get which is there's no interest, there's no due date and there'ss no expectation of repayment. and then there was a second request for money.

so admittedly, it is a crime. but the federal justice system at that point was quite corrupt and interesting links to the stock market because this particular judge and other judges have lost their shares in the stock market crash. how will they get the money back the over the banks, they have limited salaries. what do they have to sell? and this judge had been corrupt for a long time. he was known to be corrupt. the fbi launched an investigation of federal judges and he was in the crosshairs and that is how their name was pulled into it. when they get pulled into it, he said he couldn't quite bring himself to say that it was a bride or that it was a crime. he kept saying this was the only way he could get justice however

he did confess the judge and his backhand side we would never take a bribe. there were two trials in federal court and he was a star witness, so i think all of that sort of medicaid's dot label of criminal and ironically the judge and his bagman in my opinion from a sort of dotted line were so corrupt they were able to fix the jury is so there are two trials and each ended in a hung jury. the federal government was adamant or the prosecutor really wanted a third trial because he believed so much that they were guilty and i read through the transcripts of both trials and they told these preposterous stories and they attacked him very viciously and they basically said hehe was satanic and the judge said calm down

this isn't a three ring circus but nonetheless, each ended in a hung jury. ironically fox fox is the only e who went to prison, so the type of contest and is the least criminal inpr this scenario that is one of the other things that i felt was important to dismantle the. who among us has not bribed a federal judge? [laughter] wanted to follow up on the last comment this idea of standing for something else. when i think about mohammad ali or marilyn munro or other icon, they seem to fail in this cultural niche and i wonder if withhink about that respect to your own characters. what is the niche that each of

them felt? >> that is a good question. [laughter] you do this to me every time. it depends which point you are checking. but there are a number of things that it was doing as a story that other broadway shows were not doing and that the plaintiff came to broadway everyone thought the serious theater was dead, that had been murdered by the show casts essentially, both the animal and thess musical ca. so you had to spend one to three days seeing it that was a huge hit of its own. and i it having an impact on the way that pop culture from then on portrayed particularly gay

men and people with aids. she is a gay man and it doesn't end in this kind of scene but demanding the rights we will be citizens the time has come. that was a huge thing to do in 1993. so, that's one way that it then. the momen moment if it's in nowf the characters as a mentor to the current president and not getting completely distracted by that was its own struggle. the play which i remember seeing is an appeal to idealism and i feel like you're above does that as well as a story in the

firings that does appeal that we want to make a better world. there's 250 people telling a story about how they helped create what will go forever. >> the other thing i would say now is that it's like a play that fills the niche for academics in particular while we need a play from the '90s that deals with the intersectional and the institutes and it is important. attacks what we were fighting within this book when we were in london last summer it's now transferred to broadway. i stayed at an air bmb in london with a nice stockbroker who was

big into theater and talking about all the shows he was going to see. theoretically the audience to display she said that's the big important american playwright and it seemed like a downer. [laughter] if you've never seen it is one of the funniest plays. no one ever remembers that it's funny. one of the goals of the book is to sort of remind people notot just that the play is important but that it is a living work that has relevance to a and is entertaining and enjoyable and fun to be a part of. >> other cultural niche is. >> laura wilder is becoming an icon and kind of displays of traditional mail icon that occupies that space like daniel

boone and db crockett and abe lincoln because he's like the blog cabin president that's thes the whole process with kind of tragically reversed [inaudible] [laughter] which is essentially about himself and since he brought it back to the low mail woodsmen of the earth what he was doing i'm not sure. [laughter] and i think for william fox is the true the leader in the american dream who must confront the dark realities of the american life and american society. this is for carolina. can you talk about the writing

research in the section of your book lacks i would read parts of it out loud to people like listen to this. >> why older is the one that wrote it first. her eyewitness account which is in the novel is still used by historians of that period as an eyewitness account even though it's fiction. but i felt the need to dig up more dirt and there is a fantastic book that's just about that locust which was eventually went extinct for reasons nobody understands today. but there were a lot of accounts in newspapers, some of which

were accurate and some were not. the federal government was involvedac as well. there were long kind of fascinating reports about what happened and trains going off the track because they were so greasy from the above and astonishing accounts. but therere were no photographsn this crisis that caused the equivalent of billions of dollars that there were no photographs that show would have been. there was no way to document it in that sense which is kind of amazing so we only know it from these written accounts of. one more question.

>> i am taking film history [inaudible] all of the theaters kind of went through this process. how much of this infiltrated to the other studios were was fox the only -- >> i doubt that it was the only one. i had my hands full t with fox. it was enough of a task. the connection depends really go beyond 1910 because then it

really wasn't as powerful and fox was beyond them at that point up what he had to confront the wall street capitalist establishment and that's where the corruption shifts to and that was largely responsible for the demise of all of the crookedness that was hair-raising. the demise of the theater, fox theatre in 1992 when it went bankrupt. they were sort of moneymaking machines and the guys took over as the head of it and he had a kind of bogus theater supply company and he ordered all of them to be refurbished even though they didn't need to be as means of transferring the wealth to prop up the stock. >> is fox the only one, did he have the majority of the theaters at the time?

>> he had two other companies just before that time. >> everybody was hit hard by depression so i am not sure what happened elsewhere because as i said it was a big task to pull apart what was happening with fox. but i would say it's certainly corruption, incompetence that played a large role in the demise of those theaters and fox remained in control. >> little knowlittle-known facte theaters [inaudible] [laughter] on that note i want to thank these amazing writers.

this is a stretch of american history right here and it's very special. please, go and buy the books at the signing area number one. thank you. [inaudible conversations]

booktv live coveragee. of the 2d annual la times festival of books continues on the campus of the university of southern california a couple of miles south of downtown la as another picture-perfect california day. several more over thehe panels coming up and several more calls coming up. follow our schedule and booktv.org and again you can also follow on social media at booktv i is or handle, facebook, twitter and insta graham. tip o'reilly is the author of this book "what's the future and why it's up to us. mr. o'reilly, the use of wtf is that expletive or joyful backs >> i think it is both. what's wonderful about that expressioexpression is the mostt

when we are dismayed that sometimes when we are amazed and i think that the future of technology has given us a healthy dose of both dismay and amazement and i think we have a lot of choices as a society about which of those is going to dominate in our future and that is what the book isfu about. from your book everything is amazing, everything is horrible and it's all moving too fast. we are movin moving to old debae coach with a world shaped in waysre we don't even understand and have many reasons to fear. >> that's absolutely right. the news for example that is hurting us alhitting us all abok and cambridge analytic and what's happening with our data and more importantly how we are increasingly being manipulated by the algorithms that are used by these internet platforms is a central theme in the book and a

central theme in what we have to come to grips with in our society. at the same time, we understand that these powerful tools can do a lot of good and what we have to do is held we hold our businesses to account and apply these to the right kind of problems rather than for example just using them to manipulate people. >> you are partially responsible for this. [laughter] you might say that. for 40 years, my company o'reilly media has been selling the picks and shovels of technology to today's gold miners. we started out years ago with computer book, the biggest part of the business now is online learning business but basically if you go to o'reilly.com you

will see the kind of things we do. conferences are an artificial intelligencon artificialintellis of software development books and onlineear learning about all this stuff. >> how did you get started? >> guest: well, originally i was just a tech writing consultant and i kept thinking about the way the world is coming and started writing my own books about cutting-edge technology. and typically, technologies that were developed not by big companies that were developed by individual developers and given away for free for the open source software movement including things like the world wide web and that created the first commercial websites an wed there's about 200 websites totaled back in 1993 it's the first that we later sold to aol. i've been trying to understand the future coming at us and i have been pretty good at

building what i call sort of mental maps of where the future is taking us in noticing things about technology other people haven't noticed. in a world dominated by companies i said look over here at all this stuff happening that nobody's paying attention to and that's what i'm trying to do today with both the problems and opportunities with ai and big d. the algorithmic platforms. >> host: what was your first piece of technology? >> guest: my first piece of technology of course it goes back 10,000 years so i would say we share the first piece of technology which is probably human speech, but if you are talking about a modern technology particularly in digital technology i was introduced to computers in the

minicomputer era and you probably don't remember these companies but i think actually my first computer was the hewlett-packard machine running and operating system with multi-programming executives are multiprocessing executives. my first personal computer was an oswald one and most of them i grew up with a system that turned into linux and then the core operating system that runs a lot of the internet. we are going to put the numbers up on the screen. tim o'reilly issy the book whats the future and why it's up to us. (202)748-8200 in the east and central time, 748-8201 for those in the central and mountain pacific. we will get to telephone calls in just a minute. you can also contact us on social media if you want to make a comment that we either on

facebook, twitter or insta graham. you can also address me with tim o'reilly and i will try to respond later but i can't do it that right now obviously. >> host: be referred to this tech world as a world that is an amazing separate isn't that? >> guest: though, it's really increasingly that's one of the things we have to come to grips with it is over entire world being shaped by these platforms and i don't just mean things like amazon as such a significant portion of facebook connects 2 billion people and google is a primary resource the used by everyone for deciding what information we are going to consume or what is the most relevant and true, but it's coming to the real world if you look at the way that the uber

and lyft are transforming the networks in cities like san francisco now it's sort of on-demand scooters and bikes, you look what you are hearing about drone delivery and the very structure of how we organize work is changing. >> host: when you hear the term new economy, do you agree with that? >> guest: the term has been used before but i prefer to use the term next economy because the economy that we want to send fully exist yet and it's something we have to choose to build. there are some new rules that lay inn the economy. a good example of this is we like to think we are in a free-markets economy and theres thisar notion of the invisible handot and a beautiful simple experience that we all have in our lives or most of us assuming you do your own shopping. you go to the supermarket and look at this lion and decide

which is the shortest and they are all equal ove equal overtime the invisible hand of independent decision-making made with full information but now think about facebook there's only one line and they chose itt for you. >> host: that's a good point. speaking of facebook the recent hearings were held on capitol hill is that a back step for technology?ce >> guest: it is a good first step for the society coming to grips with these issues are. what was so alarming and those hearing was the abysmal ignorance of the members of congress who are trying to engage in this problem, they have no tools with which to think w about it and therefore y proposed regulations are likely to be very bad, so wee first of all need to use this opportunity to increase the level of technical sophistication in our regulatory arms and we need to

engage those of other people have been talking about these issues and thinking about these issues, scholars who are activists have been raising these problems long ago and they need to get much more engaged with to get the people who understand the problem to give their advice. >> host: what would you have asked mark if you are their? >> guest: it's not so much what you ask that's what he would not ask. you would not ask questions that he's going to answer while, senator, we already do that. that's not the problem. the two sides just are not talking to each other so i would be asking is like how will you

increase the transparency of the algorithms and how do we know you are not putting your thumb on the scale. how will you give people more control over their privacy? give us more details about that. because right now he says this ask questions like when are you going to stop selling the users data and they said we don't sell the users data. facebook actually buys the data and what they do is match the ads without selling itat and so the understanding of like when will you stop creating loopholes like the one that allowed somebody to build an application that then that individual passed on the data facebook already closed that loophole. it was a bad mistake on their part, but they already took a first step to fixing it so why are you even talking about that part of it. but again there just wasn't an

understanding of what they have and have not done that would allow us to engage in a reasonable discussion. >> host: what is the value to a company like facebook twitter etc.? to having everything come every keystroke that we make on our personal phones?eb >> guest: there are two questions. one of them is what is the value to us. it's pretty clear in the case of google. now of course there are many elements and one of them has a lot of the same problems as facebook but let's talk about google t search. it uses all of that be done on our behalf. it's actually doing the work for us to say these are better results if we are constantly measuring and using your data to find out if it is not in fact the best. on my way here can help activity information was about where the traffic was going to be and how long it was going to take me to

get here. that was magical. on the other hand, the facebook business model is a little bit different, and they thought they were doing something where they were using the data on behalf of their customers. that is they said we will show you more of what you would like and it turns out to be the wrong model because showing people more of what they like turned ouliked turnedout that the incrr partisanship encouraged some of the base motives. there is a piece i wrote of the seven deadly sins which was a concept from antiquity and there were seven virtues that you use despite the seven deadly sins. today we've identified something like 188 different dioceses, ways that our minds make the

wrong choice and what we teach and celebrate in our advertising economy in the silicon valle ins how to manipulate and what we need to hold these companies to suppress and account for him tod cancel out the cognitive bias rather than building these hyper powerful platforms to amplifyd them and effectively using people for moneymaking. >> host: i want to go back to something you said earlier that google is there to help you. i came across from a big brother to >> guest: this was articulated by somebody at wal-mart who doesn't necessarily the best reputation because the impact that they have had on small business in america, but he made

a great point. he said you know when a company is using your data to help you. you can tell. for example, google is collecting my location and using it were better traffic results. i can tell because i've watched google now for 20 years and there've been times where the results were getting worse and part of what they did is they learned more by gathering more data, taking more factors into account and the results got better. i think they are working on a path. there's other areas like advertising, where we are not sure that the companies are working on our behalf. and so, we have hard having a little more discrimination than to say these platforms are bad. we hav have to see have to say e pretty confident that they are used to us and where are we

confident that they are not and where is it in the middle and what we are trying to figure out is the trade-offs we have to make as a society between the way they monetize and the services that they provide. in some cases it may be a fair trade-off. >> host: wtf is the book. >> caller: thank you and thanks to c-span. my question is on. you said the first technology with human speech and that's how we have all worked together talking to one another individually and now with technology, there is a certain thing where when you were talking to somebody bears a

responsibility there because i know they can respond to me and i know there is a duty there for the conversation, but with all this technology which is just a new way to spew words and aypictures and language and stuf there seems to be that lack of one human being talking to another as being degraded and privacy at all these other issues are fascinating but i just think thatg the way that human beings have evolved and survived over the yearsas and loved one another and have donen everything is being degraded by technology and that would just simply not be sitting down and talking to one another and having the same responsibilities to listen back to what the other person is saying because everybody's talking. everybody has a megaphone. >> guest: i guess i would say two things. first, i'm going to recommend a book that is not my own and she

makes the point where going back the fundamental driver of humans working together is our ability to persuade. the question of human intimacy in small groups versus the ability to coordinate action at larger and larger scales through persuasion is one of the big tensions in the history of the humanities. and what we see almost always is those two things are in opposition, and many of the world's pathologies where people are being persuaded to do things that are not inn their best interest for dates modern digital technology. this comes back to the key part of my title.

we have to make choices about what we take them how to use technology and what we use it for. i think it's important to recognize the misapplication of persuasion is not at all limited to the industry and in fact i would make the case the that technology industry if you look at how recently some of the issues have come to light and the fact compared to the.

it was the addictive power of opioids. this is throughout our society. it is not something unique to technology, and we need to look ourselves in the ims results what is wrong with what i call in the book the master algorithm of the economy which is to make money for shareholders above all files and don't worry about the impact on consumers. they are just some of you are using to make money. we now have to balance the equation. >> host: when congress gets a hold of this issue, and they've tried in the past, his next neutrality one of the solutions or is that kind of a sidebar clicksav just? >> guest: i think that next

neutrality is important because it does level the playing field between small companies and big ones. but the dynamics of the monopoly are not what they used to be. and i guess i i see in some ways they are sideshows as companies that ha have used the neutralito get a biga monopolistic look at companies that would like to get rid of the next neutrality. the issues we are talking about have more to do with the use and collection of massive amounts of data on people and then how that data is used. >> host: teresa in las vegas go-ahead run with the author.

>> caller: good afternoon mr. o'reilly. this is teresa from las vegas nevada. my question is a very concerning one. what if anything can we do as a consumer to eliminate the pop-ups that come out of the air. in other words, if you go onto a page you are trying to do work on and you cannot even get past the area where you need to click on something to go further or to continue and then it gives you no way out in other words you have to click on it to get rid of it but you can't get rid of it because it just pops up. have you been able to address these issues with the providers of the networks that pose these? it can be so irritating just to

try to get rid of them? >> guest: we need simplification in the kind of agreements that are thrown at us all the time and again i would point out it is not just in technology. you get a credit card and there is an agreement that you cannot understand it you also are just agreeing to that and many people find it turns out that there were discharges and that is one of the things the computer financial protection board was set up to address. they were looking for simplifications, of language. we need something like that for these platforms, but instead our government today is moving in thein opposite direction.

you don't want to be forced to content without knowing the. let's figure out what is the fair trade. it's basically to enforce that fair trade there's laws against deceptiveca advertising and we

might not need these licenses in fact we were basically enforcing the laws against people and we just see what is often hidden in these complex legal agreements. >> host: you mentioned the trump administration that wants to shake up how they are disorganized in the administration isn't it the right one to move the government into more of a technical centric world? >> guest: there is a very ambiguous record with two separateco aspects. there's a lot of initiatives in the administration doing more into the government. something for the united states digital service. there is great for company. where for example it was the veterans administration to cut a 100 million-dollar procurement down to about four or $5 million

by better application of technology holding vendors to account and that could b only happen when the administration continued to be supportive of that creek that there's any waye they have gutted the expertise of the government and it it's nt on the base of expertise. personally maybe this president trump drained the swamp. it has to do with fundamental research and there's a wonderful book by the british economist

called thear entrepreneurial ste and she talked for example about the iphone and the number of government-funded technologies that show up like 30 or 40 of them and yet we have a narrative that has been sold to us that continually says the government intervention in the economy is the source of all evil. we wouldn't have the internet, we wouldn't have been as widely used algorithms in the industry called the fast forward transform. implementbuilt to that. self driving cars, government

funding. it's crazy how the truth of the governments role in the advancement of technology into the narrative, the political narrative is so far apart. >> host: they've always been at the cutting-edge of technology. >> guest: yes and one of the things i like to do is just to define things you wouldn't know that kind of makee you smile who would think that the largest funder of breast cancer research in america is the u.s. army? so there you are. what about the medical records? >> guest: electronic medical records are a difficult topic and the reason they are so difficult is day or kind of

useless and not only have they been allowed to go into various kinds of site loads that have reinforced the power of certain companies to charge a lot of money for the systems, but also most of the information that is captured is phoning in the information for the benefit of the insurance billing. it's not for the benefit of the actual healthy consumer healthcare system. we have an electronic healthcare insurance record. we don't have electronic medical records. >> host: let's hear fromc anthony in floral park new york on booktv with tim o'reilly. >> caller: please go ahead, we are listening. >> caller: you talked about how technology is advancing.

[inaudible] >> host: ignore him, he was a prank caller unfortunately. are we making leaps right now in artificial intelligence, the so-called quantum leaps that we have made? >> guest: let's qualify because there's the science fiction version of artificial intelligence and self-aware and we are not anywhere near that. that being said, there are these amazing breakthroughs in the narrow artificial intelligence and transferring languages in time with the ability to track and dispatch the dual logistics with the ability to do speech

recognition. just think about the challenge of google. these interactions have been. could we do that without these machines? the 7 billion posts a day this is like the equivalent of what we build a tunnel under the channel now. these allow us to do amazing things that we are starting to get out of this digital world into surprising new areas. one thing i learned about recently is in the work of a woman from cornell at the institute for computational

sustainability they are doing things like helping california rice farmers plan when they are going to plug the field to claim it's better with bird migrations because it helps them have a flooded field. we are coordinating complex systems in a way that we could before and so when we look at the future problems like climate change, we are going to need their help to let our souls and understand these complex interaction systems. >> caller: i was wanting to ask if he saw marks testimony on tv and how he would rate