 The experience complete is the formal proceeding of our age. Otherwise, it feels very informal without a mask. In the movie Arrival, there are people who look at the message as a language or a tool. But there are also people who look at the message as a weapon. Indeed, this shows to me that it's entirely in our minds how we apply technology. Technology is never neutral. It takes on the value of the person perceiving it. And so the technology that is language, and as shown in the movie by the emoji like paintings, is open to interpretation. And I like movies that shows this deep connection between interpretations and our different but still shared realities. Also, I like Ted Zhang anyway, the novelist. So always happy to see a movie adaptation of my favorite, one of my favorite science fiction authors. I saw it in a movie theater. Yes, I've also watched and liked Interstellar and the movie theater that I watched was for the IMAX, that is to say, even with the water sprays and so on, which makes it a immersive augmented reality experience. I totally agree that those phantoms do not usually assert themselves as beings or as people. But the technology that makes such augmented realities possible also can re-present these beings as individuals as they are. I think computer, of course, have Buddha nature. That is to say, it has its inherent logic of interacting with the world. I would also say that bicycles combines our natures of walking to the idea of assistive intelligence. So I think bike is still very close to nature, certainly more than cars. Yeah, in Taiwan, we have repurposed existing roads as well as paved new roads so that a biker can surround the island much more easily. Well, we are connected by broadband, but yes, I feel too. Yes, because if you move too quickly, the city becomes topological. That is to say, between points to connected points. But bicycles are spatial. That is to say, it relates to space, not just to the connectivity. Yes, I would also say that we have experience of this kind of the second reality or the second nature already. When we first invented as a human civilization the written language, it has a very similar effect on people's mind. First of all, I have yet to see the character. There are like 10 different words in my mind that can mean border. Ah, OK, right, yes. So this character, right, this, OK. To me, this word border is maybe very far from its core meaning in the Mandarin interpretation of the same Kanji character in the Mandarin use. It is also meant to mean a circumstance or even a condition. Like we will say, Shun Jing or Ni Jing, that is to say a condition that is progressing well or the condition that is going backwards. We will also make it to mean a level, like Xue Wu Zhi Jing. We learn with no stopping level, with no top level, no ceiling level. So to me, I think this describes the idea, that word, describes the idea that we are not individuals in siloed bodies, that most of our body are actually a shared human condition, a shared environmental level. And it is actually in this shared body, you can call it body politic, body social, or body environmental, that we inhabit. But just like a person need to go through individualization in order to make their unique contribution to the body politic. One also need to look at the shared condition and maybe draw borders and boundaries to delineate where are you going to make the contribution. But that perspective, that individualization came later. And once we make this contribution, we are at peace. And we can go back to the feeling of sharing the same level of the situation that is shared across different cultures. And so I think of the character that you chose as midway between drawing zero, like the moon, that is half full and half dark. And then once you complete the full circle, you go back to the shared body. Yeah, yes, yes. Thank you, yeah, as I mentioned, it is nowadays part of the formality to put the border between oneself and other people's respiratory systems, or even put a border between our own face and our own unwashed hands. So we create a border even between our own body parts, between our hands, which may carry the virus, and our face, which would inhale the virus. And we use soap and alcohol sanitizers. But once we do so and clean our hands, we can take off the border. So it shows that border is something that we maintain by ourselves. It is not something that is outside of our own selves. It too is a technology. If I choose one, the kanji would look like this. And the numeral or Arabic numeral would look like this. And so it will be two different symbols. But zero, if you rotate it by 90 degree, it's the same word. Well, it's isomorphic up to rotation, meaning that it stays the same no matter how you rotate it. No, not yet. So you can just tell me which video that you want me to look at. I have it downloaded here. So just tell me the v1, v2, v4, or something. It's not a video. It's OK. We can imagine. But our imagination will be different. Ah, here we go. Yes, I can see now. It's like a motherboard. Hi, yes. I have in my tablet here the National Palace Museum. You can see a few of its most celebrated items. And in both the version that is high resolution and the version in animal crossing, we see many people taking these ancient or very memorable cultural items and appreciate them together by scanning the animal crossing QR code. So I think this is a good approximation of what the mirror looks like. When the analog is mirrored into the digital, it enabled remixes at no marginal cost. So in a sense, in Mandarin here, when we say digital or shuwei, that word also mean plural, as in many. So shuwei, shuwei, the digital minister can also mean the plural minister, many, many ministers. So in my mind, it is not so much as one is the dual or is the exact copy of the other as we would for traditional mirrors, like glass mirrors. But rather, this mirror is more like a kaleidoscope. It's mirrors within mirrors, and each person can remix the digital versions to construct their realities. So the questions become, do we want virtual realities where people are isolated from one another? Or do we want shared realities that connects people together? Even when they have the option to remain isolated, they choose not to do so and share their realities in a much more easy way, because the reality capturing technology, as evidenced by the five cameras looking at me right now, six cameras looking at me right now, is also being democratized. Definitely. So this is me, scanned four years ago, situated against the space, probably. And this reflects the idea that reality is just a window. And of course, there are different realities, even from a single person's perspective. But as you mentioned, the physical constraints of the acoustic attenuation of the optics reflection often constrain our imagination of the possible realities to look from. And in this sense, a 3D scan of our surface, not our mind yet that will come later, can provide a liberating experience, because our digital double, our digital twin can be pluralized and explore simultaneously different configurations of physics. Yes, it's not even the future. I read last week that some engineers at a university college London just double the capacity of the current internet record of transmission by transmitting every second around 178,000 gigabytes, or almost 200 terabytes per second. Comparing to that, our reality, that is to say, the total input that our mind takes from our optical auditory and other sensory functions in a human being is just about 17 gigabytes per second, which makes it just one of the 10,000s of what that British engineer have just made. So that single line can support 10,000 people in its realities if we take the view of the Matrix movie and the cable connector behind our back. So that's high resolution. What our body offers is just good enough resolution. Definitely. And when I say good enough, I did not mean it in a way that says, oh, you just came in, give your best try, even though it's just one 10,000s of the fast internet connection. It's sufficient, and we need to be grateful, and so on. I did not mean it in that way. When I say good enough, I mean that it's precisely the kind of bandwidth that our minds can grow and individuate. Indeed, if you introduce to the mind not even 10,000 times, 10 times the information to a human mind, one would suffer from a schizophrenia very quickly. And so a gradual incorporation of technologies that are appropriate for us is more important than adapting our mind to fit the latest technology. The second way is madness quite literally. I am taking a look. Yeah, I have the same frames on my phone here. Yeah, I don't have the habit of making conversation when watching a movie. Usually, if you do so in a movie theater, the people who are sitting around you may tell you to be quiet. Old habits die hard. So even though now the director is saying, hey, say whatever come to your mind when watching a movie, I have yet to build that habit. Yes, it is stuck in my mind the words adornment, what a science. Because the quote was not complete in the film. There is a third line that is not quoted. I believe it was modesty, what elegance. Because if you only look at the two lines that was quoted, it's quite superficial. It talks about the outside, how one need to dress up and be beautiful. But the punchline literally from Coco Chanel was in the inside, the power of modesty, of humility, of listening. And that is what made the adornment and the beauty work together. Otherwise, it would be not a science, but rather a pseudoscience where one would conform to the fashion statements instead of radiating one's elegance as amplified. If you start with something that is empty, if you amplify it, it's still empty. But if you start with something that is modest, then when you amplify it, you get elegance. So what is not in the film is what's in my mind. No, it's fine. I mean, the film director, what to cut is more important than what actually gets filmed. So by cutting that part, I feel that the main message has been one of a democratization of fashion, a democratization of perfumes, and so on. But just as the suffragists, the people who fought for voting mean for the society at the time, while, of course, it's important to fight, to go to the street, and so on, what is important and elegant is actually the act of voting itself. So when there is a gap, when there is something missing, that's where innovation happens. The lack of a voting right compelled the suffragist movement, and the lack of the third line would provoke my thoughts. So that's fine. I think modesty is also important. In Taiwan, we're in a different reality. We had many pop stars in the recent days holding tens of thousands of people's concerts. Even the tens of thousands of audience did have to wear a mask and get their temperature checked. Still, it's a very large gathering. So we are in a, I guess, future spot that Japan will be one day when you can freely choose between large gatherings and watching the live stream. And what we have seen, though, is that even though our restriction on large gatherings in Taiwan only held for a couple months, it really reduced people's vanity. People do not post a lot of Instagram photos of them looking in a higher status than other people. That's considered of questionable taste when so many people are suffering. And so modesty is definitely becoming a dominant aesthetics value in the post-COVID world. So that even if people can now show up to large gatherings, they tend not to dress with extravaganza. That's definitely the case we're seeing in Taiwan. So this is a really large topic. We can have a three-day seminar around how conviviality grows from the environment of Wabi Sabi. That's another Japanese idea. But to me, what really is important about the COVID is not the urban-slash-rural relationship. It is the international, for lack of a better word, or better, I think, transcultural environment that we are in. Because previously, when we worked on, for example, this information, that crisis feels more acute. The younger and newer the democracy is. So Taiwan feels it more than Japan does. Or when we talk about climate change, islands like Taiwan and Japan feels it more than continental habitats. But pandemic is the first in our lifetime topic that there is no difference in urgency. It's equally urgent everywhere on the planet, except maybe Antarctica. And so people come together to celebrate this moment of conviviality online as kind of an escape from the physical space that poses real danger to our bodies. And so the reality that we escape to is for the first time, equally populated by people around the world in various different time zones. Nowadays, I wake up early to have conversation with North and South American friends. I go online after dinner to meet with European and African friends. So never have I felt that I live in so many time zones. That is a kind of conviviality that I think is notably shaping the world. And we will not forget this feeling of transcultural solidarity even after vaccines are developed. Well, a few things. First of all, Taiwan is not just one culture. When I talk about transculturalism, I refer to my own experience of right before dropping out of junior high school when I was 15 years old. It's been quite a few time in the Atayalda indigenous nation. And also, for example, the Amis nation, which is a matriarchy. The Taiwan nation, which I think President Tsai Ing-wen shares part of the lineage from, was not particularly patriarchal or matriarchical. Gender is not very important, not as important as other characteristics. And so by virtue of having so many different cultures in the same island and a very densely populated island at that, it creates a tension that can only be resolved by just like the Jade Mountain growing upward, transcending existing categories so that it would make sense for all the cultures involved. And so in the past 12 years, we've been doing exactly that in the public sector with the Gender Equality Committee, which is by design. One more vote from the civil society. The social sector has 18 seats, where the public sector have 17 ministers. And for each and every government projects or budget items or new bill proposals coming from the administration, the Gender Equality Commission do a comprehensive impact assessment. So at the end, we collect many, many items on what we call the Gender Impact Assessment Dashboard. And so we have a mirror, a reflection of each and every policy's gender impact on the society even long after the policy have finished. And I think that is really the inner supporting structure that makes sure that even for public servants working on financial policy or on immigration policy that they will not list gender as the top item to evaluate, they have to do so anyway. And it's quite unique. We don't do that for other issues. Well, this year we added cybersecurity as the second assessment issue. But before, gender was the only kind of cross-cutting social sector review mechanism that we have in place. And so I think it reviews a deep commitment in the public sector not to make progress based on any dominant culture, male or otherwise, but rather to be transcultural in a sense of making the balance itself an innovation that can deliver on those common values as our priority. So not male dominating or female dominating, not left wing or right wing, but rather up wing. I think that is a public administration answer. But that is very exportable across the region, I believe. I would say that during the COVID-19, because the virus doesn't care about your gender, one is, as you just mentioned a segment ago, instead of fitting into societal stereotypes or fashion statements, one would just dress and wear whatever that makes one comfortable in this uncomfortable time. And pink medical masks, as you probably already know, became very hip among school age boys because of a pink panther incident that Commander Chen Shizhong, the ministry, said that it was his favorite child here. And I would say that it became much more fluid. People understand that we have much more unifying characteristics with each other, namely the vulnerability to virus than any categories or binary stereotypes. So I would definitely say that plurality grew in Taiwan during the COVID pandemic even more. So it served as an accelerator, just as it served as an accelerator in digital transformation. Was it 100 years already? I think we're still having some time to realize that thought, I believe, probably in the time of the global sustainable goals. So a few things. I'm pretty sure that nowadays people can discuss the concept of work versus labor in a much more informed way, partly thanks to economists such as Keynes. We also understand that labor must not be equal to one's self-worth. Indeed, the English word with is now being evaluated from a pure economic terms as, for example, as measured by the GDP to what is a more sustainable, that is to say longer time thinking, like seven generations down the line. If you measure the worth in that time horizon, then it tends to work much better across different cultures. But if you measure it only from one quarter, like the number you just showed in the video, which I believe Taiwan in the same quarter also suffered from a negative, but it's negative 0.73% so slightly less. But that is not a true reflection of the society, of the societal changes that we just talk about in the previous segment. Now we understand the worth is not determined by the GDP. GDP is just one of the 169 goals of the Sustainable Development Goal targets. So maybe we should pay attention to GDP only 169 of fraction of one's time. So I would not spend a lot of time on GDP. But that attitude is a drastic change from the times of Keynes. So I would say that his prediction that we're going to look past that is almost there. And we have some more, yes, a decade or so to completely forget about GDP. So-so, as Keynes pointed out 90 years ago, he said, and I quote, the time for all this is not yet. For at least another 100 years, we must pretend to ourselves and to everyone that fear is foul and foul is fair. For foul is useful and fair is not. And so everwise, Ursula and so on, they can lead us out of the tunnel of economic necessity into daylight. And so we need to work on it for the next 10 years so that the necessity would be behind us and that we can drop the pretense. 90 years ago, Keynes said that the necessity was that everwise, Ursula and so on, they must be used as a vice. We understand as a vice, but quote, they must be our gods for a little longer. It's still unquote. That is to say one need at that time to look into these vices as a necessity to get out of the economic recession. And what we are looking nowadays is that people no longer hail them as gods, or if some people still are, at least they're just a minor god in a large pantheon of values. And so the necessity is almost behind us to put everwise and Ursula on a pedestal. And what I'm referring to is that the necessity could be over in 10 years if we meet the global goals or it could be a little longer. As Keynes said, he said, at least another 100 years. He didn't say exactly 100 years. So it's all up to us to reach the goals together. And indeed, when you have a linear economy, exploitation must happen somewhere. The difference is just you're aware of it. If you're externalized, it's so much that we're not aware of it. But when the economy becomes circular, then there is no need for the exploitation or the aggressiveness that we have seen in the previous economic paradigms. That's why circular economy has been the national priority for the past four years and for the foreseeable future in Thailand. I like the cover. The cover, to me, it twists the idea of a barcode which is really a very dull but useful technology into a horizon and radiating, exploring different possibilities. It shows to me like the beginning of the double diamond design idea that's from IDEO, where you start from a place of great, from a place of great uncertainty by exploring all the different possible futures. And then at some point, once you discovered the, I wouldn't say totality, but the majority of what people's fears and hopes are, then one can then work to define the common values. And that's what radical markets feels to me that we're still in the exploration phase and the discover phase. So I wouldn't say that I agree with any particular proposal even though I tried quite a few of them in my work as a civic technologist and in my work as digital minister, such as quadratic voting, but we are not saying that each particular line is what we're committed to because otherwise it would just be like barcodes. What we're saying is that we are in agreement of the feeling that democracy itself is a applied technology of applied social sciences. And just like any technology, it's better if it's appropriate and if it's appropriated by the people to fit their needs to explore the possibilities. I think many people feel that democracy was a old technology that has already well passed the definition stage and is now well into the development and delivery. But to me, democracy is just at the very beginning whereas we're still exploring its possibilities. So that's the part I like about the book. It's in the cover. Yeah, I totally agree that we need to look beyond this fiction of double diamond and open up the possibilities at the end because when there's no marginal cost upon the delivery, we can then look into various different cultures that sprung from the delivery part. It used to be that the delivery parts are mutually exclusive in a physical space if you deliver one design. That's to the exclusion of the other design. But in a digital space, as you just mentioned, the delivery of one is just the beginning of another remix. And so opening up the final point of the second diamond, I think to me is what summits to my mind the cover picture of radical markets. Well, the easiest way for dialogue to happen and for people of very different cultures to listen to you is great food, drinks, music, conviviality. And that is not only software-defined. I'm sure you can do software-defined food recipes, but it's also co-created. And the co-creation is the most important. When we're in the social innovation lab where I work, we have lunch every Wednesday. We meet for dinner very frequently. And people of various different cultures and different generations, people who are 70 years old, 80 years old, frequent a place because they know that they can also bring their wisdom in the form of a recipe or of a dish that they just cooked. And so in that sense, the product need not to be precisely defined. I mean, the food may not be precisely defined because it's just an excuse for people to meet each other and enjoy. So when people take enjoyment in each other's presence, instead of putting the object, that is to say the product as the main thing, we're really just having fun. And this object is just one of the myriad of ways for us to have fun together. And in this way, the brief could be ripped because ripping the brief, meaning to do away without the preconceptions or putting into the bracket as it were, is to contextualize it alongside many other possibilities. This is not saying that this hardware maker need to forget about hardware. It's just putting their hardware next to many other wares. It could be silverware. And many that we can then look at these objects as the social objects as they are, instead of as the goals that constraints our thought. And suddenly when it's made for sharing, then people would be able then to listen to other people's voices more. When it's not made for sharing, but rather it made for sales, for one-time consumption, then of course the transaction, if you're buying something, a hardware product, there's not enough amount of information from you to the makers to inform this kind of communication. So increasing the bit rate is very important. Just as in democracy, it's not just about voting every four years, uploading three bits of information per person to the polity per four years. If we can increase the bandwidth of feedback, then ownership dissipates, it becomes sharing. And the idea of product dissipates. It becomes service and a sharing service at that. And then communication becomes very easy. So make the environment friendly, convivial, invite the hardware people, and make sure that the hardware is part of the space, but not the center, the focus of attention. That would be the first step that I would take. Yeah, when you talk about platforms and open source, I recall in my mind a essay last century in 99 written by Neal Stevenson. And the title is in the beginning with the command line. And in the essay, and I quote, Neal Stevenson said, Linux, which is right next door, is not a business at all. It's a bunch of RVs, yachts, teepees, geodesic domes set up in a field organized by consensus. The people who live there, they're making tanks. These are not old fashioned cast iron Soviet tanks. They're more like the M1 tanks of the US Army made of space age materials, jammed with sophisticated technology from one end to the other. But they are better than Army tanks. They've been modified in such a way that they never ever break down. They're light, maneuverable enough to use as ordinary street cars and use no more fuel than a subcompact. These tanks are being cranked out on the spot at a terrific pace. And a vast number of them are lined up along the edge of the road with the keys to the ignition. Anyone who wants can simply climb into one and drive it away for free. So I want to focus on the lined up along the edge of the roads with the keys in ignition. To me, that's a platform. That's what platforms are. If you go to a train platform, trains are lining up and they're being driven away. And anyone who want to get on a train gets on a train from a platform. So the platform, instead of holding people in as a vendor lock-in would or a ward garden would, it's a oxymoron to say a ward platform. Because a platform is for you to board the car or board a train and ignite it and drive it away. And so to me, saying platforms that are not open, a closed platform, a ward platform, that to me is a kind of fundamental oxymoron. And so I think what I'm looking at in the Neil Stevenson's essay, he has this idea that Linux will never be mainstream because it is too many different moving parts. But of course my phone runs Linux. So we know that things have changed in the past 20 years. And I think the main idea in that essay, which is anyone can drive toward the direction however they want, and we mutually support each other, we really need to reclaim that semantic field in the terms such as sharing economy or platform economy. Too often sharing is appropriated to mean something that is definitely not sharing but exploitation. And platform is taken to mean something that is definitely not a platform. It's more like a merry-go-round where you never go anywhere. And so reclaiming those meanings is important to me and to me platforms are by definition open. Oh definitely, for the past couple of years in our annual presidential hackathon, instead of just a panel of judges picking 2024 entries from more than 200 this year for the collaboration to coach them into trilingual that's social, public and private sector data collaboratives, we crowdsource the voting to the people. Anyone with an email address and an SMS number in Taiwan who participate in the join platform which has more than half of population as unique visitors can choose which projects they want to see succeed in the presidential hackathon. And so we use the radical market idea quadratic voting when people see a large palette of ideas, each one corresponding to one or more of sustainable goals. Everyone can get into the voting booth but instead of just picking the goals and the projects they like, each of them have 99 points. And they can spend it however they want. They can vote for 99 projects each one with one vote. But if they really support something, for example, using water boxes to sense the water pollutions in Taiwan, especially around agricultural lands, they can vote two votes, not just one, but once they do, they have to spend four points in total. They can also vote three votes, but each individual voting three votes will have to spend nine points here. So this is quadratic and with 99 points, even if I like a project very much, I cannot vote 10 votes because that will cost 100 and I do not have 100, I can only vote nine votes. And once I do, which is 81 points, I still have 18 left. So this is a game, right, gamified consensus. People can then be motivated to look into something else. For example, this year using distributed ledgers to track and report marine debris. And maybe it's a good idea. So I have 18 left, I will vote four votes and leave me with two points because 18, subtracting 16 is two. So I'm motivated to then look into two more ideas. And suddenly I discovered this previously not seen project. For example, the one that asks people to imagine using augmented reality, what if all the empty unused lands owned by the public sector now have trees planted in it? It's a collective game of imagining planting. It's called patch by planting. That may sound strange, but well, I have only two points left anyway. So I might as well read about it and then give them one point. But I still have one point left. So I will look into something nearby and it's about drinking water. It's a app that shows a map of drinking water refill fountains in the city. And if I instead of buying plastic bottles I can just take a reusable bottle and refill it. It collects me points so that I can then redeem it in the tea serving stations and enjoy the local culture more because we get to on a local tour as offered by the local places that offer drinking water for free. So it's a way to encourage bicycle and walking as opposed to driving in a car also. So it's reducing carbon emission both on the drinking water like less plastic waste pots but also the more exploring the city by walking or bicycling pots. That's such a good idea. But I still have one point left. I want to vote more than one. So maybe I take some of my nine votes back. Maybe I do a seven and seven. And so people are much more willing to think more deeply about the proposals as opposed to a traditional voting where you just get a social media call to vote for your friend or family member and you go there, vote everything there and then you leave without exploring the other 200 ideas. And so most people vote more than four teams in the quadratic voting and we discover a lot of synergy between the teams because of people's strategic way of voting. And because of the marginal cost of each extra vote is the same as the marginal return, people's best way to game the system is actually to learn about it and vote honestly. There's no way to game the system by pretending to vote for things that you do not truly want to see succeed. And so this is a concrete way with being using radical market ideas in quadratic voting for the past couple years and the top five teams each year receive a trophy from the president, Dr. Tsai Ing-wen and is a shape of Taiwan and a projector. If you turn the projector on, it shows president handing the trophy to you. So it's a meta trophy it describes itself. It says whatever you did in the past three months, for example, this water refill map, we are committed to make it a reality from the president to the entire demonstration in the next year. Yeah, we have a buffer of half an hour here. You can run over by at most half an hour. It's like having a referendum every day, isn't it? Used to be, of course, hard to understand, I'm sure, when that appears, but with quadratic voting, you can literally do a referendum every day. Nowadays we have the technology to think about such possibilities and it is not a very far, not too radical when viewed from the radical market's point of view. We can easily think of referendum that are only binding for 24 hours and then after 24 hours, people can overturn it using only 20% of population. Indeed, in the video game, Civilization VI quadratic voting is exactly what's used in the planetary council. And so in video games as well as Ethereum, like Gitcoin, which is a very large, massive multiplayer game, we already see this kind of like forking made possible because of the non-exclusive nature of software-based delivery. If 20% of people do not like where Ethereum is going, well, they can fork Ethereum. That's already a reality. It's not a dream anymore. It's many consensus algorithms and the consensus about which consensus to use is the interesting part, yes. The reason why of the absentee balloting, we're considering it for a referendum, by the way, but it's not made for election voting for people. It's because the counting process in Taiwan is a social ceremony. When you count the votes, the physical paper ballots, instead of just the people who specialize in the voting affairs, do the counting, we make sure that anyone, YouTubers, citizens, anyone can just go and bring their camera to the counting booth and to help ensuring that the counting is fair. And so it has been thoroughly gamified as a person is counting the vote. You can see this person here that holds up the vote and for the other people to count, the one with the pink ballot. And you can see people using cameras to capture that moment. You can see people making their own apps to do their own telling as soon as they see this being counted. You also see that people, YouTubers in this case, saying that in Taiwan, the democracy is so important that all the YouTubers should not only go out and vote, but go out and broadcast the counting. And in this environment, it is difficult for voting for absentee because if you are in a small island and you have absentee voting, then maybe people who are visiting that island who vote for another island because Taiwan has many islands is literally the only person visiting that small island at a time. So when you're counting so publicly, you will say, oh, that candidate has one vote. But then that candidate from the remote island only has one person in visiting in this island. So the origin island people looking at a public count will know for sure that who this visitor has voted and therefore compromise the anonymity of the voting. But for national referendum, there's no such issue because no matter where you are, your voting are exactly the same ballot. So there is in our National Referendum Act provisions to not only do you e-collecting, but eventually e-counting and absentee voting and so on. All these are possible according to authorize of the National Referendum Act. And I think once we get more comfortable with that technology, we will then learn how to make improvements to the election process. They must always maintain this extremely high degree of public accountability and participatory accountability. And so that partly also answers your second question because it's fun. It's a social ceremony. It's a celebration of the democracy that are so young in Taiwan and that people struggled for the democracy. So each voting is a celebration of the fact that we can vote and a celebration that the vote means something for the future generations. And because of the participation, you can do the counting process, you can do the live streaming, you can do a play-by-play commentary, you can compare various television channels for the counting methods and things like that. It became very participatory and I think that is why. And also we vote early and we vote often in the primary schools. We vote already within the class to also determine the co-ops, the consumer co-ops that many people remember from their primary school days on the precinct level, township level. There's a lot of votes. When I turned 20, my first vote was on the local district head and the candidate that I voted for won by a one vote and that tells me voting very important because otherwise it will be up to rolling a die or something. Well, then we just introduce more local festivities participatory budgeting for one, the voting for presidential hackathon for the on the other hand, there's many new designs, local referendums, why not? So you can introduce many, many different ways of involving people in the voting process and not all of it have to be equally politically binding. The petition, for example, only binds the administration to come out and give a well-reasoned point-by-point response. And if it's cross-ministerial, then we also meet the petitioner. But the threshold is much lower. You only have to collect 5,000 signatures online. And so just have a lot of different difficulty levels. If a game only has the hardest level, then nobody other than the most hardcore players will play. But if a game has many beginner's levels, then people who have a few seconds to spare can easily participate and regain the festivity. Making it instantly gratifiable, I think would be the key. Now, if information wants to be free, networks want to be scale-free. That is to say, if we connect people in such a way as to make sure that the hubs can effectively connect through common values. And that's what hashtags are. These are common values. Instead of by proximity of physical location, then it became a scale-free network in academic terms. And that is very important because once you have a scale-free network that can make sure that a complex network can nevertheless quickly find people of common value, then that common value becomes the unifying principle upon which democracy could be built. That would be a demos, a crowd, right? When we say we're crowdsourcing, we're crowdfunding, we're saying we're defining through a common value a crowd from the general population. And so the more you can do so, the more you can make democracy work in a scale-free way. The more you rely on the constraining physics and acoustics, for example, on the acropolis of Athens, then that density and that crowd is probably the largest crowd that you can do if you rely on non-digital ways alone. Yes, and I will show one such hub, namely the GitHub. And when I contributed to the Code for Japan project in collaboration with the Tokyo Metropolitan Government on the stop COVID dashboard, I made a small suggestion and it's the 827th suggestion or pull request from that website. And you can see that the reaction is very festive. You see a lot of people, actually, thousands of people just rallying, having fun, clicking fireworks symbols, rocket symbols and heart symbols around a one kanji change. And so that shows to me the kind of festivity around democracy. And, but it's also a serious matter because it shows the coronavirus and reflect the latest information around Tokyo to people who speak only Taiwanese Mandarin. So it's at once a public sector work, but it's also a social sector celebration. And we need more of those connecting acts that connects, as you said, the two steps together. Yes, but that's what scale-free means, right? The work that I contributed has been forked into the networks of so many different localities. And it's not just the name of the localities, but rather the group that did the forking or the reimagination of their local pandemic response dashboard. So each group name, each person's name here is a connector, a hub in this scale-free network. It's just one hop away from the Tokyo Metropolitan Dashboard to the Kyoto Dashboard, as you mentioned. And for Nara, Wakayama, Hiroshima, Yamaguchi, Kagawa, and so on, I can't go on, right? So this kind of scale-free structure is what I have in mind when I said that it made sense on the correct scale and these different points, just as the occupier network worldwide each sent two delegates to two other occupier networks to connect, that then also becomes a polity. Yes, and I think if you see democracy as something that is fixed, then there is no hope because that is just like the laws of physics. You don't wake up and say, let's have a referendum and change the speed of light. That's not something that we do. Or even if we do that, it will not be very gratifying because the speed of light will not change. But if we think democracy has just applied consensus-making technology, then we can wake up and say, hey, I want to make a different kind of democracy. And lo and behold, people on GitHub or people in Animal Crossing can then agree to agree on different ways, agree on different ways to agree basically. And that's what radical markets and associated radical exchange movement is all about. It's not some random people in New York like Glenn Weil or Vitalik Buterin or Daniel Allen or yours truly. The board members, the board members doesn't really do much in the radical exchange foundation other than maybe choose a better font and logo and things like that. Rather, we encourage the chapters just like the code for cities in Japan to imagine the kind of local governance principles that would work in that particular locality. And so the locality means both on a geographical sense but also on a cultural sense. So in that sense, Taiwan and Japan are very close, maybe closer than the physical proximity because we share similar values of technology adapting to meet the society rather than society chasing technology. And so the closer we are in terms of values, the easier it will be to make this kind of new imagination of democracy as a technology because the technology parts like quadratic voting, we can share much more feeling among people of similar values. And that is how we get people to rethink democracy as sets of technologies that you can pick and choose from rather than being set in stone. So I think this is a interesting folk craft, right? This is the idea of appropriate technology. Not only is the technology have to be appropriate to the locality, but the local people have to appropriate the technology to make the uniqueness for that locality. And I think the platforms as long as they are open, they are of course firmly on the side of locality because each pull request is a fork of what's there and each fork reflects a locality. Indeed, when I send up pull request about a language selector, it says something about people in Taiwan preferring the kanji tea body with more strokes than the Japanese kanji with very simple strokes. And so I think each and every action of forking on the digital platform as long as they are open reinforces people's idea that their uniqueness from that local culture can contribute transculturally to other people's understanding. But if the platform is closed and is dominated not by the people who use the platform, but rather than the people who imagine first the platform, then to me it's not a platform anymore and therefore could of course hurt locality. But we talk about that when we discuss about platforms. So I will make the same suggestion. It's just to work with platformers that truly understand and make open innovations that are meant to be forked, meant to be appropriated. Yes, in 10 minutes now. Of course, of course you have 10 minutes. Yes, okay, I may give silly answers, but I don't promise. Definitely blue, I'm sorry. Blue and black, okay, okay. Okay, at the moment I'm listening to the Disney Plus streaming of the Hamilton. So at the moment it's hip hop, but it may change tomorrow. Well, I wear a mask in addition to what I wear before, but it did not change other parts of my wearing. I think it's even more than ties because it's of course similar to ties in the sense that it's part of formality, but I think a mask has a much larger surface and it's in a sense a second phase. So I think it is a larger palette with a larger parts of experimentation than ties are because you don't look into other people's ties all the time when you talk to them, but you have to look at their mask when you talk to them. On average, maybe pie, that is to say between three and four, a little bit more than three. So to me, if I mix two kinds of tea bags together, it represents a new point in time. It's like a bookmark in time. And so if I want to go back to that point in time, I would mix those two flavors again. Otherwise, if I'm not feeling particularly bookmarking the moment, I usually drink simple tea bags with one flavor. It's sabience, wisdom. And thank you for the great questions. And for the movies, these are really good, short movies, live long and prosper. I would like to ask, how do you feel about the two of you in the same age? I think maybe because of our mutual culture, we are closer to each other. So although we are talking about some of the great dangers, let's say, for example, the serious illness on biological studies, or even the future of human beings, but maybe it's because, whether in Taiwan or Japan, there are earthquakes, disasters, there are some fires, and so on. So in this case, even if we see these disasters as a period of human history, we still feel very depressed. We will treat it as, oh, this is what happened to our ancestors. The future will still happen. What can we do in this generation? We will face it in a normal way. So I don't think it's like young people are big and small. Or old people have wisdom. We are all in a state where we have to keep this calm. Today, even if we are talking about young people and the same generation, we are mainly talking about big events in the world, or about the environment. For example, earthquake, or this disease, we are talking about such big things. But for me, young people, our ancestors have experienced this, so I don't really feel anything, but I think young people are also able to relax in their hearts. So what can young people do in this generation? Next, I would like to see how we can get used to it and how we can work together in this world. Thank you. Thank you. Do you have a message for young people? That is the lack of everything in the world. Lack of light is the way of the world. If you have a message for young people, no matter what is in this world, there is a barrier. The barrier is the way of the light. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. No problem.