 Good morning, Doug. Hi. Good morning indeed. Yeah. Yeah, here we go. The Campanile behind you how elegant. Yeah. You know, it's, it's hard to find a better background. Even though it was clear for a long time, then all of a sudden these little like copyright things started appearing on it. Like, I, you know, like some things like zoom detected that it, it wasn't a licensed copy, I guess, of the picture. Amazing. So how are you doing, Doug? Well, we got a minute or two here. Well, we're fine. You know, we've had incredible weather for the last three weeks or more. And, but then if you go out of ways, I mean, there's a lot of, a lot of people are in a state of mild panic. Yeah. I mean, just the sheer scale of suffering is kind of staggering. You know, and, and, and the diversity of suffering, I mean, fires. And, you know, in the past, when bad things happen, there was always a feeling you could get through it and come out the other side and the world would be back to sort of normal. Yeah, we don't have that expectation. Yeah. Yeah. Lost of normal. My goodness is the whole cocktail party I've fallen into. The bandwidth isn't big enough to share drinks. There you go. Well, soon. So matter compilers are on their way. Hopefully. Sometimes when I download the recording and watch it, one of you will be in here for like five minutes, just kind of. Waiting for the early birds. Pretty cute. Could we also get a D matter compiler, you know, like to take care of certain things that we gotten that we shouldn't have. I know, I know the problem is then what do you put in the T compiler? Yeah. And who gets to vote on that? Hey, Dave. Hey, everybody. Are those actual trees behind you? Genuine trees. No, come on. Do they still make trees? It's, it's harder and harder to find them. Haven't they all burned up? Yeah. Well, I've been Vermont. So that's the issue here. Yeah. Yeah. Still, still building them here. Beautiful. The wifi sucks, but the trees are still good. You have tree five. Yeah. Yeah, Vermont's having a hard time deciding whether it wants to go back to the 1880s or forward into the 21st century. So kind of like the Amish are moving here. So we have lots of horse drawn. Well, I believe the wifi demons are striking. Shoot. I wanted to hear more about the Amish. Dave, you're breaking up on us, Scottie. And we hope that you establish a better connection. Come back in. With that. Why don't we do a little. I heard a little snippet of Dave. You're back. Sorry. We lost like the last. 40 seconds of what you're saying after the after the Amish and there's lots of forces around. Yeah, right. So there we've, we've, we've got good Amish coverage and really bad wifi. Yeah. Cool. Do you want to check in quickly while you've kind of got it back. Sure. Sure. I'm still spending most of my, you know, relative reason, whatever, what a few productive cycles I've got to thinking about or working on the global regeneration co-lab, trying to figure out how to do a peer to peer support for regeneration change makers. I'm still feeling kind of encouraged by the general concept. There's a lot of people who would like to do productive things and, and, you know, they can be helped. Right. I mean, there's, it's, there's advice to be given and ideas and connections and things like that. And so part of the questions is a really a kind of a facilitation issue around what's the constructive way to do that kind of thing. Klaus has been doing amazing stuff with the, with the food systems analysis and kind of integrating the youth, the, you, the theory youth frameworks. You know, we've got people who are like putting out books and it's like, what do you do once you got a book out? How do you make it more impactful? I'm trying to figure out like we've, one of the things we've launched is this regeneration, speed networking. But please everybody join the regeneration speed, speed networking. It's like, you got to check the calendar. So we've been, you know, there's a couple of time slots and we have one Friday, like it's like two AM Pacific time, but it's good for Europe. If anybody's sitting in Europe. And the notion is loose ties, right? I mean, like we're trying to like pull together the, the regeneration network around the world and like have them at least loosely connected. So that things can start to flow. But I was trying to figure out how to do Google ads too, for that, you know, we get some free Google ads from the nonprofit. So we're trying to figure out how to do Google ads for regeneration pollination and to attract new, new networks. And I've managed so far to get 12 impressions up. So I clearly haven't figured out what like keywords to search on and stuff, which made me really wonder like what, how do we identify this broader community? I think, I think, you know, there's lots of us that I think are really overlapping on, you know, the same kinds of issues. We're rolling the same direction. Each other, how do we, you know, and I think a Google strategy is probably a pretty good one, but I don't know the term. So if anybody has any search engine optimization chops or interest in that general topic, it's something I'm definitely thinking about. Yeah. We have like a $10,000 budget, I think, from the nonprofit and I managed to spend 23 cents. But maybe it does regeneration pollination use up all your syllables for the text ad space. Oh, man, we just got Dave's check in under the wire there before the Wi-Fi, forest Wi-Fi demons struck again. Why don't we go. Craig died with Stacy for chickens. Hello, everyone. In a while. Yeah. The most interesting thing I've done in the last couple of months is the, and Michael is familiar with this is the so-called fundamentals course with the center for humane technology. My goodness. I've done several courses up through the years that I've been working, but never a course like that. It had such a personal impact on me. And I think it's, you know, it gets to it. I guess it's because to be able to develop software in a humane fashion, you have to dig deep into yourself and find everything that's good about you and your relationship with humanity in general. Figuring out what's the best way to build a functionality or to present to present functionalities in a user interface. A fascinating, fascinating education. Otherwise, I've done a lot of reading. I'm in the middle of the age of surveillance capitalism right now, which is, which is, which is this book that's a 19, 700 and something page book. She does not write short. No, she does not write short. But my goodness. Wonderful bedside. Wonderful bedside really. Yeah. I'm just the Marst in. In. Doing everything that I do. Better. Better for. You know, I saw a website today, I was pointed at one from a thing on LinkedIn, it's a, I'll find it and post the link, it's just an example of how bad a website can be. It's absolutely wonderful. When you get a moment, you don't have to do it now, of course, but when you get a moment, take a look at that website there, I just posted it in the chat and that will show you how bad websites can be. That's an example of the worst possible way to do things in terms of how a website experience affects a person. So the diametrically opposed versions of that which I just posted is what I've been busy with for a couple of months. I went through a rebranding of my own website from comms.global to nodknowink.com, which seemed like a great idea at the time. It gave me lots of fun, I learned a lot about colors and that was fascinating. So I learned about the frequent, the relationship between the frequency of colors which appear harmonious is the same relationship as those between sound vibrations which sound harmonious, exactly the same relationship. That was absolutely fascinating in building a new UI. But I recently dropped nodknowink.com and came up with heads up.social. So that's my new name for now and hopefully for evermore. Otherwise I'm actually here to listen to you guys because there's always such a lot of interesting stuff going on here. Thanks Greg. And I think I just found the course online at humaintech.com slash course, it says Fundamentals of Humane Technology, right? That's right. The official launch is on Monday the 13th of September. Oh, okay. So they haven't actually launched? No, it's been in development and Michael and I and a few others were invited to alpha test the pre-production of the course. So that's how come we've been through it. We got that in advance of everybody else, which also has a certain advantage. There's a little gamification there when you finish a module, you get a badge. So I've got eight badges stuck on my website and I can call myself an accredited humane technologist, which is nice. So everybody who doesn't know what that is, of course, looks at you like, you're a what? And then you have to try and explain something which is very, very deep and meaningful, which is not always easy. And can you give a tiny example of the ways you were reaching inside kind of the kinds of explorations they were asking people to do? Michael jumping to if you want to. Well, I don't know if I can pull an example out of my hat, but you have to consider when LinkedIn or Facebook keeps sending you notifications about somebody's birthday or somebody updated their profile picture or pointless, absolutely pointless shit. And you've got little red dots flashing on your screen and beeps on your phone. This is this is just a disturbing experience. And none of it has any real value for you. That would be defined as inhumane technology. So humane technology is more opt in rather than being already up to then and having to opt out. The website and application should show you only what you need, only what you ask for in the most unobtrusive way possible. It shouldn't disturb you when you're sitting working and you've got your phone beside you. You're focusing on your work. So you learn things like and in a course like that, you learn things like when you lose focus, when you get disturbed and you lose focus, it takes the average person on average twenty three minutes to get back into focus and then somebody's birthday and you have to start again and the quality of your work, the quality of your day, the quality of your life experience goes down time after time, after time, after time, after time. So we learn how to how to make software useful rather than exploitative and disturbing. Michael, do you want to talk to me? Yeah, I was just going to say that the the. I've pitched a little bit here about the Center for Humane Technology being primarily about what's wrong and not being proactive about what's right. And this this course really is prescriptive. It tends to be a little bit philosophical as opposed to and therefore a little bit political, but it's it's really got some good stuff. And I'm trying to I'm actually just trying to pull up some of the. I don't know if I still have the access I did to the whole course. But just to give you the sort of headings just to give you an idea of what's in it. It's. Sorry, just give you the. That's right. It's. Respecting human nature and looking at how technology can protect vulnerabilities. And then there's one called minimizing harm consequence harmful consequences. Do they have like a methadone chapter? Just about. You know, just telling companies how to address and reduce harmful externalities. We're talking about creative share, creating shared understanding, looking how to engender trust, narrowing inequalities. I mean, it really is very kind of broad based. Like let's make the world better through our tech experiences. And, you know, I. They're preaching to the converted with a lot of us, but I think it's worth it. And I think it's, it's very much geared to people who are already in the tech. It's geared to technology workers, many of whom they figure are going to be at companies who are not. Living these practices and that if they can instill these values in more of them, they'll be, you know, fomenting discontent with the way things are and pushing change that way. I think it's a good effort. Thank you. But it does try to be as prescriptive as possible. As Michael said, there is an awful lot wrong with social media and news media in general. So there's a lot to complain about and it is difficult to be prescriptive, but they've done such a deep dive over a couple of years, a whole, a group of very deep critical thinkers to develop this course. And so they're making a very good effort. The perception gap, Michael, the perception gap was particularly fascinating to me. The perception gap is the distance between what I think they are and what and how they define themselves. And what you find there is that about most people are about 50% of what they're doing is wrong in the way they consider the other group. So if you're on the left, you think the right, you think that the right is like this, that and the other, and they're absolutely not. They're very, very close to how you actually are. You just think that that's what they're like because of what you read on Facebook and what you see on the news and what you read, and what you see on the news sources like Writers. The more you read also the higher education you have and the more informed you are, the wider is your perception gap. It's amazing. The people who understand other people better are best are the politically disengaged. People that don't care what's going on in the world, they understand other people better than people who care a lot about what's going on in the world. Fascinating stuff. Julius Freyher, sorry, Paul Julius Freyher von Reuter put a desk by the telegraph in every European city and beat everybody else to the news. That's how Reuters became a thing. It was the telegraph. The telegraph has invented, he's the dude who says, I got to put somebody by that desk because that's where the news is going to spit out of and he's right. Just like CNN was the first to drop a camera like Calvin H civilization. Particularly at any place around the world and projected back through Atlanta. Anyway, thank you. Doug, Stacy, Michael. Okay. I've gotten involved in a project that has rely to do with trying to prevent war between China and the United States. That sounds good. Pretty. is, what does it feel like to live in somebody else's century? That's pretty powerful, actually, if you take it in. What I want your advice on is a project that I've gotten involved with, that has to do with trying to redo journalism. And we've come up with the idea of a website that would simply have across the top in little boxes links to the five key stories of the day. Under each link story would be yesterday's story about that topic. Underneath that would be the first story about that topic. Underneath that would be a book which is about the recent history that helps frame the topic. And underneath that would be a link to a book that gives deep history of the issue. And underneath that the last box would be what's the system's view of the issue. And so you might have six of those across the top coming down as columns. And the idea is to make it a resource to journalists and to congressional staff about the issue. What's striking about it is it's actually quite simple to do, not terribly expensive, and could be very powerful if it became a key resource to writers and congressional staff. Anyway, what do you think of that? Could you post the layers in the chat so that we can remember what layers you said? And then why should this just be for journalists? Why isn't this piece of how we might see educational resources? If it's successful, it would spread out hopefully, virally. But the idea is to develop deep background to stories and make people who are writing about the issue in a way accountable to deeper thinking about what they're writing about. Anybody else? Would you do this? How would you change it? Matt, go ahead. Good to see you. Hey, it's great seeing everybody. It's been a while, so I'm just popping in. Doug, I'd love to connect with you on this. I'm thinking about the same type of resource, not for policymakers, but for business decision makers. And so I think this is one of those areas that I'd be willing to talk about sponsoring and also putting some of our development resources behind. So let's talk. That's kind of my update. I went into the belly of the beast of one of my clients and have been slowly trying to bring some OGM concepts into that organization. And I got a really interesting comment from the CEO as I was starting to talk about this stuff, which is they said that they don't need any more information. They're swimming in information. They're overwhelmed by information. And of course, that was an immediate kind of shut down comment. And then I said, well, how much of that information is signal and how much of that information is noise? And they said, it's all noise. This is a frustrated kind of sigh. And I said, well, what if we can focus on increasing the signal of the information that you do receive? And in that process, narrow down the amount of kind of stuff that you have to weed through. And that was exciting. So Doug, I think what you've just done is you're saying, look, on this particular issue, there are six different topics. Each topic has, you know, news, you know, what happened yesterday and then, you know, where the origin and then kind of the layers, you know, the layers in which you can kind of move into at your own discretion and goes back into that humane technology piece, right? That the technology allows you to become immersed in these concepts without them bombarding you where you have to then filter through, you know, a tremendous amount of garbage. Now the question becomes, ultimately, and if I were, you know, sitting on the other side of your recommendation, I'd be like, who's curating this stuff? And what is their bias? And, you know, so what information are they filtering out because of that bias? It'd be interesting to see if you if you had one of these in the US, but you also had one of these in China, what would the two models look like and how different would those be from a cultural perspective? If you had them all, you know, be done by different, you know, age groups or different genders or different life experiences, I think you would get different views. So I think this idea of starting where you're starting makes a tremendous amount of sense. And let's and I would recommend not getting to the bigness that Jerry was recommending out of the gate, but holding that bigness as the destination. And so I'm working, I'm working similar fields only with in corporate America. And I'd love to start to JV something and get it off the ground. So let's let's seriously talk beyond this call. That sounds awesome. And Matt, I don't know that you've seen, but Pete has a project in OGM called emergent event sense making. Have you seen that? Okay. And a part of that is about about rapidly moving events, like, you know, the airport in Kabul, but and they picked the Delta variant. But a lot of this also is about how do you build context around that event so that you can ground it in history so that you can understand better what's going on. Actually, let me just for a second, let me undo how I've got my screen set up. Oh, there we go. Like as a full screen, share screen. Sorry about this. This is going to take me a second to get back to where I was. But undo. And share screen. Okay, then let me go go to my brain and show you history. Oops, probably helps if I spell it properly, but I can't see that. And I've got to spell history, right? So I watched a video about the history of Afghanistan. Oops, got to put an F in there. Sorry. I watched a video about the history of Afghanistan, which was really quite good. I'll put I'll put all this in the link. And so during that video, they named all of the sort of conquering empires that have come through. And so this is alphabetic, but the Abbasid Caliphate, the Achaemenids, the Amads, Alexander the Great came through for a while. Durrani was a whole series of rulers of Afghanistan, et cetera, et cetera. Timur is Tamerlane. There were three Anglo-Afghani wars. And you just sort of be like, wow, these people have never had that sort of peace and quiet for a stretch, where they were kind of on their own. And that just really struck me is all that to say that their local historic context and therefore the culture they've built. And there's a series of elements of Pashtun culture, including something called Pashtun Awali, I think, where one of the core values of Pashtun life is revenge. Like revenge. When something happens, there's payback. And you can hold that forever, like revenge lasts forever. But all those kinds of things that we may be sort of sensitive to, but not very are relevant to every action that takes place in those places if you're trying to do something. And that's just a microcosm in Iran, Afghanistan. And when you pick up corporate change and how information moves through organizations, there's all these layers of history and fear and whatever else, including all the stuff that Craig about in the conversation about humane technology and inhumane technology and how these things are busy beeping and squeaking at us when the news breaks. So sort of for the long depression. But I think context is really, really important. Go ahead, Michael. So I think it's sad but really interesting, Doug, to pull these things together and realize that in the clicking and beeping, when you're going after journalists and congressional staffers, the desire for depth of understanding tends to be so much backburner to, in the case of the congressional staffers, doing the things that are going to play well based on polling numbers. And in the case of journalists, things that are going to garner clicks, which are, in many cases, the basis on which they get paid. And I wonder if there's a way to acknowledge that truth in this. And along with the things that give you deeper understanding, contrast those with the things that are reinforcing of their particular political parties, talking points, polling well at the moment. So it just makes boldly clear the choice between truth and political desirability, in their case. And for journalists, the stories that are getting hits on this subject and how wrong they are, or superficial they are. So that they really do draw this. Because I'm just worried that the totally correct but thoughtful and academic approach doesn't really speak the language that they're forced to speak every day by the people that they're responsible to. It's just a sad worry. And I guess it was my check-in moment, too. Yeah, these are issues close to my heart. It's a funny moment. I just have been in conversations with people I know around deaf, of people that we worked with in the past, and in a couple of cases, people who were unexpected finds, who were special people who didn't present well in a central casting kind of way, who I was lucky enough to hire earlier in their careers, and I'm so glad I did. And I'm sad that they're no longer with us, but just moved by what they did with, I won't say the break that I gave them because they didn't really need me, but it just had me discussing with people the importance of looking on the surface of what you think you're looking for in people, in stories. It gets back to the thing that what's behind. If you dig, what can you find out? Sorry, that's sort of a garble of thoughts, but yeah, that's stuff that's on my mind. It's nice. Thank you, Michael. I'm sorry for your losses also. I remember before I went off to grad school, one of the reasons I went was that there was an alum from that school where I worked, and he at one point said, oh, I'm so glad you got in. You'll notice when you get there, there's like the cool folk and the not so cool folk, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. And that kind of sort of parked itself in the back of my mind. And then I realized like maybe toward the end of my first year, I realized that whatever was presenting, the people who looked uncool were the people who would sit with you for a couple hours and help you work through a problem or pick you up and take you some, or were composers and would sit at the piano all day and make beautiful music that everybody had coolnesses and things that were going on and that they were just often sort of hidden or masked or whatever. But just seeing the beauty in the genius in everybody matters a lot. Let's go John Allison, Mark, Mark Tebow first. Go ahead, John. Okay, thank you. It's kind of schitzy in terms of plugging into the discussion and doing the check-in and connecting back to Michael's last point. So I'm going to start the ended. This is this last week is the first time I've had to wear full PPE in order to interact with people on active COVID. And that's a very sobering experience. And I also discovered this week that people who I knew, and they're like third or fourth layer away from me, but people who I worked pre-COVID and really hadn't seen since COVID. And then we got back together and I've found out that someone, the partner of someone who I had worked with had died and I had no idea, you know, and it happened like six months ago. And so it's that kind of shocking, whoa, you know, reset yourself, reconsider, you know, what are you doing? Why are you doing it? And how does, you know, what are you going to do about all this? So that was some of what was going on this week. Then to come back to the practical, if you will, and the point, I mean, Doug's initial idea and the observation that it might not be as easy as it sounds or it might be subject to, you know, questions about the bias associated with the selection. And it strikes me that it gets harder as you move down. In other words, to say, oh, here's the story for today, here's yesterday. That's less controversial. But the further down you go, the more controversial it gets. And I don't know that this is an answer. I would really love to explore this further. I'd love to work with Doug and anybody else on it. I'm not sure that my idea about the side by side, here's this view. Here's the same data presented with an entirely different point of view. You know, that that's also problematic. Having a little arrow, like an in the brain arrow that says retribution view, you know, or resentment, you know. I mean, I laugh at that. I think, oh, yeah, I'd like to see that arrow. Let's see what the person who is pissed about this is saying, okay, you know, but I mean, you know, in other words, we need more work on how to gracefully and graciously incorporate a variety of things that are affecting how we code the support of information and how it feeds up. I think paradoxically, you know, I think it's easy at the beginning, then it gets very hard. And then finally, when you get way down to like these big galactic views, it suddenly gets less controversial again. You know, if you're going to quote deep history, well, you know, from a 5000 year perspective, how does this look smaller, smaller than I thought. Okay, so that's my view and my check in. And thanks, John. It seems to me also that the layers, the layers may be different depending on your context, depending on your goal, and exploring those layers and how the layers are manifest is a great piece of our mission. It's like, how do we find our way to highly functional layers for different sorts of activities? If you're an intelligence agent trying to figure out what's happening on the ground right now at the airport in Kabul, which before this call, I saw that there was a bombing. And I don't know much more about what's happening, Eric. But you need different sort of things at hand than you do when you're trying to make a strategic decision for, you know, a corporation or a social decision for a community. But how do we leave things at hand so that they're easily available and easily useful? Cool, thank you. Let's go, Allison, Mark Tebow, Mark Karanza. I'm not mic'd as I thought it was. You're good. Yeah, right. Good morning. Schools began. And so I'm a bit distracted with that and trying to set things up. But feeling really well. And right now, my goal is to be is to be communicating, well, connecting with folks so that I can design my curriculum to teach the basic design principles of economics that do reflect the patterns of nature and history. So there's, there's a lot that hopefully I can, I can develop in written format and maybe folks in this group would be interested and willing to provide some feedback as a fodder for whether or not some of those ideas resonate and make sense. I look at it as I think I've said before, relational design thinking, but yeah, that would be fun. So I appreciate just being here and hearing you guys. That's that's it for me. And do you envision doing this as a series of blog posts as an essay, as a video you would shoot as a drawing, a combination of the above? Like what's your favorite mode for expressing these things? Oh, thanks for asking, Jerry. I'm tending to be trying to write them out as sort of blog posts right now. But yeah, that can be a way I can share with you. Developing my curriculum in a way that's comprehensive enough to gain some approval from the Solidarity Economy Networks and hopefully others. Oh, cool. Yeah, thanks. There's a bunch of experienced bloggers in this community. And there's also a whole bunch of materials about Solidarity Economy and new models of economic thinking and how these things work. I mean, there's there's an embarrassment of riches in terms of other people's materials in the world. There is an embarrassment of riches. Yeah, it's true. And so, you know, being on the board and being part of the networks already internationally and seeing curriculum, it is easy like was already mentioned to get overwhelmed by by information. And so, so looking at it more like a thinking process, I find that there's lots of tools and lots of do this and do that. But what is the intersection between anyway, I don't want to ramble, I just just sharing that stuff. Yeah, thanks, Jerry. Thank you. And we'd be happy to like put stuff in the chats, bring it up on Thursday calls, wherever you'd like, and steer us toward these things and we'll, I'm sure you'll get feedback. And I'm especially interested in historic narratives of different kinds, whether it's economic or social or whatever, but but like how we put together what happened when and to whom and how to be in the world, those are like clearly important stories to tell and propagate. I see, I see, I see human history as a battle between narratives. Yeah, yeah, really was been enjoying Jeremy Len's work with the pattern instinct and and trying to write such things along the lines of helping to influence designers and students and teachers like I kind of have a theory right now that I want to express about the gold as we're trying to design our ecosystems or economic ecosystems like Bitcoin and things like that. And a lot of people are talking about the value of getting back to stability of gold currency and all this wild spending that governments have just how that has been never ever serving anybody, certainly not the rivers that are being dredged, certainly not the people that have been touched neither the places that have stolen and taken the gold have benefited or the places that have been stolen from. But nature has this beautiful way of this trickle up theory is kind of how I look at it. It's a trickle up theory of gold that these reservoirs exist beneath and they come to the surface in little bits. So how do we value that, that beauty that's kind of like the perfect, the perfect amount that's just that's given all rivers and waterways have little bits of gold and little flux of it. So noticing those kinds of natural designs the same way that wampum has been created that would just wash up on the shore, cyclically. And I think that those are interesting patterns to notice throughout nature and bring them for designs. Absolutely. Is that your reference? Can I just... The book was The Patterning Instinct by Jeremy Lent. I put the link in the Mademois Chat. I can also paste it in the Zoom chat. Thanks, Jerry. That's great. Yep. And Allison, we had talked a little bit about doing some of the stuff in the GRC and I'd still love to do that if it's interesting to you. I mean, just the amateur on the economist, but I'm really interested in is there regeneration already in modern economics or is it something that's been missed or is it like re-framing some of the stuff that's already there and how do we change the economic focus to kind of represent why aren't we trying to create abundance more often with economics, things like that. So anyway, I would love these conversations. Thanks, David. I'd love to make space for that too. I'll email you again about that. And right now there is a project that I'm trying to work on with Intact and Songs of the Earth, a project to bring attention to conserving our primary forests. Obviously, you know, that's through music. And I think that that'll be a neat chance. So that's the design goal right now. Mm-hmm. Should you decide to slide over to silver? Silver has had fascinating effects on global trade and world effects. One of the large things that I didn't realize until recently reading about it was that China had two kinds of currency, copper and silver. And the silver currency was the one they really, really wanted in motion, but they had mined out all their silver. So China really, really needed silver from any place. And China didn't want anything that Europe made. So the Silk Road opens and Europeans are like, oh my God, oh my God, silk, gunpowder, spices, paper. This is awesome stuff. Porcelain. Wow. And China's like, do you have any silver? And so the like two thirds of the mountain of Boto Si in Bolivia gets shipped to China. And doesn't cross the Atlantic. It crosses the Pacific. It goes up the coast and goes straight across and they meet outside the Philippines. And there's like a little, there's a fleet that comes out from Fujian or somewhere in China, on the coast in China, that becomes the silver center, trading center for China. And they come out to the Philippines and there's sort of this meeting place, I forgot what it's called, which is where the Gallians meet the junks and all of that starts to happen. But enormous amounts of silver make their way around the world in this huge sort of clockwork puzzle of economic. And by the way, you do not want to be a local native in Boto Si. Exactly. I was going to say how with more death and destruction have happened over time than any other place in Boto Si becomes the wealthiest city in South America and the most horrible place to be a local. It's just, it's just devastating. Absolutely horrifying. Yeah, to say wealthy is kind of a wealthiest place in any way. What are we measuring with that? Just how much money is being extracted and pulled out of there, but not that right now it's not at all. Spain post all of the gold ravaging was destroyed economically. And so, and anyway. Such fun world history and economics. Let's go Mark Tivo, Mark Caranza, and then Eric. Yeah, good morning everyone. Good morning. He said it's economics. I'm wondering about two subjects that we touch on. News and values. I think before values, there is again, you know, embodying what we see. So if we see beauty in nature, we need to embody that before valuing it. And as far as the news cycle or information and being bombarded by different type of information, I think the time that there's something that is missing is the context. So to what Doug and Matt were talking about referencing to, there's probably something where we could trace the origin of the news or the origin of the story and contextualize that and every point that comes after that. Because what you were talking about, for instance, about Afghanistan is not very, nobody knows, really, that this country has been invaded so many times. And the culture that lives there is one that is, you know, blood culture. You smell blood. You owe something. But there is a process there. It's not like automatically you need to kill a member of the other family. You have a process. But anyways, what's your thinking of that? Because part of the work that I'm doing, what I have been doing, is also on these very specific issues of understanding and making sense of what is happening in the world and why it tends to repeat itself all the time. And I was reading an article about the fall of Kabul and what generals have been or pundits or politicians have been saying since Vietnam, oh, this will never happen again. But it keeps happening. So there is a reason why it keeps happening. You know, we can go back to Einstein definition of insanity. Right. So interesting. There's a whole, not discipline, but a whole thread on lessons from history. And there's a bunch of books titled something like lessons from history and all of that. And one of the lessons from history that I remember is that we often reach back in history to the wrong examples, the wrong precursors. And we reach for the nearest one. We're like, oh, it's just like that. But actually, there's a better example a little further back in a different context that actually fits your current situation better. And, you know, if only you could learn. And then totally different thread is just how sort of insanely adaptable humans are and how quickly we forget stuff. We just forget stuff. And I think it was on last week's check and call. I'm not sure. But somewhere we talked about, I think I brought up the F 35 fighter, which is, which is like, there's a famous guy named John Boyd who invented the oodle loop and energy maneuverability theory and a bunch of other stuff who should be spinning in his grave at like 3000 RPM. Because this is this expensive, stupid vertical takeoff fighter exists in the world after he figured out a bunch of stuff we were no longer paying attention to. And so you'd think that we wouldn't get mired in a long war in Asia somewhere. But hey, we just, you know, we lather rinse repeat, apparently. And so much of this is really about power dynamics and so much that has to do with trust and information and belief systems and all of that. So these are all intertwined. Yes. And also, you know, the, the state of apathy that we fall into by being bombarded with, you know, all these news all the time, all these catastrophes and crises and thinking that, well, you know, whatever do what, what do you want me to do? Whatever I do, it won't change. I've been trying to be playing myself to that, but nothing changes. Well, things change, we know that. But when it comes to these big events, and we've been facing climate change for how long, how long we've been aware of that, what has happened, what has happened with pollution, destruction of nature, et cetera, et cetera. We know it's wrong, but there's not, you know, it's not moving quick enough at least to stop. Yeah. I mean, even in our lifetimes though, we've seen insane change. Just think of the internet, right? Think of your life in 1990 and your life today and the connectivity you sense, the tools at hand, all the other, you know, moving parts of it. And in 1990, we had sort of basic computers, but there was there was kind of no notion of all this hyper abundance of information of all those kinds of things that was not, you know, not on our roadmap. And that has been deeply transformative in good and bad ways. The Center for Human Technology is trying to plum and reverse the bad ways. But man, like I remember going to libraries and leaking through card catalogs and then like crossing my fingers that the book I had just found was actually in the stack, right? And then finding a book in a stack and then hoping the photo copier worked. And then wondering how much it was going to cost. Did I have enough dimes along to run the copier, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. It's like really like seriously. And today, you know, this morning before getting on this call, I did a lot more than that every three minutes. Anyway, anyone else want to ponder these conundrums here? I was disturbed by a Facebook meme the other day. It's been the one about like, you know, 1980 is as close to 1939 as 2021. Well, so I'm 61. So 1960 when I was born is as close to 1899 as it is to 2021. And it's just kind of obvious, but it really bugged me, you know. And it's weird, right? 1890. If I'd lived one life earlier, you know, I'd be excited about airplanes just launching. I don't know. It's just funny. Thank you. Yeah, exactly. Okay. Yeah, I was just reflecting that there's like a fundamental conflict between the fact that we are competitive individuals, reminded of the Greek word for I, which is ego. So conflict between that premise and the fact that if we actually contribute to something, whatever it may be, then that thing will change. But if we go in and just want to extract, it won't change. It'll be the same, but it'll be less, less of itself. So why do these things keep on happening, Mark? Who knows? I certainly don't know, but it seems to me that if addressing a topic, if you come with a contribution rather than an intention to extract something for yourself, then things might move in the right direction. So the question then in terms of my quest to develop a social media, which truly aids humanity, is how to amplify, how to inspire people's appreciation of the better outcomes of being contributive in contrast to the personal gain derived from extraction? How to reverse that paradigm is what occupies my tiny brain. Along the same lines, I think one of my questions is what replaces the invisible hand in our minds? And replace invisible hand with your favorite dysfunctional meme right now, but one of the tenets of modern economics is that you can act in your greedy self-interest and it's okay, read is good, said Gordon Gekko, because it's invisible hand sorts it all out and creates equilibrium and prosperity. And it turns out that that's kind of a bogus idea, but we don't have a good replacement narrative, which is a really nice TED talk that I brought up by George Mambao a couple of our calls ago. He talks about how the neoliberal narrative replaced the Keynesian narrative, and then progressives showed up with no new narrative. And so I'm really curious, 200 years from now, could either have a dysfunctional future or a very highly functional future. Let's presuppose the functional future, what will be the stories that occupy our heads, that are presuppositions about humans, human nature, human collaboration, how we build society, what matters, all of that. And everything from Avatar, the movie, to what have you, to modern monetary theory or whatever, our attempts to dislodge and replace those narratives or something, Wakanda forever. If 200 years from now, what we're saying is Wakanda forever, I think we will have maybe a better world. I don't know, but I'm not sure that one's going to be the one that catches on. Although I felt my chest and say Wakanda forever. Yeah, I'm always wondering, Jerry, and thank you, Peg. I'm always wondering if there is something in the way we contemplate these issues that is missing. Because we say if, if that would be, then, you know, perhaps, I think a lot of things have been tried. So when we look at all these human related issues, we cannot help but have issuing a judgment and opinion on what it is to be human. And I know we spoke about it once in our conversation, where back then the story was that homo sapiens sapiens ended the megafauna. We annihilated the megafauna just like oof. And this story keeps on repeating. And at the end, 2021, we're still seeing the human being as someone who is super destructive. And the alternative is what? In the framing of one story, whether it is one Afghanistan or the virus that we're experiencing today, there is only one story that we accept whether or not it's true. So back to the news cycle and the information that are available out there. How do we extract what is what? What is really relevant to the issues that we face as humanity? Thanks, Mark. Let's go to Mark Caronza, Eric, Julian and me. Good morning. Good morning. There's a lot going on. First, I am immunocompromised and I got a lab core slip from the leukemia and lymphoma society to go get tested to see of the immune response in my body to the vaccine. Four weeks after the last Moderna vaccine back in April, my response was 36. And now it's down to four, which is interesting. A 250 should be a good response to the spike protein vaccine. So that's going down. My B cells have been compromised by the Dr. Seuss named medicine, Rituximab. Who did that? Sorry? Who thought of that? Who thought of that? Well, we could go on about band names or names of pharmaceuticals and shortle for a while. But I am back at work at the Internet Archive. I posted some interesting thing about the iSchool at UC Berkeley. So the iSchool has Craig, Michael, Matt, been forever. All their students have been interested in automating things like back checking and basically trying to discover automatically through language engineering, the types of greater context that can be applied to journalism. This has been going on for years. I encourage you to take a look at a lot of things that have already been done in this sphere. And certainly the design has never been very interesting or effective yet. So good luck with that. It's a very difficult problem to basically say, you know what? What do we need to know? There's a notion of knowledge engineering, which is defined as getting the right information to the right people at the right time. And that's business through society. What have you? What triggers me? And it was an interesting trigger. You know, Neil's last call, this notion of a catastrophe, it really triggered me. And I started to look through things. And I found an interesting topic, something called moral injury, which is when somebody, when your values are violated. And I've never heard this topic before. And I talked about it with Ken Homer. And I found this moral injury workbook, which I'll post later. And I'm taking a look at it and it points to moral injury that you've done to other people and how you heal from that. Because we've all made mistakes, certainly many. But also, you know, we live in this climate of, you know, my God, what Trump did to basically push the bounds of what he could get away with, and what nobody would stand up to stop him in some effective way. I feel injured from that morally. And it's affected my life. And it's interesting that that kind of feeling I got from the last OGM call as well, about this kind of catastrophe feeling like there's a rush to solutions, an emotional appeal that just kind of said, bam, no, that's not right. You know, why am I here? What's going on here? It led me to ask questions. So the last thing would be, you know, the Internet Archive has been working on bits in for 25 years and it's having its 25 year reunion. We are this year. And recently, it switched to bits out, attempting to become the Internet's library. And I'm on the bits out team. But what I'm really fascinated by, as a amateur epistemologist, as somebody who focuses on the aesthetics of knowing the art of epistemology, what are bits through minds, not bits in, not bits out, but what is actually happening when we know, and when we communicate each other's. And the last trigger is, as I've said this before, I do not think that society is a conflict between narratives. I think narrative is very, very thin layer of our human cognition. It's a very conscious layer. But you have to look at the notion that consciousness is the, just the skin on top of all the depth that we come through from evolution and our unconscious, where, you know, this is just the peach fuzz on what's possible in cognition. I do not look at stoplights as narratives. I do not look at war as narrative. I think that the focus on narrative is kind of an epistemological disease. I work on that. I don't have any good sources yet. I don't think that many people are looking at this. But based on what I've read from people like Gregory Bateson, especially, that we have to look beyond narratives. There's a mind in nature that's deeper than narrative. And we need to connect with that kind of systems and science and what these cyber netizens were trying to get us to see. That's very difficult to see relations rather than objects, verbs rather than dance. That's my check-in. Thanks. So Mark, I agree with everything you just said. And maybe, and I'd love to play out this conversation more at a different call or something like that too, because I think this is an important topic. And I think my shorthand of human history as a battle of narratives is a cynical shorthand for we've been fighting over the peach fuzz like idiots for a long time when reasonable humans would begin to understand how deeply interconnected we are. We would absorb, you know, like everything you just said, yep, check, check, check, love Gregory Bateson. And there's like Indigenous communities around the world that hold understandings of how and cosmologies. The peach fuzz, Eric, is just the thinnest layer on the outside of the peach that isn't really the peach essence or the matter or the nourishment of the peach or any of that kind of stuff. And so, Mark, everything you said, totally agree. My cynical, sad observation is that if I scroll back through history, it's like, God, damn it. Here is like those duck people. Those duck gods are evil. They're horrible. Like, you know, oh, the rabid people, the rabid people are just terrible to eat their young. And this is just like lather rinse repeat. And then history is also the story of tyrants or demagogues or other people convincing everybody that those are duck people. Right. And that takes a lot of work. That takes a lot of effort, but it wins you treasure, territory, status, gains, et cetera, et cetera. And we just keep doing that to each other over and over again. Matt, please jump in. I just wanted to bring in some language. I can't remember the name of the individual who kind of has written a lot about culture and culture being a manifestation of our belief sets, right? I'm a few more bars. I'm pretty sure we can land on the person for you. Right. So that beliefs dictate your behaviors and those behaviors are codified in your symbols and your signs, right? I think it starts with an O in the book that I'm referencing. And I spend a lot of time in this place. And I think about this moral injury piece, Mark, that you're talking about. And another individual that was a part of a lot of the negotiations between Ireland and England and kind of came up with this notion of our sacred beliefs, right? Our sacred beliefs are the beliefs that sit at the heart of the way that we see the world and we act upon the world, right? Jerry, you mentioned a sacred belief, whether it's true or not, within the culture of Afghanistan, which is the sacred belief that revenge is something that must be taken, whether it takes a hundred years or a thousand years or a million years, it must be taken because that is what is right. So I think this moral injury in some ways is an affront to somebody's sacred beliefs. And narratives are really the symbols and the signs are the mechanisms in which we codify or try to express those beliefs. So you're right, they are just the epidural of what lives beneath. And so if you're going to change behavior, people actually have to rewire their mental models and their belief sets. And those sacred beliefs are the hardest ones to rewire. And so I spent the weekend with my parents, very different sacred beliefs set than mine, how that happened, I'm not sure. But as much as someone from maybe this call or from the left would say, look, Trump created moral injury, a sort of PTSD. They, my parents would say, no, that's not true. It's the opposite. It is the vilification of Trump that is creating moral injury. It is the disregarding for what he actually did, not his show. And I think that that's interesting because it shows that there is real tension deep within how we view and see the world. And yeah, our narratives kind of express that, but I think you're right, this isn't a battle of narratives. I think maybe we elevate it to that point now because that's what everything's been turned into, right? And not even real narrative, like micro narrative. But I'm wondering if you started to peel back and go to the sacred, you know, people's sacred beliefs. I think someone did, it was a silly article in like Vanity Fair years ago that talked about the left and the right and they took all of the belief sets of the left and the right and they lined them up and they realized that the axes wasn't this way, it was actually that way. And so I think even that narrative left versus right, just like we have narrative of globalism versus localism, and I'm going back to Doug, some of the things you introduced me to with that French philosopher. Latour, right? I mean, I think there's like a that the existing orientation is what's throwing us off, right? Sorry about that. I just, I was just saying like we've gone, we've run at this thing over and over and over again. And I think the problem is we're running after it at the same orientation. And that orientation is even, even climate change, our orientation might be wrong. You know, because maybe climate change is what human beings need to get off this planet, to stop. And so that's kind of this weird reorientation, that this is Mother Nature telling us that we have failed ourselves as a species. And it's time for us to pay the consequence in a big, in a big material way. So I just wonder about, I just wonder about at the end of the day at the core where, you know, where, you know, where are we? And I, you know, if you start, I always wanted to analyze all the religious texts in the world and say, okay, if you had to distill these religious texts down to the 10 sacred beliefs of these religious texts, or every government document, you know, Magna Carta Constitution, you know, Mein Kampf, whatever it is, and you go down to the true sacred beliefs, I bet you they're pretty common. It's just that the narratives are, and the expression of those beliefs are, are where everything gets, you know, muddled because of our own individualism or tribalism or whatever ism we want to, we want to reply to it. I don't know. Just a thought. Bocconanism. Thanks, Matt. I posted, I pasted in the Mademois Chat, Joe Cox's quote, Joe Cox was the MP who was stabbed to death just while she was out on the hustling is talking to her constituents in London. And she just, she said, we are far more united and have far more in common with each other than things that divide us, which was what she was running on. And then I reposted a video that Ken had shared and there's a whole genre of these videos where they bring people out who stand in different rectangles because these are the sports fans and these are the Goths and these are the retirees. And then they just ask a bunch of questions. And the first question often is, who was the class clown? So step forward if you were the class clown. And it turns out somebody from all the rectangles steps forward, et cetera, et cetera, but they're beautiful, really moving exercises to help us understand that how much we have in common. And so much of what seems to work is like finding commonality over food, over music, over dance or whatever, those things that are away from the political realm tend to help a lot. And then crisis either drives us together or breaks us. So you'll find a lot of community in very poor places because everybody has to rely on everybody else. And you'll find a lot ofonomy and boredom in very wealthy enclaves because nobody depends on anybody else. And you can phone in all your services and you can hire all the contractors you want to do everything. And then of course you need security and then you need, et cetera. So we've come into a strange place in the world and we're all trying to puzzle our way through, which is one of the things I appreciate about these conversations. Mark, I'd love to just hear a teensy bit more about bits out. And I think bits in means let's absorb and record everything and store it and make it available for everybody. Sounds great, totally intuitive. Bits out could mean anything. And it sounds like it's in the formative stages, but I'd love to just hear a little bit more about what you guys think of. Certainly. So before I joined the Internet Archive, the focus was on how do we preserve and archive world's information for future generations. And certainly the link I posted for Cliff Lynch of the UC Berkeley High School, his every Friday seminars that he's been doing for, gosh, probably close to 20 years, he's been focused on this kind of archivization of information, especially digital archives. So his claim of maybe the web archiving meme is over is possibly a very interesting talk this Friday, open to everybody. Bits out is, I work as a UX designer and software developer at the Internet Archive. And I will claim our website sucks, our search engine sucks. And boy is it damn difficult to navigate the political people above me. I'm a very peon person and a very uncool person at the Internet Archive. And I'm in the weeds. I'm doing the bit wrangling. My image of my job is the guy with a wrench in Metropolis kind of going, you know, trying to grab this bit and work it over here. Bits out is about how people get to the bits that are in the Internet Archive, how people can access that incredible mass of information that's there that we basically call, you know, a broken drop box, you know, anybody can upload something to the Internet Archive and we will host it forever for free. That's great. What does that mean in terms of access to that information? How do we provide what the Internet Archive's motto is universal access for people who have print disabilities, print people have cognitive disabilities, people who are, you know, have attitudes as, you know, different coming from different political, which kind of frame their ability to access in some way. How do we how do we give access to all of these bits? That's a very difficult and interesting problem. And that's the problem that the Internet Archive has shifted to, rather than being, you know, the web record. The web's memory kind of. The web's memory. And hooray, hooray that we're doing that, hooray that, you know, the infrastructure is there and, you know, and the many things that are going on there. There are many archaeologists of the future who are grateful. Hopefully. I am worried about the Taliban basically taking this information and sorting through it and trying to find people who they don't like and going out and kill them. What are you about that? That's a tough question. Anyway, I hope I answered your. That was really lovely. Yeah. And I think it gives us a lot of food for thought. And I think we look forward to your check-ins about how that's going, like what you uncover. It's a very OGME project. So I like, I love it. Sounds great. And my, my, give my love to Brewster and Mark Graham and people like that. Eric, then Julien, then me. Okay. I was just trying to figure out how personal to make this one. I, so I noticed trying to figure out, I'm doing use cases, meaning I'm trying to look at how the way I imagine organizing information will work for different use cases. Doing that, I, my mind is in a state where it's very hard to feel well being. So it takes so much from my system that it's very difficult to keep track of other things I've been doing. It's kind of a hyper focused. I bring in so much information at the same time. But it's also all the insecurity. I've been working on this for 15 years or something. That's a long time. It's a long stretch. And I've, I've kind of left a life as an artist. I could have been a great dancer. I could have been a great musician. I could have been a great body work therapists or normal therapists. Plenty of other things probably. And I decided to do this crazy project. I guess I'm not the only one, but I really do notice how it's like, okay, yesterday I did about three hours of research or something. And then it just trains my mind and my energy. And I can see if I look back into my life, I can see just the exact same thing happening again, again, again. And if I put it in a depressing statement would be like, I could have been happy, but I decided to do this. But it's not that simple because for me, if I can make this work, it's so deeply meaningful that it's maybe all worth it. And there's moments where I really have realized, this is actually the right thing to do. But then when I get so tired and when my energy is so low, then I feel like, oh, I don't want to do this. And I think one of the things I miss is just a team, but not a team online, not this kind of square screens next to each other called Zoom or whatever. I really would love to find real people in real life where that can help me tackle these things. Because I know if I do that, then it becomes so much easier. Trying to tackle this in my mind alone, it's so tiring. I have to convince me, it takes me several days where I don't have energy to do almost anything. I try to have a walk and then maybe I'll enjoy it again. Okay, now I enjoy it again. So it's for me, I'm just searching like how to do this. Because if I can make this happen, it doesn't need to take a lot of time before it really works or something. And I'm talking to people, I'm talking to different people in this space about it, I think. Some of them not there now, but the OGM people, let's say. Which space, Eric? Which space? What is the project you're working on? So I work on, let's say an online and offline network. I work on knowledge management and collaboration. But I try to organize it in a way that's so simple to be able to use it on a mobile phone. But it can hold any kind of complexity. And it can also really focus and organize information in terms of, okay, this NGO in Afghanistan is doing this project in this country, in this city. And they need this and this help. And just anything almost, trying to organize, create a system where people can work together on any kind of issue, any kind of complexity, any kind of scale. And like information architecture wise, I think I'm almost there. Or if I have a team of people where I can research, it will be there. It's just doing by myself is so tiring. Anyhow, it's an online and offline network. Basically, a mixture of the brain, wiki, to-do list applications. But kind of a, like, dragged it down to the simplest form it could have to make it work for a huge amount of people working together. Also using the channels that already exist. Depending on the wheel. But there's a lot of layers. So it's hard to summarize this, but I do my best. So Eric, I've been working on this, what you say, alone since 1984. 35 years, something like that. Keep going. You got a while. 1984. It's a good day, though. So, you know, certainly I'd love to connect. I study semiotics and semiosis. A lot of the philosophy and a lot of the, basically, what is the origin of meaning and how meaning gets created from communication. There you go. A book I've never seen. Too bad. You have nothing in common. Yeah, we have nothing in common, exactly. Yeah, I'd love to have a talk with you. Keep going. And yeah, please, please. It would be nice to have just a basic amount of money and a basic team to go with it. And I think we can maybe form it together with people here in the room. I hope to do that. I hope to do it effectively so we can roll it out before the world burns. But I don't know, there's a joke and there's a heavy statement. But yeah, thanks. That's my share. I make the joke that my hobby is working at the Internet Archive to basically pay for survival. And thank goodness for things like disability and health insurance, because, damn it, it helped me survive. Mark, let's have a talk, one of these two weeks, but in two weeks. Great. So, Eric, first, I hear you loud and clear. I feel like just another you and another Mark Karanza, because I've been doing a similar sort of thing. And I have not found a ride like the Internet Archive, which is a fab, I really love the archive and what it's doing. I think it's a mission, underrated mission to sort of preserve mankind. Much more important to me than like the spaceships trying to get us off this rock. But Eric, multiple times in multiple conversations, we've been like, okay, how do we build resources around people like Eric who digested the world and have a bunch of great ideas about how this all fits? How do we make that actually work? And how do we fund that? And I'm in this, I keep getting stuck on sandbars pitching OGM so that we can get some funding around projects that you could be part of, that others of us could all be part of, that would then put together some of the piece parts of this larger mosaic that is kind of how do we make sense of the world, right? And I'm like remarkably in the same place as you are. I don't have the energy problem that you have. I'm not drained by working on this, but I'm also like a little hamster in the habit trail. And I'm close to like, I'm seriously endangering my second marriage by this obsession of mine. So things are like not good at all right now on that front. And I'm still trying to figure out how to make things click in place. And so it would be lovely to figure out how to put these things on the rail so that we can all take these ideas we've thought of, massage them into each other. Because I think it's not so much about each of us manifesting everything all by ourselves. It's about how do we create this generative commons idea. So anybody interested Wednesday mornings at 7am Pacific, we have a series of calls called the generative commons that have been really generative calls. Stacey's on them all the time, Michael's on them all the time. A few of the rest of you drop in and through. But that's a place also to talk about this. But we sort of like Brewster just took it into his head to save like all the stuff we're doing. We need to then weave what we're learning and what we're doing into some kind of context that preserves different people's opinions so that they can represent what they know. And so that they feel heard by the others who are busy looking at, oh, you think that? Right. But that contrast and comparison idea is super important for the progress of civilization. Anyway, and that's kind of why we're here. And it's been really bumpy for 18 months. It's been super fun, but really lumpy and bumpy. And I'm still trying to make this thing work. And a link to the calls of Wednesday, I find where? There's a generative Commons Mattermost channel. You're on the Mattermost, right? Okay. So there's a channel for that. And the calls are on Wednesdays in my Zoom. So I'll make sure that for next Wednesday, you get a heads up. And I'll post that channel in the channel that we're in right now and on the Zoom in a second, right after I turned it over to Julian to check in. But you're not done. Keep going. I don't know. See you there. Thanks, chair. Perfect. Thank you. Julian. Oh, I think we just lost Julian. No, we didn't. Okay. I had to switch because the gardeners next door came early. So I'm good. See, mine is pretty brief. I'm still following up on the SIGGRAPH conference from two weeks ago. A lot of things came about because of that. And but now I'm able to get back to work. And my objective in the next couple of weeks is to streamline flow between the brain and the SIGGRAPH digital library and a graph database and my bleeding edge visualizer. So I'd like to have that really be able to move information between all of those and then get back to the issue of what Eric was just talking about and Mark is like, how do you get to that stuff? It's not just bits out. But the fact that humans aren't really utilizing their capabilities because we are so constrained to this idea of a screen and the keyboard and the mouse and humans can do way more than that. So in a week or two, I'd like to take a few minutes and talk more in depth about that and even show some stuff. That sounds awesome. That sounds great. I think we made it through everybody who wanted to check in. Let's go ahead, Mark. I haven't seen you on Mattermost. Your work sounded really interesting a long time ago when you introduced it. Yeah, it's still on my list to contact you and have a nice in-depth chat. Please, please do. SIGGRAPH got in the way because I had to do some really heavy stuff during the conference. SIGGRAPH is a favorite. I attended the Mananaheim in the 80s that's right next to Disneyland. Lovely stuff. Just like everything else, now you attend them from your desk. I know. Man, if only pandemics didn't last two years. Or five or twenty. Or a couple hundred if you do plagues. But yeah. Oh, this springs up a point, Jerry, which is that the old phrase, avoid it like the plague doesn't really mean anything anymore because so many people aren't. Interesting. So we've vacated that whole saying. That's terrible. So thank you, everybody. This has been a peaceful stroll through a bunch of interesting issues and lives and things we're working on. We're getting somewhere. It's just a little slow and frustrating. But so Mondays, there's a free Jerry's Brain call, which is sort of the geekiest corner of OGM. Tuesdays, there's the Build OGM call. Wednesdays is the Generative Commons call. Every one of those this week was fabulous. They were great. They were just great. We were inventing stuff. We were changing stuff. We were connecting stuff together. Stacey's show game idea fits into the weaving the world blog that I think I'd like to build, et cetera, et cetera. All kinds of stuff was materializing. So I'm grateful for that. That's the upside of what's happening here. So thank you, everybody. Enjoy your wonderful day.