 And my hypothesis is if the people at the core of something are of a certain mindset and hold certain standards, the people that they attract to them will be at least as closer to that. It's not going to be perfect. Well, that's why usually I'm looking for honesty, integrity, and hypocrisy. And hypocrisy is usually unconscious. So anyway, I'm actually wondering if this call is going to be repurposed. And I'm kind of wondering if I want to know what might change now. Yeah, and I'd like to let me, if I may, reframe your question. I'd like to figure out what is the best use of our attention I won't even say this time slot because we just sort of picked a time and this is where this call landed, right? 7 AM is pretty early on the left coast. So I'm not even sure about repurposing this hour. I'm just like the generative commons calls. We haven't been talking about the generative commons that much. It's been more of a flashlight in the distance of a thing that we were kind of aiming toward, but really like on lots of calls, we found lots of different places, which have been great. Otherwise, we would have closed down these calls before they've been really interesting. And so I'm curious about what to do, where to go. And I'm realizing that I've just signed up to run a show. So I need to win back sometime in my week for prep and for preprocessing, post-processing, and running a show and all that kind of stuff. And I've got a bunch of stuff I've got to set up so that this looks and smells like a show and all of that kind of thing. I guess I'm wondering how much if any of that is going to be like the way Klaus does it, where it's kind of in the open. Not sure what you mean, in that it's not. So as I envision it presently, the weaving the world is going to be an awful lot like any of our salon calls except, which means they're open, they're posted to YouTube, the whole thing, which except it needs to be produced at a higher level. So it needs to have an intro and outro, some credits at the end, a web page, probably for each call or something like that with some resources, you know, Blankety Blankety Blankety Blank kind of stuff rolling out. So it kind of needs some artifacts and some affordances and some operations, right? And a piece of what I'm thinking through is, okay, great. So what happens to one of the video artifacts? And, you know, right now all I do is I download it and then I manually upload it. And I don't do anything with the audio file and the chat file. I sometimes remember to repo, we can do a lot better, right? And so the flow of what actually happens and making sure that that either gets automated or handed off to an intern who is being paid enough to do that nicely and so forth, that kind of thing. And all of which is beside the point. But I think the point you're making is, is this gonna happen in the open? And yeah, totally for sure. That's great. That makes me happy because, you know, I'm all about the education. I mean, I'm here for the education. So I enjoy watching and I wanna see it put together. And I think other people wanna see that too. So I'm happy. Thank you. Yeah, me too. And I mean, one of the questions, for example, is, so this is kind of an interview show, although I don't think every episode needs to have a guest with an interview. And let's like, should it be one guest or two? Cause I think two might be really, really interesting. And I'm a very reasonable facilitator. I'm happy to have, you know, a couple of guests. I think one of my favorite Yitan calls when I did the Yitan podcast for nine years before podcasting was cool. One of my favorite ones was about unschooling. And we had seven guests on who were all experts. They were all adults. They were also a couple of participants, kids on the call, which was really cool. But there were seven people on the call and it worked really well. And that's too many people for a panel, but somehow the call worked just fine. So happy to do that. But one of the key questions here is whether and how to crowdsource the direction that the show goes in. Like who to talk to next and how to weave that into the broader context, blah, blah, blah, blah, with a real clear goal to not be interviewing white men that often. Right? Like- Absolutely. At least not in the beginning. Exactly, lots of white men with lots of interesting ideas, blah, blah, blah, blah, but you know, how to go into that. And another thing to do, and I'm thinking, you know, another interesting format for this particular show, given its ideas, is to say, hey, everybody, watch this TED Talk before the show. Just like this is your homework, watch the TED Talk, and we're going to spend the show processing it together in public. And that'll be a show. And we're gonna talk about the ideas and go deeper and deconstruct it and figure out what else it fits into and stuff like that, right? And the clarifying thing that Jim Rutt sort of said as he was trying, as he was working with me to refine that the proposal was, okay, so practically what does it mean? It means you using the brain and then publishing your brain, the results of each episode basically are posted publicly, just in the brain. Oh, I love that. Well, because that's certainly what I'm going to do, right? So every show is basically gonna have its own brain? Yes, but no. So just like, let me just share a screen and go to my brain. Here's Oscar Wilde, but just like for every conversation we have, so here's Bill's OGM calls. So just as I create a node for all of the OGM calls and I'm gonna create a node just like this for weaving the world calls. These are all, these are every one of the Bill's OGM Tuesday calls that we've had and I put a timestamp on them and then for yesterday's call, here are some of the topics that we touched. We touched, the movie Mephisto was mentioned, you mentioned David Eich, David Galerinter, Big History Project and David Christian. Boom, boom, boom, boom, boom. These are sort of my notes about it, but I think I'll go a little step further than this. This is just what we mentioned, right? This is like a, hey, here's what's streamed through. I think in part I also now want to do some post-processing to say, okay, lessons from the call and how does that improve different parts of, so one of my questions right now is, what on earth do I call this jihad I'm on about we are an amnesic society? What's a better way to frame or phrase that and how does it connect to other people's thinking? I think that's an important question to raise, given what yesterday's call was like. And so the artifact that will result from me doing that in the brain is basically the starting point. That's like a default setting and I'm still using the brain until there's some other vine I can swing to that gives me the expressive capacity of the brain and openness and collaboration. So I'm still kind of like how that, what am I, I would either like Harlem to open up the brain like crazy so that we can do some of these things and with the brain connecting it to other tools, et cetera. Or I'd like to find a different platform that lets me do the things that I do in the brain and all this other cool stuff that's available to do that the brain can't do, right? I mean, I would like there to be a call about machine learning and sense-making and invite people who are really good at machine learning to come in and say, oh, okay, we could do this, you could try that, you could, whatever. That's interesting, it'd be super cool. Anyway, so partly I'm wondering here because the talk with Jim made me realize that the thing I do by default every time anyway is a terrific start. And if I do it a little more with some thoughtful post-processing, it'll be better than, hey, here's just a collection of the links that we talked about, which is important because then we're starting to sort of weave the world a little bit, right? Taking a little bite-sized piece out of some interesting, something that interests us about how to fix the world. But then whether and how to crowdsource the people I'm contacting. And on the one hand, I kind of can easily come up with a list I think of the first half of a thousand people to go talk to. On the other hand, I'm pretty damn sure there's a bunch of people out in the world doing great work that I've never heard of that if I put a call out and so forth, that would be interesting. And I don't think I want the mechanism to be, hey, I'm going to go interview the person who gets the most votes from this poll. I'm not particularly interested in that. I want to have more editorial say over who the next person is. But I realize every week that there's lots of humans in the world I haven't heard of yet who are doing like God's own work. So I want to head there. So that's one of the questions that's in my head. Does that make sense? Yeah, yeah, it does to me. Any other thoughts on what to do with the generative commons theme for these calls and these calls, what would your preference be? Just any also reflections on what we've done in these calls and the framing of generative commons. As Stacy said, I'm here to learn. And the notion of the generative commons is not familiar and fully flashed out for me. The metaphor I use when I think about the commons is that of language. That of what? Language. Language. Language is a commons that can't be exhausted. It can't be owned. Certainly something, the Spanish or the French. The French. Academies of language, say. The French language must be this. The Spanish language must be this. But it doesn't work that way. That's as far as they try. And it's something that gets richer and richer. The more people are involved and it's something that... It's an unconscious commons. It's both conscious and unconscious. I mean, if I say the word chicken, there's no way you're not going to have a chicken in some sense. Damn it. How did you do that to us? Exactly. And at a higher level, something like driving is another model I have. And I'm looking for more models where I see a red light. I step on the brake. I don't think about it. It's... A stop light is not a story. A stop light is part of a system. And this is something that has to do with it. It is part of a system. And this is something that has been integrated into my unconscious behavior, which is in some sense commons that allows us to drive without crashing into each other. Boy, is that good. What are the... What's the difference between an unconscious commons and a conscious commons? Both generative. We're not really adding things like pink lights and warm lights and purple lights to red, green, yellow. Because why? What kind of generative limits are there in terms of our ability to build common systems that help the flow of society? Yeah, I'm coming from a sense of investigation and inquiry. And I'm here to listen. That's awesome. Just a couple of reflections. The video I sent you is a funny thing about chickens. If you haven't seen it, it's worth a watch. Neutron mic when you start the YouTube video, because it'll probably start chattering, but I think you'll enjoy it. It's ancient. It's terrible quality, but really fun. On languages, it's really interesting because sometimes you have to kind of defend your language, right? So the Catalan people, Spain, tried really, really hard to suppress Catalan and to illegalize it. And the other thing that's really interesting is that the guy who's talking about the catalan is Welsch. And when he grew up, they were trying to normalize him. And so he says that he used to have to wear a... If he spoke Welsch in school, he would be punished and he would have to wear a sign around his neck that said, I am a dumb taffy. Because they were trying to get rid of Welsch culture and the Welsch language. So Hebrew is now actually a functioning live language again. And the French are trying to guard the boundaries of French and make sure it doesn't just become English like le weekend. And so what's interesting about Commons also is that in Lin Oström's sort of eight principles for managing Commons, the boundary around the Commons in some form of sanction is important and interesting. But also Mark, like you said, languages just happen and they absorb each other. And English is a particularly funny and absorptive language. Among, I think I speak a couple, but among world languages English is like this amazingly absorptive thing. It's pretty cool, I think, the way it works. And then a friend of mine years ago, we were talking about languages in Chinese and he said something that had never occurred to me. He said, in Chinese, you could forget how to write the word kidney. You could just forget it because it's not phonetic. You can't go K, D and Y and somebody else will figure it out. You either know how to write kidney or you don't. And that's really interesting. You could lose a word and how literacy works and what literacy means. So the original mission of these calls when we started them, they sprang out of the conversations and work we did with Lyonsburg to make OGM a fiscal sponsee of Lyonsburg. And Mark, how familiar are you with the Lyonsburg thing? Only a wee bit. So I met Jordan Sukut in yet another pandemic Zoom call that was really interesting after which he said, we wrote each other and said, hey, we should talk. And then he said, look, he spent the last five years, now I guess it would be six years, trying to figure out what is a really good solid, stable, durable, hard to corrupt business model that lets you build artifacts for the public, for the public good, et cetera, et cetera. And he landed on an older business model called steward ownership. And the TLDR on steward ownership is you build, you set up a charity and 501C3 in the U.S. in other countries, whatever the format is, you set up a charity that owns all of the shares of a corporation. And so all of the predatory instincts of a corporation, because I'm not a big fan of C-Corps and how C-Corps run around the world. And I'm not a fan of the 501C3, but coupling these things to each other, kind of handcuffing them at the ankle, that means that all of the power and sort of, everybody knows what to do with corporations and nonprofits. They're highly established forms of entity here in the U.S. And so the goals of the corporation are set to the higher goals of the nonprofit. And as long as you can maintain sort of control of the nonprofit, the whole thing is very hard. It's very hard to acquire from outside, like hostile takeover, probably not going to happen. You can set up a bunch of different kinds of business models on top of it. You can do a foundation like an open source foundation, which would be great because we'd like to sort of do that kind of thing. You can also start a for-benefit on top of it, which I'd like to do. I had all these visions of what we could do if we got there. Anyway, so in this whole process, we created a memorandum of understanding with Lyonsburg. And in that memo, we got sort of three paragraphs of legal language for the memo from Jordan's lovely legal counsel Bill Larson, who's delightful. And the three paragraphs felt very, very old school. And as we were sitting here, like, other people will be permitted to sort of use this kind of stuff. And as we looked at it, we're like, ah, this is not in the spirit of what we're trying to do. So then we had a really interesting conversation that just blossomed immediately into this series of calls that said, what if there was something a little bit bigger than Creative Commons? And Creative Commons has to do with copyright only. It's not about patents. It's not about trademarks. It's not about other stuff, but Creative Commons, which comes out of Lawrence Lessig's work and a bunch of other people, has done a great job of making visible and giving people options for how to make their work much more publicly available than the default copyright regime does today, which is a miserable, horrible overprotection of intellectual property. I hate today's intellectual property settings. Do either of you know the original copyright term? How long? So Statute of Anne under Queen Anne, 1610 in England. You must apply for copyright. It lasts 14 years. And it's renewable only once to a maximum of 28 years. Do you know what the current term of copyright is? In the US and there and through WIPO, through WIPO and the WTO, we've run it. I thought it was like death plus 75 or death plus 90. Almost exactly correct. As far as I understand it, it's death of the author, not publication of the work. So the original one was, hey, I published the work, clock starts ticking. Now it's death of the author. And for personal works, individual works at 75 years and for corporate works, it's 95 years. And the reason for that is that Mickey Mouse was about to fall into the public domain. So every 20 years, there's a new copyright term extension act that extends copyright another 20 years and kills the commons and does a bunch of other stuff. Anyway, long side story. Long side story to say that we were like, how do we create something that is larger than creative commons, which we love includes creative commons and creates a spirit of collaboration where, hey, if you're here under this generative commons agreement, which is the thing we were kind of aiming toward, that means that you're trying to get most of this work, most of what we're doing together into the commons in some way. With the Purviso and with the understanding that many of us, most of us would probably like to make a living doing this somehow. And preferably not by metering out the work, preferably not by putting a lock on the stuff that whatever the artifact is that we're making and selling it like sticks of gum. Which means building sort of interesting new business models that work around the commons. And one of the big questions in the back of my head is what do business models look like that nurture the commons? And all open source businesses kind of fall nicely into this category. It's like they agree that the software will go into the open source pool and yet they make a living customizing that software for clients. And Shabing, Shabugi, it works because then there's many eyes on the code, the code is shared. It's not a state secret. In fact, it's open so that anybody can go see how it works and see that it's got bugs or back doors or whatever else, which makes it more trustworthy for everybody. There's a virtual cycle for lots of the participants there. Long story short. That was the origins of this standing call on Wednesdays. And then we've drifted like mad from there because we don't have, I bought generative commons.org, which has almost nothing on it. And one of my goals and hopes was to come up with actually an agreement, a document that says, hey, we're working here with these intentions and that's what it means to say you work in the spirit of the generative commons, let's pretend that's the language is this, this, this, this and this. So we don't have that at this point. And I ran into an old friend, Sebastian Hassinger, who's working at IBM and we had a really nice sort of catch up a couple months ago now. And he was like, you know, Jerry, my job at IBM is more or less what your generative commons thing sounds like, but he hasn't shown up for these calls. I'm like, Sebastian, you got to show up. I've got conflicts or whatever. So, so, so, you know, and then Michael Grossman, sort of at a point that a couple of weeks ago when we were thinking of just wrapping up these calls, he started asking really hard and good questions. And I'm like, oh, shit, we just need to keep this conversation going because Michael runs Factor and he's trying to figure out, hey, I have what looks like a commercial startup here that does informationy stuff. How do I play here? And how do I know that my efforts in this community don't harm my company and lead to something good? And I'm like, that's a great set of questions. And the generative commons agreement should make room for those kinds of things. And this is above my pay grade, right? So, so, so at this point, the generative commons calls are an open question that's not being answered very efficiently. And given the spectrum of things where I should pay attention, including weaving the world, which I need to start, I'm inclined to say, let's let's let this one rest for a while. And then I'll shift my attention to building the future. So, that's my, that's my thinking. Well, first, good morning, Bentley. Good morning, Bentley. Good morning. Nice solo it. It looks like behind you, Jerry. No, it's actually Frank Stella. Frank Stella. It's one of his pro pro pro tractor series. I'm a fan of Stella's because my under my own. Yeah, God undergraduate art history teacher was phenomenal. And Stella was one of his favorites for reasons I can explain some other time. You mentioned a document. It's not some data that is valuable. In the understanding of either, you know, the beginning or evolution, the very evolution of generative commons. I don't think you're referring to the non generative commons agreement. I think you're referring to the memorandum of understanding between, between OGM and Lyonsburg. That's the only other document I think I mentioned. Does that ring a bell? Is that what you meant or something else? That's not exactly what I meant, but I might have misheard something. Oh, okay. Direct me more toward the document you're thinking of. What else, what else did I say about it? I'll find my way back to what you, what you mean. And Stacy, if you can think of whatever. Metering out the work. Basically, the intention. Creative comments. Well, you know, so I'm looking at creative commons versus generative commons. Creative commons will be a part of generative commons, but I was looking for a hot. I bet it sounded as if this generative commons had some kind of. Documents. Intentions, vision, scope that. Are you referring to the, um, the three paragraphs that Jerry was talking about that he got from, uh, what's his Josh. Is it, is it, uh, Jordan. Jordan's legal person. What I wrote down is this generative commons agreement. And maybe it didn't exist yet. Correct. It's a, it's a wishful thinking agreement. Uh-huh. That is intended to be a superset over the creative commons. And whatever other things we find that, that sort of fit here, but also, but also to include like an intentionality. Um, we're here to try to build the comments together with the understanding that we need to make a living. But, but the dominant thing is to feed the comments that there's, that there's a spirit of collaboration and a spirit of work. Aspect to that. Agreement. And again, the agreement is merely wishful thinking at this point. Okay. Thanks. Can I dive in. Yes, please go ahead. Um, I just ran across his YouTube channel and I remember if I saw it somewhere in OGM or not, but, um, basically he, I saw an interview he did where they were talking about a, a financial process for an information commons. Uh, and actually innovation commons is kind of what he was calling it. So people would put in these Lego blocks and as people used them and they got paid for that, then the funds would trickle down. Um, and I don't, I think he's just floating the idea. I don't think, um, I don't, I don't think he's very far on the idea, but, um, that might be someone interesting to talk to. And here's what I haven't watched about an information commons, the information commons team. Um, but he's interested in similar stuff. So I just ran across that stuff last week and, and thought it might be interesting here because I do, I, you know, when I think about commons, I'm more of an infrastructure guy. So it'd be nice if as I build little bitty tools or infrastructure that the people that use them and maybe even ask donation for their final products or get paid for the value, you know, in some sort of marketplace, then, you know, it would kind of trickle down. And I guess a real world example of that is, um, the, uh, well, it doesn't, it, actually there's not a good example that I know of that. Okay. So anyways, that was my thought. Was he already in your brain there? Yeah, yeah, here's a photo in my brain. I don't remember putting him in here, but I learned about it from one of the Kiko lab flow shows. Um, and I don't know that I'm included that I, that I have the stuff that you're talking about. So I'll go add those, uh, those videos. Yeah. So open innovation is what he's doing. It's an idea of Lego blocks of innovation that then people can use and then get some sort of enumeration back. Um, as they're used. And I think a big, I think there's been many attempts to figure out how do you get, you know, how do you measure value flows and how do you get remuneration back? Um, one of which, uh, one of which is the whole, what is now Holo chain, uh, started out 20, maybe 30 years ago now as the meta currency project. Um, actually let me screen share for a sec. Cause I think I've got it. It's a little messy, but. So the meta currency project. So there we go. Uh, so, um, Arthur Brock, uh, Eric Harris, Braun and, uh, Jean-François Nubel, the three of them basically. Conspired together for 20 years. Um, trying to figure out an entire system to measure value flows and, and, uh, Arthur likes to say that, uh, the word currency, he thinks of as current C. So a currency helps you see the flow of value. And they were coming up with, you know, alternate currencies and a bunch of other really interesting things. Uh, which then when blockchain got hot, got split off as this Holo chain project, which kind of ate their world and, and the Holo chain project to my knowledge doesn't really include all of that work, all of the thinking they did that the very deep thinking they did on how do you measure value flowing through community. And, and I think that, um, meta currency is one of many, many such projects in the world in different corners and people kind of go on and go through this up. Project Zanadu is one of those, right? Ted Nelson's thing. Um, uh, Stacey, I don't know if you're familiar, but Ted Nelson is sort of like, like Doug Engelbar, only a little zanier and still alive. Um, and, uh, he had this idea for projects that do, which would involve privishing, which means you post something out into the public view. But whenever anybody goes and use it, a micropayment trickles back toward you. Um, because that would be the instead of advertising, that would be the mechanism for funding, you know, what people do. And Project Xanadu has been, I think I've told the story in one of the OGM calls before, but one of the first articles I wrote for something I started way back when I went and interviewed Roger Gregory at Project Xanadu a very, very long time ago. And I wrote an article about Xanadu that was pretty good. I mean, I, that was a good review of them. I was like happy with them. That said that in two years they should have a platform in the world. And imagine my surprise, seven, eight years ago, to read an article about Project Xanadu, which somehow miraculously is still alive, saying that they would have a platform in the world in two years. Like they say AI is always five years away. Exactly, exactly. It's just this like, ever, it's a very Borcas kind of situation. Like AI would make a good Borcas short story. I always heard that, what is it, artificial general intelligence with 20 years away? Yeah, yeah, always. Every, every five years, it's another 20 years away. Well, that's its own separate fascinating conversation, I think about, you know, AGI. One interesting thing about, one interesting thing about his concept is that rather than measuring value, he was considering just measuring hours, kind of like hours put in or something like that. So if your, whatever you generate is reused, then you would get a percentage of those funds based upon the number of hours. So you're not actually having to measure value going in. And part of me is kind of like, oh, well, that's kind of bad. But then I'm thinking, I'm also thinking like I have a junior dev I'm working with and I get paid three times per hour what she gets paid. You know, and I am probably three times as fast, if not faster. But, but part of it that is because I'm doing on the experience that I've had. And so we as a group are giving her experience. And she's learning. And that's going to come and benefit society later. So I'm almost thinking that the disparity and pay based on hours and supposed value, it may be kind of vague and fluid enough that really we should just be kind of like making sure everyone gets kind of like a basic income sort of thing. So I guess I'm kind of rethinking, can we get away with a less onerous task of trying to calculate everyone's value and just say, hey, you kind of worked on this, this was used. Let's kind of pay you this amount and be a little bit less detailed, which might make a system and the use of it a little bit easier. And I'd like to talk to more people who know more about this because there's been plenty of different sorts of systems, some of which are simply our base where an hour of dental work is the same as an hour as a cashier at the co-op. And some community currencies are hour-based like Ithaca hours, which is one of the famous ones. And those two hours are more or less treated equally. Other community currencies create an agreed upon kind of variable scale of value for the hours so that the dentist's hour is actually worth three hours of the community currency or something like that. And that's interesting. Then there's also the there's an entrepreneur in Colorado somewhere, I'm trying to find his name in my brain, who decided a couple of years ago to pay everybody in his company 70 grand a year. Like just everybody makes 70 grand. And because he realized one day that they were thinking of moving the office, I think in one of the one of the secretaries was like, I'm not going to be able to afford to live or like, you know, feed my kids or something. He's like, wait a minute, she's like in that kind of trouble and how she's supposed to do this job if she's in that kind of trouble. So that's interesting. And then there's a slippery slope into a conversation about, oh my God, this is communism and how all that works. And there's another conversation about equity. There's another big conversation about a guaranteed basic income, which is also interesting. And then back and if you talk to any capitalist, they'll be like, yes, but you absolutely can't have any of this kind of crap because it's only the incentive to make yourself filthy rich that causes people to do anything creative anyway, which is this, I think it's an asinine statement. And so I'm really interested in sort of how are we evolving in the middle of all that, like systems that would actually be equitable and work, right? Because on the one hand, if I knew that I could retire comfortably and my rent would be paid and I could have some money for shopping or whatever, I'd do exactly what I'm doing for that amount. And I wouldn't care about exchange. I wouldn't do that because somebody was paying me on a project basis or on a per hour basis, just because that kind of money would show up, right? And I'd be very happy to build and create this stuff that I do. On the other hand, I don't want my hour to be the same as somebody with no experience whatsoever, that that doesn't feel quite right because what you just said about one good coder is probably 10 times faster than an inexperienced coder, if not more, because inexperienced coders make mistakes that you have to fix later, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. So like a really, a really good coder is like a gem, right? And isn't necessarily valuable at the same rate anyway. So anyway, you've opened a lovely can of worms. Well, you also don't want to create a scenario where people are taking longer to do, you know, if they're really good at something and they could do something really quick, but then they're going to get paid less. Because you get what you measure, right? And if you're going to be measuring hours, everybody's going to start maximizing hours. That's exactly right. Which is really a nice argument for a guaranteed basic income. Sorry, go ahead Stacey. I was going to say I actually think there have to be two scales together. I don't think one scale is enough because I think one way or the other it's going to be flawed. But if you put two together, maybe then it would be the checks and balances needed. So I will note that the question, the several questions that are on the table right now are really nice questions for weaving the world. Like I should just take this topic and make it a topic on the path of inquiry, right? And I don't think I'll solve it. I don't think we'll solve it in the calls. But I think we'll make some progress. And I think what we'll get is a more complete set of the options available. I think what we'll get is some nice ways of looking and framing of the analysis. I think what we might get is an interesting debate between people with very different points of view that lets us peel it apart. I mean, all those things are really interesting to me. I think listening to a really clear libertarian make their arguments around the topic and then listening to a really clear communitarian make their arguments about this and contrasting those things and making that available in some visual format flips my trigger. And again, who will you invite into those conversations who aren't all white men? Well, actually, now that you're putting it, I can think of a few women that would probably fit in. And I would also recommend going to the white men and asking them to put forward a name. That's a great idea. Who would you nominate that isn't like you? And also, we can have several people on a call and just an interesting format too is to set up a really interesting debate and then be the facilitator and the note taker as the debate goes on, right? I think that would work as well. Because we're going to wait into waters where we don't really know. Yeah. Can I just say one thing? There's one phrase I always hear, invite someone who isn't like you. And I just want to push back because that would make it as like, you know, the biggest thing is the sex or the race of somebody. I would like somebody who's very much like you, but looks different. Okay. Because to me, those are two different things. I love that. I agree. Yeah. And somebody who's not like me from the superficial goddamn markers. So I agree. So it's very funny. I'm feeling right now like a caterpillar sitting in front of a leafy little glade going, ooh, all these leaves. This is going to be yummy. Yeah. We're just starting what path to take through the glade, right? Like, are these leaves tastier or does this go well with this other thing? I don't know. So if we don't have this. Go ahead, Ben. Thank you, Stacey. If we don't have an agenda in mind, I'd like to propose to go ahead and because weaving the world is a generative commons project-ish, right? Yeah. So I'd like to maybe talk about how that would integrate in the commons and also what, like you were also talking about, you were hoping to have two kind of infrastructure projects. What, how do those feed the commons? Or what does the commons need so that weaving the world can become part of it that doesn't exist today? Right? That does my area of interest. Cool. So for example, and I think this is really specific and good. So part of this early grant involves setting up two projects, which are kind of referring to as tiles in the big mosaic, little, little parsable, smart project sort of things that are fundable, that then create something that makes the, makes the larger thing work better. And one of them, I think, came up just in conversation yesterday, which is I manually download the three files, you know, every, every call like this, I'm going to get three files down from Zoom. I then upload one of them to YouTube. I do a little bit of metadata. I post it in my brain, and that's all I do. And I don't have bandwidth to do a whole lot more. And on the Thursday calls, I get a fourth file, which is the transcript, because we're using still collaborative next Zoom. And they, they have the corporate account, which has the other plugin, which is lovely. But I don't have the time right now to go upload that separately somewhere else, for example. So, so a simple process that, so thinking through, where do we actually want the file stored? And, and, you know, I've been talking with Mark Graham at the Internet Archive, who's in charge of the Wayback machine. Our calls should all be archived automatically. We should, we should be posting them into the Internet Archive. That would be a terrific place. And that's a very common Z place to put things, right? And it would be fun to partner with the archive and figure out what this is. But what if there was a very simple set of sort of macros or executables or whatever, that upon, upon receiving the notification from Zoom that there's a new call to download, I forward that to a, to a process that then goes, which includes, by the way, chat, buzzsaw and Bentley, your project for pulling the links out of the chat and making them available in different formats. So maybe that, that, that module gets integrated with this tile. And those are two different tiles, right? And then, and then because these are tiles as part of the generative commons as part of weaving the world, they then get put into open source code so that anybody who wants to start a show and automate this process of where you put things so that they end up in the commons has this code to do. And then as other people perfected improve it, add things to it, we benefit because it's an open source. It's a really, really simple open source project that automates the process of weaving the world. And so that, that one makes a lot of sense to me, starting with it pretty simply and then designing it in a way that lets us, lets anyone sort of add features to it would be super cool. Does that make sense? Yeah. Yep. Yeah, I heard Pete kind of mention that. And I did let him know I'd be interested in helping out with that. That's a great idea. I think that'd be awesome. And what I want to do is create a stream of projects that smell like that, figure out, figure out how to make them manageable so that, you know, this is what gets delivered for this much. And that also kind of fits in with Trove and fits in with the generative commons. Yeah. And one of the places also to post, you know, so great. So now you said, now we've uploaded the video to YouTube, which is one of the steps in the middle there, and posted the YouTube video back into my brain and into Trove, where that particular call was, for example. And Trove can take a bunch of attachments. So the transcript could go to Trove as well. I don't know how much, I think that Vincent is rapidly going to be overwhelmed by the volume of stuff that's possible to put into Trove. So when I started using the brain 23 years ago, I turned off the feature that when I visit, when I put a link into my brain, there's a feature that will index the contents of the page of the link that I just put in. And it'll add that to your index. So you can search from the brain. And I turned that off immediately because I know how big indexes get. And I didn't want the content of the page or the index of the content of the page in my brain data file. And so I purposely kept the brain as skinny as I can by not pouring a lot of big data into it. And so there's a there's this danger that you suddenly become the repository for a lot of stuff. And suddenly you have a large data problem on your hands and performance just goes and a bunch of other problems show up. So anyway, yes, I think that that thinking through what the flow is and where things get put and cross posting and making it sort of richer and more interesting. I'm really interested in what's a tool that will sink back to the video. So the chats are time stamped, right? So maybe yes, maybe a slightly badly, but badly. Okay. Oh, like, there's no chord. The time stamp is the time on the PC that that saved the file. And I don't know what happens if you do cloud recording, which you're doing now. I don't know what time stamp is. I think it uses your time zone. But there's no record recording in the chat on when the video starts and stops. Okay, to sync them up. So you actually have to figure out some way to sync it up or do something else. Now, if you have a manual step in there and someone can figure out when the first chat happened compared to the video, then I can do everything else. So I mean, you don't pause. So yeah, but that yeah, that's one of the technical solutions I've been thinking for in my chat. Easy reader. Cool. And so one of my wishlist items is some software that lets you watch a video or or be in a conversation and find and quickly find your way back to Oh, when this got said here, let's play that clip. Yeah, which is similar to YouTube live streams where you can watch the chat or the recorded live stream and see the chat come in in the same time it did. And I don't know if Smile does this, but there's a couple of sort of video formats that do synchronize synchronization and a bunch of other sorts of stuff. And I know Smile is ancient. There's probably something better now. But and just to link this with another project, I know a guy is working on a political project to where you can take a video recording of a politician and have fact checks kind of pop in while they're speaking based on a recorded video. So and then have it be public crowdsource. So you go and do a video, put it in a spot and put it in the comments. And I was I was on a call yesterday, the distributed web call that the archive hosted, where they were talking about how do you about fixity was one of the words that I didn't know about. Fixity is sort of the permanence of something. And how do you and I'd never thought about the chain of custody of a witness video taken in the human rights situation? Yeah, all that gets really interesting. And apparently there's a there's an HTC phone that is equipped to do sort of what I will call digital notarization of a photo, which means and I'm surprised that there hasn't been like a digital notary feature put into every smartphone at this point, because it would be really nice to just say, okay, you just took a picture, I just sent a copy of that picture to this to this digital notary, which has received it exactly as you shot it from the lens. And it's guaranteed to be the photo you took and its timestamps and blah, blah, blah, blah. Wouldn't that be cool? Yeah, graphically signed and I don't think that exists. But but but if we get into items, artifacts that would that are really important in society, like the witnessing of a human rights violation, there are a whole bunch of other stuff sort of shows up that is necessary if you're going to use this thing later in court, for example. So anyway, it gets complicated really fast. And then if you talk to Mark Antoine and you start taking, you start deconstructing what got said in the conversation in terms of the arguments and claims and everything else made, which is a juicy and interesting, you know, piece of piece of work itself, that then sprouts a whole bunch of work in a different direction. And we're to put these things so that they're findable and, you know, connect it where where is the big fungus is kind of one of my questions. Right. Which I think means content address ability as opposed to look as opposed to location address ability and I mean, my yeah, my gut would be something like IPFS. So it doesn't have a it doesn't have a single location that that could be lost. So Stacey, thank you. These days, usually we send somebody a URL, which is a link to a particular server someplace on the inner tubes. Right. And that that's location address ability means it's over there on this server IPFS what it does is it takes every file fragments them up mixes them together and then distributes them to volunteers who are basically participating in IPFS and are hosting different parts of it. Hey greetings. Nice to see you. And that means that when you search for something you're searching for the content and it's being read it's being reconstituted a little bit like make that water and stir out of the cloud where it's been stored and how many servers are involved in the store and how persistent that the artifact is are all interesting questions when you start sharding things up and you have volunteers coming in and out. But that's kind of like then the location what server that file is on no longer has meaning. You just need a unique ID for that says go find the file for me that refers to that content. I'm not sure I explained that very well. That's okay. I don't know that I need to know that it sounds very complicated. And I apologize. I realized that I was I was going to bounce and go to a different call which I'm just going to pass on at this point. There was a there was a call I was going to go to at the half hour that was really really interesting and very og me but it's it's out. This is going really well. So what's the next steps on that? Jerry on the on the weave in the world. Are you going to start setting up a recurring meeting? So so I so we started this call talking about hey should we repurpose this time slot is is the generative commons our conversation going to create a generative commons agreement which is its original intention if not should we keep the call for what reason or should we be refrained? I don't necessarily need this time slot for weaving the world. I was thinking of going to like 9am on on Wednesdays as a standing time but then flexing for you know if you have a guest and they can't make 9am on Wednesday you flex for whenever they can make the call right? So exactly. But then yes so I need to stand up a bunch of different things so that weaving the world looks like an actual show and has calls of people can join and all that. It might be good to have a separate call for the deciding on what the two projects are. Oh absolutely. That will be a kind of a technical deep dive that a lot of people won't find value. It's a geeky conversation and it's it's it's very free Jerry's brain and setting up a call to do that would be would be fine but we can we can start that conversation I think on Monday on the next free Jerry's brain call. Jerry is geeky as you think that conversation might be I'd really love to be able to listen in I mean I'll be quiet. Oh sure we'd love to have you. In fact there might be other things. That sounds great. Stacy on a call like that I was just thinking one of the tricks that we're starting to do in another meeting where there's a lot of institutional knowledge in the group and someone coming in wants to wants to learn but doesn't want to interrupt the flow is to to have a partner that you can either message immediately during the call and ask questions or have another meeting later on where you can get your questions answered that's how we're getting people caught up so maybe we could work out some sort of arrangement like that. Great thank you yeah. So Stacy I am adding you to the calendar event for the free Jerry's brain calls and I just hit send on that so you should receive in your email and in your calendar that call going forward and you can delete it or keep it whatever you'd like to do but happy to have you in the calls and they do get very geeky I mean I tweeted kind of is to me is like a little mini PhD program where sometimes we get into waters that are like way above my head and I'm like oh this is interesting I need to I need to just absorb some of this and see how it fits. So I want to go back to the generative commons agreement for a sec and say what should we do about it and here thanks for joining me. Could I ask a question? But of course. Yeah what were you just talking about when I joined like what is the name of that technology you were mentioning? Which technology? Well when I just joined you something decentralized. IPFS, Interplanetode. Yeah IPFS good. So I just saw that you have notes from yesterday the D-Web conference is that right? So that was the internet archives conference. Yes several of us were on that call Pete Kaminsky was there I think Mark Antoine was there. Yes. Okay so I found your brain with your notes so I guess I could just walk through those and find out what happened. Kind of I think your better bet is to go back into the to the source video which I think they're I think they're going to post. Yeah okay I'll make sure that. I don't know I I don't know that I so when I do when I do when I use my brain on calls let me uh excuse me go back here's your screen let me go back to so here's what I here's to that's not today's call that's a different call let me actually go to build our GM calls. How's this one here we go so when I'm on a call this is more or less the artifact at the end of the call which is my form of note-taking during the call which doesn't tell you a lot these are these are kind of the things that we covered and and what I'm realizing is for weaving the world which is the show that I've just signed up to start I'm going to need to do more than this in some interesting ways but but this is sort of the the kind of notes that I have which won't be enough for you to reconstitute what the conversation was and was about. Okay like if you added a link to the video when it comes out and I could find it through the brain later. Exactly and so for the calls that I'm involved in and I'm hosting I think you saw that the link to YouTube is already embedded in yesterday's call. Yeah you have those. As soon as so during the excuse me so two-thirds of these links were actually already here at the end of the call because during the call I was busy making these connections then I had a bunch of open tabs left after every good call there's a bunch of open tabs that I go harvest and then add those then I get the note from Zoom I download and then upload the video and then I add the link here and then I consider this more or less done and this is connected to the node for all of the OGM calls and so this is this is all the build OGM calls from the Tuesday calls this is all of those OGM Zoom calls we've had since 19 months ago. Yeah this is great I know Sam Hahn has been trying to do something similar for GCC and cool yeah not necessarily using the brain but just keeping track of everything so in the future we could make sense out of it and break it up into yeah little time slice of gems or whatever so yeah it's a it's a wicked problem. Yeah and you missed a little piece of the conversation earlier where one of the early projects we'd like to fund is just how do we automate the process of downloading the artifacts of a call and then putting them in the right places and making them enhancing them a bit right? Yep depending on what provider you're using for the call and who has access and yeah administrative accounts and getting into download and it's automating I know and yeah I'm sure infinite archive may have ideas like I know Jason Scott has all kinds of scripts for saving stuff but that's his own stuff as admin of internet archives yeah and we should and if somebody's done a bunch of this we should sort of find out and use that if it's available. He doesn't feel his stuff is useful it's like his own personal faraway scripts but it's a good idea to have some things and some tools around yeah exactly. There are uploading YouTube videos into the archive and I'll be happy to find those out and forward them. Yeah and there's also a design question here which is a place like the archive needs to make tools available that'll actually work for most everybody as many people as possible and for this project I think we need we can be kind of focused and targeted like the platform we're using is zoom not going to worry about other platforms right now let's just create some scripts that take the zoom down the default zoom downloads and do something useful with them so designing a general purpose tool would be a much bigger I think engineering project to start with so I'm sort of aware of some of the difficulties that this would encounter. Now could you define the generative commons? Sure we excuse me sure happy to so we it started from three paragraphs that showed up from Jordan Sokut's legal partner as we were trying to figure out a memorandum of understanding to make OGM a fiscal sponsy of Lyonsburg which is a 501c3 charity and those three paragraphs seem very old school they were just really old intellectual property language and so we're like hey what if we could create language that said when you're working under the generative commons agreement that means everything that's in the creative commons yes but also this other stuff and and in general kind of a spirit of participation to feed the commons with an acknowledgement that the people participating also need to make a living somehow right and that they would prefer to make a living by not hiding the code the data the stuff by feeding the commons right and and so so it doesn't mean I don't think it's an absolutist agreement that says there can be no work in here that is paid or anything like that at all I think it's a it's a it's a general agreement that says we're really busy together trying to build the big fungus is what I'd say now the big fungus among us and figure out how to make it more fruitful for everybody more useful is that is that a reasonable start yeah that sounds good I'll just give you an example from a project I'm working on they're collecting music that has it stuck in a library in the Ukraine but someone was able to get a camera in and digitize it so the library owns the manuscripts the department of manuscripts has the copyright to that the originals so you can create derivative works from it as long as you attribute it to the owner under creative commons of by 4.0 yeah and so if you were to up level it by adding a closed captioning or something is that sort of a derivative work or anything you do with it you could do whatever you want as long as you would acknowledge the source yeah okay mark thanks mark and we've gone we've gone our hour any other thoughts you'd layer on top of that Eric any other things that I mean I I'm totally interested in what what the gender of commons agreement should look and smell like from anybody who's got ideas I mean I looked a little bit at Eleanor Ostrom's book we talked about Lynn Ostrom a little earlier on this colleague about managing commons I've not I've not read the book but I've got the principles at hand and stuff like that yeah what I found interesting was there was a portion where she talked about John Nash and how his equilibrium is one possible equilibrium there was another solution for a specific problem that worked better and so just keeping these and concepts in mind like John Nash Nash was non cooperative games and it's a different mindset of you know going into the commons so there's a relationship between Nash and Eleanor Ostrom that's really interesting and also one of when people use when people use game theory to explain human behavior it usually irritates the hell out of me yeah because it's usually a very male way of looking at the world that's very zero sum very competitive that that's kind of like you know Nash equilibrium is how we get to mutually assert destruction kind of things and so and so what I like about Lynn Ostrom's sort of methods of doing stuff and here's the eight principles for robust long and during commons and then Christopher Allen wrote a nice post extending it with two principles so here's his post but he here's the eight plus two about how to do this and what I like about this is that it's I think very human it's much more men she yeah so could you just take from here into the agreement we could sort of include the principles by reference and say hey you know we're trying to work from these I think that's a good idea um although that then complicates our life tremendously because like the first so we we and I think it was in one of the general commons calls might have been somewhere else might have been in prejury span but very early during lockdown we had this conversation about boundaries around the commons like if you just pour everything out into the commons and say here you go that actually doesn't solve the problem necessarily because then anybody who a bad actor who wants to mess with you can basically step in and say oh yeah we we just we just forked your repo and then made some made a couple changes and published that and then we did that a hundred times and it's like good luck finding your way back to the canonical reference that actually has the correct data right so a boundary in that sense kind of means some kind of authentication or notarization or the thing we were just talking about a little bit from the archive call you know how do you protect good data right and and I think we're sort of not used to that I'm not used to that I'm used to like you just put your stuff in you know out in the world and the Wikipedia model is here you got editors reviewing it and deciding what's good and then you have to you know fix your stuff to make it conform to them and apparently the Wikipedia has managed to with withstand assaults from most everybody so far I mean there's a whole sub industry of gaming Wikipedia and you know shilling for people and you know if you're a famous author you will hire a firm to go doctor up your Wikipedia page because you're not allowed to but they will for you and they're being paid to do so and there you go yes you need ethical hackers who can think like a criminal yeah so so so including that in a generative commons agreement opens all those yeah I see what you're saying although although acknowledging them and pointing to them is a really good idea um from background yeah um what what else comes to mind okay that word generative um it's like planting seeds um nurturing them and uh so like I posted a pdf document today in your matter most in tools and technology and um it has some of my ideas and some ideas from another team and we want to just share them with people we trust and their potential projects so but they would require lots of care and feeding to grow so if yeah so if people are interested in certain pieces of that the commons agreement would acknowledge that yeah I'm the author of the document and I'm getting I'm yeah I have permission from these people and that we are this is where we want to go and it's great you have wonderful talents that can help us let's talk about it and collaborate and but yeah but there's this cycle like with open source people may be enthusiastic at first and then a month later they're burnt out or leave or whatever so you're acknowledging the contribution while you're active and uh that gets me thinking of what Joaquin was working on to track participation in various projects uh yeah who's contributing what and uh yes and then how do you define value added and yes yeah it's a whole yeah just explodes from there until all these issues exactly so so the good news is I think the scope of this generative commons conversation and agreement are not to create a platform that can do this which would then mean how do you account for flows of value who do you who would reward and how will all of those questions come up but rather to create a a document that is intentional that says we're working in this spirit uh here are resources that that we will point you to like creative commons uh to to do things here are a set of steps you might take uh preemptively to do this uh I mean for example if you just post documents with no uh no license on them whatsoever uh it's not as good as as like proactively putting them in one of the commons right um because the default settings are bad um for society because of copyright law yep um so helping people make those choices wisely is different from creating a platform that actually fulfills a lot of the good stuff that needs to be done and if we found a platform that did most of these things I think that a piece of this might even say hey uh here's a community and a platform that's doing this really really well feel free to join them and use their tools right that I think that would be part of it here yeah I know dig life was looking for tools they trust so that could be part of it yeah yeah cool um what should we do with this call so do you have a youtube archive or several playlists like how do you normally archive your calls so um what I showed a little earlier so here's ogm zoom calls so oops my brain just crashed I think did it yeah sorry I gotta and it crashed without even giving me notice of crashing and usually it does which means it did a really unusual crash anyway um what I do is uh I have a series of playlists oh and this this raises a different question as well um I have a series of playlists one of them is called open global minds so every time I post a thursday call or the build ogm call from tuesday I add it to the open global mind playlist that playlist is on the collective thought in my brain called all ogm call zoom calls oh I just good I just got the crash uh the brain 12 quit unexpectedly haha um so I posted there and so anybody could go look at the playlist and they would get all of the calls uh for each of the streams I got an I got an interesting email from somebody recently he said hey uh in in the in the spirit of openness and the common in the spirit of the commons you should probably untangle all these ogm calls from your private personal uh youtube account which is a great idea or at least youtube channel and then I realized oh one individual can have multiple channels on youtube and so there's like two different layers of questions there that I actually need to resolve um one of them is should I just in my own account create a new channel and separate out anything I might be posting because right now if I were to go create a video that has my personal opinion and whatever else uh it would just show up in the same mixed channel with all of the calls that I'm posting and posting right I think the other question is are you the only one who can download that video from youtube like and the second question is once this gets bigger and we have multiple people who are doing the uploads downloads whatever uh do I create a separate do I create a new youtube account and it's so that happens all the time where um so you're like an organization or non-profit can get a youtube account and then set up people as maintainers of it but then like I had to go through this I had to download all the old videos migrate them into the new one and set up the permissions and playlists yep yeah yeah nice uh three-day weekend project yeah exactly well the good news is since I'm just starting uh weaving the world maybe I can just start from scratch there and do this but there's kind of a difference here between creating a new channel in my own account to separate the streams versus setting up a new account actually I don't I don't think there is a difference when you're switching accounts in youtube and channels I think youtube generates a separate youtube the channels are separate the channels are as if you were a separate identity yeah and I don't know this yeah and then multiple accounts can be on a channel I think we might want to double check that and you and I can do that um do is there anybody in our community who'd know that off just off the top of their head I don't know okay to me that's a that's an interesting important operational question right now would Sam would Sam Han know that because I think he has a Sam Han and then he has a gcc maybe possibly uh don't I we're sort of looking for somebody who's who pretty deep into the workings of youtube and account management and all that kind of thing yeah I have eight actually youtube blocks me I'm only allowed to create a new channel every year so if you have a non-profit that would be the best way to set up a google for non-profits account and start you know signing permissions from there and I have I'm a fiscal sponsor of a non-profit and we haven't applied OGM hasn't applied to be its own non-profit yet so hopefully the sponsorship is enough but I don't know well if they can get a non-profit account maybe they could set up a sub channel in that account for OGM right let's get nice yeah I don't know I know yeah but these things got to be thought out up front yeah you get into a mess yeah exactly exactly um okay so keep holding these Wednesday calls yeah Jaya I think your question was about what do we do what what are the topics of the future calls are we still working on the generative commons agreement or do we want to make this a weaving the world or something else this we could easily repurpose this call into a weaving the world ops call does anyone disagree with that proposal and the in the feeling that weaving the world is a experiment in building the generative commons and that one of the things that weaving the world will do along its way is hopefully elaborate on the generative commons notion and etc but yeah and give us the experience to write that document because one of the challenges it was all kind of theoretical yeah now when we if we take the project then it becomes more solid so I'm good with that I'm good with like renaming this I'm good with creating a channel on the matter most for weaving the world ops that sounds great to me sweet sweet thank you great idea anything else for now there will be other calls as well so there's going to have to be shows right I mean like the shows are kind of like some of our standing calls except more produced with guests with whatever so those will happen and then I think but even deciding what those are going to be yes exactly well that's part of ops I think you think we'll fit it all in in an hour that's what I'm saying I don't I don't think that's enough time we're going to need artifacts in the commons that let us work asynchronously like the matter most chat and like some some objects that were you know some some documents that were busy for editing together or working on together um yeah I think this would be the main call and then I'll split off other calls like the technical calls and so part of what I'm enough time yeah part of what I'm trying to think through is let's pretend there's an episode where I interview a human and we have a really nice call do I then as part of the normal rhythm create a post call processing call where I and anybody who wants to show up and we just sort of mine what happened we just slow things down look back at the call and weave it and do the do the weaving so yeah so so the actual calls are to create materials to turn things over to do preliminary mapping etc etc and and one of the one of the things that I think Jim Ruff found really interesting was I don't approach anybody or any topic with a clean slate because most of it is already in my brain in some sense and then during the conversation if anything is mentioned like the meta currency project I just go oh look I've got the meta currency project in in in full glory here and so far as I can represent it and so before and so for me there's like three different phases of mapping from my own perspective there's the stuff I've already gotten the brain that's happened before including let's say we pick you know Joe Glow to be or Jane Doe to be the the the call a guest for next week I will do some prep work before during the call with Jane I will also be mapping live etc etc and then post I will be mapping and I want anybody else who wants to come in with whatever other tool to do the same thing and to put it in a place where I can link to it they can link to it we can sort of begin building the fungus together I have no desire to be the only mapper brainer notetaker or whatever I'm totally trying to foster a community of people to think together about these topics so I think that the post calls might be as important as the actual event calls so I think if you could define a workflow or and like with dig life I wrote up a protocol for video curation so I think what's useful is as soon as the call is over if you could upload it as an unlisted video and make it available for people to review and make their own get their gather their thoughts before having a meeting then people can start working on their own yeah connections and then bring it to the meeting and then the meetings also to decide like what segments to edit cut and paste or move and yeah what the show is going to look like so maybe it's a separate meeting yeah but yeah you just got to have a workflow in mind of how this is going to run and and on the one hand on the one hand I want to keep the editing of the show to a minimum as much as possible meaning it needs to have a nice looking intro and outro that that is sort of standard for every show we just sort of paste on the front and back but then but then on the other hand I would really love and this is one of the reasons to sort of instrument or augment the videos in somewhat interesting way that lets you go back to a tape this segment was really good and and YouTube just added a clips feature which I haven't which I haven't tried because it's easy to do an offset into X number of seconds into a video that's simple to do but but but a clip with a front and the back wasn't easy to do until I think now but I say all that because I'm very interested in people creating narratives across the video nuggets across across the different videos that say hey this minute and a half from this call added to this three minutes from this other call added to this thing from some other medium somewhere else makes a really really compelling argument that's very cool yeah and so I want to layer storytelling on top of the media we're creating and then maybe have a meta show about a story told from the show three three weeks ago or three months ago plus this other artifact you know hey I turned it into this let's do a show around that yeah you want to do yeah or you to next yeah right whatever it is yeah that's interesting that YouTube's coming to that point now yeah yeah it's interesting and so um so that I think is an interesting elaboration on the whole on the whole weaving the world thing and and the weaving I like a lot metaphorically because each of these things is sort of reusing materials weaving back uh weaving layers uh etc etc and and and all of these links back and forth are the weft the weft the warp and the weft uh of the fabric it's a multi-dimensional fabric sweet and and and I I I met a woman uh who does textile art uh just last week and or I discovered I met her like a couple months ago but discovered that she does textile art and she's like that was for masters and all that I'm like could we talk I need some images um and some imagery and some thinking around the weaving part of this um because there's a there's a lovely piece here which is and there's a couple projects that are that are really interesting to me here uh one of them is called the thousand trees or something like that and the other one is the story of oil and I have one of my backgrounds here is actually from the story of oil oh cool which is a I think biotapestry except it's the story of oil and it's a series of panels but the damn thing is some 20 meters long wow um and uh super interesting it's like this is this is textile art and storytelling right there yeah right um so I think there's a there's a theme here just just about the weaving and what does weaving mean with information um cool um this has been very generative great I will go repurpose this call and thank you all for your your lovely co-thinking on this and uh I'm excited okay thank you thanks out for now buddy thanks