 Now that we're at that point in the Q&A, I wonder, Andrea, if there's anybody that you can imagine at this moment, or any number of people that you can imagine from among them, you might support for the presidency of the United States in 2020. And if not, then I wonder if there's anybody that you think in the electoral space that's interesting and worth our support. And if not, I wonder if you just muse a little bit about the state of electoral politics and what we can do to make peace with institutions that are likely going to be deprecated. Yeah, okay, so I'm not going to endorse political candidates. I think that the institutions of democracy across all the countries that have kind of a classical liberalism perspective, you know, the essence of a bit of Greek democracy, a bit of Roman Republic, a bit of Renaissance and Enlightenment ideals, all the countries that come from that cultural background are currently struggling with a fundamental collapse of institutions due to scalability problems. The scalability of decision-making fails to address the problems of an interconnected globe with trade across continents, climate change, and other problems like that that affect everybody. And we've got these 19th-century institutions. The key to realize is that institutions serve a purpose, but they also have an expiry date. Like, for example, in the current situation, you may have heard me saying some things about banks a few times. I'm not a big fan of banks. But banks in the 17th century were the greatest liberalizing institution humanity had ever seen. And they were persecuted for it. The idea that someone other than the Pope or the King could write a cheque or have a deposit or do trade across borders with ease or be able to invest in a mutual corporation or association was absolutely unthinkable. They did their job. They liberated billions. Imagine, at that time, the only person with a cheque book, the King of France and the King of Spain. Imagine. And now, if you see a cheque book, it's at the supermarket checkout. And that person in front of you, bless their heart, pulls out a cheque book and 25 people in line go, uh! So that's a great arc of freedom. Representative democracy has had its great arc. Now, when representative democracy breaks out, you watch it and you go, uh! Like a cheque book in the supermarket line. You know there's elections coming and your response is not the one I had as a kid, which is the whole family gathers around the TV and we watch election results until two o'clock in the morning and it's exciting and it's participatory and we're all part of it. I don't fucking watch TV from November until oh, I never went back. I can't. I can't even. I can't. Every time it comes on, I can't. I'm uh! So we have to fix these institutions. I don't know how. I do know that we're going to have to change the scale. Right now, we're trying to make a single institution or set of institutions scale from the local, the neighborhood all the way up to the transnational and it simply doesn't scale. At the end of the day, either the locals are getting screwed, almost certainly the locals are getting screwed, but at the same time somehow miraculously the whole planet's getting screwed at the same time. So we get it both ways. The only scale that works is in the middle. So there's one constituency of billionaire multinational corporations who are getting very well represented. I saw this fantastic research out of Stanford where they looked at the results of policy and they tried to correlate it to surveys done of popular sentiment on key political ideas and they couldn't find any correlation. And then they correlated it with the opinions of billionaires and it was exact match. They're getting the legislation they want. The constituency is being served. The only problem is, you're not the constituency. I'm not the constituency. In many countries, oil is the constituency, diamonds, cobalt, lithium, whatever. In this country, debt is the constituency. We can extract debt from the ground like an oil well and drown ourselves in it and create a class of parasitic elites who don't give a shit about any of us and they're the constituency. Can we fix that? I don't know. I'm an optimist, but on this topic even I have my doubts at this point. You know, I'm praying for aliens because as an atheist, the only way prayer would work is with aliens. But what I'm thinking is come down here so we can momentarily forget our differences. It's the same fundamental desire I have with cryptocurrencies. Can the giant government and bank backlash start so we can all be friends again? Because according to them, we're all weirdos in the same camp. They can't tell the difference. Like when the prosecutor is sitting out against in front of you and they're saying, sir, I believe you're one of those cryptocurrency fiends. The answer is not, oh no, no, no. You see, I support Ethereum Classic that because of the concept of immutability split from the Dow during the re-entrancy bug and decided to proceed with a proof of work without the difficulty bomb after a contentious fork in 20. Arrest that motherfucker. He's one of those crypto freaks. They can't tell the difference. Any more than the lizard people can tell the difference between all these meat sacks. So at some point, the only way we achieve unity is by unifying against an external threat. I want to see the independence day of crypto where we all go and implant a biospirus in an alien ship and blow them all up. Or something like that only with Wells Fargo. But a lot of these social media platforms that spring up that have a lot less governance, they become these really weird, like far right shitholes. And I was wondering, how do we stop that? How do we encourage everybody to use those platforms and stop them from being these weird reactionary places? You don't. That's a really good question. First of all, I would say that politically, I think the classical labels of left and right wing, which go back to the British Parliament, refer to a model, a paradigm that is obsolete, in a global interconnected world. I don't think they mean much. You can use them if you want. I just don't think they're very descriptive. They're not very useful in terms of defining people's political opinions. I wouldn't say I'm left-wing. I'm certainly anti-fascist. That shouldn't be a left-wing position. That should be a sane position. That should be the human position. I don't know where suddenly that became the left-wing position. But the bottom line is that the forum where that discussion is happening isn't the cause. It's the symptom. If you take away the forum, the discussion doesn't go away. Certainly, the modern world of social media and all of these other platforms have made it easier for fascists to find other fascists. But it's also made it easier for me to find other weirdos, if that's the label I want to use, or other atheists, or kids finding LGBTQ kids and not feeling alone for the first time in their lives, or finding other people who are very, very into crochet. That's the beauty of the internet. I don't want to stop that. You don't stop fascists by removing their platform. If anything, you drive them underground. What we should be doing is flooding these platforms with opposing ideas. The best antidote to bad speech is more speech. Go out there and speak your principles with strength and conviction. Persuade. And here's the thing. Free speech doesn't mean say anything you want without consequences. Free speech means the government isn't allowed to stop you from speaking. If a million people decide that what you just said was stupid and makes you look like a douchebag, they should tell you that with a million voices so you can absorb the consequence of your speech. When you go out and start sharing your incel tears or your white supremacy or your abhorrent ideas about evolution or biology or things like that, you should get a million voices shouting back. That's how we fix speech. The problem is that we've become shy, as if suddenly these voices, because they're loud, are winning or prevalent or the majority. They're not. They're scared, afraid, tiny people. All you have to do is speak up with conviction and say, no, that's not how the world works. I won't stand for that shit. Not here, not now, not at my event, not in my forum. That's how you respond. We will have these platforms, and they will get unstoppable code. They always will. We have to be brave and realize that the response to that is making our voices unstoppable and standing up for what we believe in. I don't know if it's the pepper fish, but somehow the story about Coventry makes me relate money to violence at work. So what happens when unstoppable code is applied against us by the adversary using violent weapon that makes decisions? So you're talking about a drone that's running on an unstoppable dapp and blowing you up? So before I got into cryptos, I don't know if you know this, but I use the program drones. That was my hobby, and I was a sucky pilot, so I kept crashing my drones. So I focus on writing code called a geofence, which is where you make a virtual fence to keep your drone from flying into the tree. Because apparently every drone I built had an affinity for trees, almost like a magnetic attraction. I'd go as far as possible from the tree. I'd launch it in that direction. It would turn around and hit the tree. Very frustrating. People imagine that these machines are much more capable than they are. And you know, cool, you can watch Terminator and figure out how we beat the machines, but trust me, these machines are nowhere near that sophisticated. And there are many ways we can deal with unstoppable code, with our own unstoppable code. You see, the fundamental concept to realize, and the most powerful thing about cryptography, is asymmetric force. The reason cryptography is powerful is because it's asymmetric, meaning that if one person wants privacy, but they're their head of state, they're going to have, let's say, 380 million people trying to invade their privacy, also known as accountability. But if 380 million people want privacy, in order to invade their privacy, you have to invade the privacy of 380 million people. It only becomes a problem when you centralize the data and collapse it into a single database. So now think about your asymmetric warfare. One of my real fun hobbies when building drones was, I got into this competition with some friends, to build the cheapest drone possible. And I won. And my drone was built from an electric junction box, a plastic electric junction box, four PVC pipes used in plumbing, two wire stands that are used for real estate people to put signs in the lawn, those were the legs, four motors and a Raspberry Pi. Total cost, maybe $40. In a scenario where someone builds unstoppable code, they're going to put that unstoppable code behind a billion dollar super stealth, massive fucking drone that they're going to try to use to control us, at which point we're going to launch a hundred thousand fucking drones. If you think the power comes with size, spend a night in a room with a mosquito. And what we do in the response to asymmetric attacks is we launch a million fucking mosquitoes and they're peaceful mosquitoes. They don't attack anything. They just get in the way. Hi drone! Over here. Over here. Try picking a target through that cloud. There was this one moment where my vision of drones for the real purpose that I see, which is asymmetric warfare or surveillance, came true. And this was a moment in Gezi Park in Turkey during the uprising against the Erdogan, which was crushed. This is one fantastic moment where there's a drone over the protesters that is being used to record the police brutality that's happening below. And one of the cops pulls out a shotgun and shoots the drone down, which was a first that had never happened before. The best part about it, there were two other drones filming the cops shooting at the one drone, which was quickly replaced by two more drones. Another great scene from that particular demonstration was when they decided to send a helicopter above the park and about a hundred thousand people pulled out those green laser pointers you use for presentations. And a hundred thousand people pointed a hundred thousand laser pointers at one helicopter. And I can tell you that helicopter left in a hurry. Asymmetric power. We have the power because we are many and we are free and we will keep working with each other. Don't worry about governments doing unstoppable code. They can only do it in small numbers with small goals driven by small minds. And we are many.