 And now I would like to introduce Codes of Value, the Unquenchable Spirit of Hacking Tensions in the Liberal Tradition and the Hacker Love for Performativity by Dr. Gabriela Coleman, known to most of us as Biela. Great, well I think I just first would like to take the opportunity to thank everyone here and whoever is watching and people who aren't here for helping me to finish this project. I sort of can't believe that you can get PhD by hanging out with geeks, but in fact I'm proof of that. And today basically I'm gonna give what is an overview of the dissertation which will be transformed into a book as well as an overview of one chapter. And if people saw me talk in Brazil, you know there's some, it sort of helps to have that background or if you've read chapter six. Who here has read the Debian chapter actually? Okay so it's gonna be a little bit more understandable to you guys but what I'm hoping to do today is to give a little bit of background so that you will read the chapter that I am sending out to everyone in part because it's one of the more complicated ones that still needs a little bit of work so I would love some feedback. So this is the talk outline and there's sort of three parts to it. One of which is to give a flavor of what an anthropology of hacking even is and it's also gonna allow me to get to the question of humor which is what this chapter is largely about. Then just a general overview of the findings and then the last chapter. So I'm an anthropologist and this is a discipline just like sociology, economics and the word discipline I think is a very important word because it literally means that you're disciplined into certain methods and traditions and ways of dealing with knowledge and not others. And so when I started doing this research basically I broke with tradition. Anthropology is a field in which most people study the non-western, the exotic, the brown, not sort of white people who work on computers. And so when I told people that I was working on computer hackers, oh what? But you know, the perception at least, the perception. Basically everyone started to make fun of me literally. They would, can people hear me okay? Yeah. So literally when I was telling people that I was gonna be studying computer hacking everyone made fun of me over and over and over again. It would be individually all my friends were saying oh you have it so easy, you don't have to go to the jungle, you can just hang out with these people in San Francisco. And then if I was at a conference and sort of telling people what I was gonna do the whole room would break out and laughter. Now the funny thing is I actually agreed with people. I sort of had a similar fear that perhaps hacking didn't have that many cultural elements to it. That it was culturally anemic and perhaps it was just a bunch of guys working with computers and I said well you know at least I don't have to live in the jungle and monkey brains. At least I'll have a very easy field work experience. So I go off to the field which was San Francisco and IRC and conferences and so on and so forth. And one thing I learned was field work even if there was no jungle and monkey brains can still be very difficult just because you sort of insert yourself among a bunch of strangers and then declare that you'll stay pretty much forever which is never that easy of a thing to do. But luckily soon after being there for a number of weeks my fears about the cultural thinness of computer hacking was completely dissolved and it was largely hacker humor that was the means by which A I became comfortable hanging out in this setting because humor is pleasurable and it sort of is like a magnet so you sort of wanna be there and also it was so extensive and all pervasive that I knew that this was a puzzle or a key to understand some very important elements of hacker value. But now before I go to the question of what humor reveals about hacker creativity, authorship and value now I'm gonna sort of take a step back to give a broader overview of the whole work to make it more understandable the question of hacker humor. Okay, so there's a lot on the slide so I'm gonna try to keep it understandable. I think the main question that my dissertation looks at or attacks is how it is that computer hackers have come to think of their pragmatics by pragmatics I mean technical activity as a form of first amendment speech or free speech or freedom. While there's been an association between freedom and hacking for a while the actual discourse of free speech is relatively recent since the 1990s. And so by focusing on that question it allows me to look at transformations in hacker value and ethics over the last course of the decade. And it also allows me to see liberalism or treat liberalism as a cultural system and I'll get back to that in a second. Then another element to hacker values out of jouissance. I'm not really gonna be talking about that much today but I'll give a little sense of it. So when I say that hacking lies between liberalism and jouissance there's a way in which hacker forms of values and ethics draw on prevalent liberal tropes such as freedom and free speech that are external to hacking. They have to do with a society in which many hackers live liberal democracies let's just say. And it's not necessarily unique to computer hacking either. There's many people who believe in a commitment to free speech for political reasons. The jouissance part might be considered the internal focus of hacking that which turns away from politics, liberalism from the outside world. Jouissance may be thought of as deep hack mode or the creative waste of time that Enrico talked about. And this is a fancy definition from Wikipedia. Jouissance is a French term which can be roughly translated as enjoyment and is contrasted with plus air. In every sense of the word is whatever gets you off. So it's highly sensual, perhaps sexual. It represents a disintegration of the self. And I definitely do see that there's many types of activities within hacking that represent jouissance I guess. But I'm not really gonna be talking about that today. And actually in the dissertation there's not that much about jouissance. It was sort of when I was writing the conclusion that I realized it was a really important aspect but I was already done and that's what the book is for to sort of catch the mistakes from the first draft. Okay, so liberalism. Now liberalism is often thought as a political philosophy. You can sort of date it back to seminal thinkers like Locke and folks in the Scottish Enlightenment like Adam Smith developed in the 1800s by Mill, John Dewey in the United States, John Rawls are folks who sort of write liberal theory or what is identified with liberal theory. Now it's pretty difficult to sort of talk about liberalism in unitary terms but those are some of the tenants or core elements to liberalism. So an emphasis of representative and limited government through the rule of law, importance of individual autonomy, free expression, right to property, vigorous civil society strengthened by free press, governance through universal law which is often identified with democracy but not necessarily. And then more recently the virtues of tolerance and multiculturalism are identified with liberalism. So most often we associate liberalism just with political thought. It has something to do with politics, with governments and with dead white men basically. But in fact this research had me confront the fact that liberalism also has cultural dimensions too. It shapes the way that we think about creativity, authorship, selfhood, rights, governance, consumerism, property, so on and so forth. And in anthropology there is a rich tradition of studying liberalism but always in the context of multiculturalism and tolerance but questions relating to let's just say intellectual property and free speech is often treated as natural and obvious. And one of the goals of an anthropological perspective is to denaturalize the obvious and see how liberal values come to be, where they're instantiated and how they change over time too. So to see the continuities and discontinuities. So if we're gonna think about where liberal values are practically instantiated the education system is one obvious choice, libraries. The law is probably one of the most important places where liberal values are expressed and instantiated and a place where people interface with liberal values through the courts, so on and so forth. The right to property, so consumerism is another place. Now if liberalism is a cultural system as much as a body of political thought it also is riddled with a number of tensions and contradictions and so a big part of my research is to unpack the tension between property through the lens of intellectual property and free speech. And it sort of has come to a head over the last 10 years as free speech has expanded significantly just in the same way that intellectual property has. So for example, in the United States which has the largest free speech protections in the world in the 19 teens you would get thrown into jail for political protest for many, many, many, many years. So just as intellectual property scope has increasingly expanded so has free speech provisions and they are in tension with each other because intellectual property sanctions limits on expression for a limited time in the hopes that it will incentivize people to create and eventually come out in the public or be released in the public whereas free speech is basically you can say what you want. And now these are coming into tension with each other and computer hacking is probably one of the places where you can see this tension most vibrantly. Now in my dissertation I go through many of the different tensions in liberalism one of the chapters but I'm not gonna go into that right now because we'd be here for an incredibly long time. If you have any questions during any of this you can just pop in too. Now remember how I said that a lot of people made fun of me because they had a perception that computer hacking had nothing to do outside of a sort of very instrumental activity that perhaps was very culturally thin. Well as I sort of started to realize that computer hacking had a certain interface or relationship with liberalism actually I was completely overwhelmed because it wasn't just that I had to understand cultural elements of computer hacking but I also had to understand the history of liberalism and its tensions and its instantiations. Now there are many different ways that we can think about the interface between hacking and liberalism. Meritocracy for example is one perfect example. A lot of you guys state with pride that the projects you participate in are a meritocracy right and that's probably one of the most distilled cultural expressions of liberalism. Free speech is another one. Privacy I mean if there's one group of people who have pushed the envelope of privacy it's been computer hackers in a sense. So they're able to draw on what are culturally prevalent ideas and tropes and then they instantiate them in technology and organizations in very interesting ways and in fact because there's all these legal battles involving encryption and free speech it's not just that these liberal values are transforming hacker culture they're also transforming society at large so my work looks at that. So again as I had mentioned one of the main questions is how is it that computer hackers have come to think of their pragmatics their technical activities a form of first amendment speech and then how does this instantiation come to challenge intellectual property law? So freedom is obviously a really important value to everyone here. It's a word you hear often and your whole institution is based on a certain premise of freedom that allows everyone to have access to source code so that you can improve it, develop it and so on and so forth. At the same time there is a correlate of freedom that has to do with personhood and personhood or selfhood is one of the topics that a lot of anthropologists are interested in. What are the values or how do people think of individuality or the relationship between people? So if we think of freedom as the conditions by which source code becomes accessible to others so they can improve technology there's also liberty as it relates to the question of selfhood. So it's the conditions necessary for individuals to develop the capacity for critical thought and self development one that aligns closely with the spirit of a liberal philosophy of John Stuart Mill and is practically articulated in free speech jurisprudence in the public education system and it stresses the idea of human plasticity and development. So basically if people here have a value, place a value on improving technology there's also a correlation that it also means that you place a value on the ability for human selves to grow and develop in tandem with the production of technology and there's a certain enjoyment that goes with sort of pushing people's skills and intelligence through the creation of technology. Now in a sense that's a certain type of conclusion that I've reached but at the same time the larger work of mine is not enough to state that this is the value that hackers place on freedom, selfhood, so on and so forth but you have to show how it comes into being. You have to show how it is that values for freedom are internalized and in the larger work there's sort of three different levels by which I examine how it is that hackers have made a liberal language into their own particular vernacular. So one of it is socialization that happens through the free software project and this was the chapter I had written on Debian and there I look at three different levels in the new maintainer process which is a form of pretty explicit socialization or enculturation. Then there's legal pedagogy which one of the interesting things about this world is that people are not just making technology but they're literally making a new body of law and this is something that is often really unappreciated actually but this is really quite significant in a sense because laws embody moral principles and so when you adopt and know and learn and discuss and fight over law you're also in a sense adopting and reformulating those principles and then finally crisis which I didn't put up there in terms of socialization. So actually that's my visual representation of the Debian chapter for the folks who've read it which is Mako Hill becoming ethicalized. He goes from being a devil into a nice moral specimen at the end. And I do recommend for people who are involved in Debian to read that chapter. There are but not that one. Not that one, maybe we'll make that the cover of the book. That would be pretty nice actually. So then a second level of how it is that programmers, hackers, computer scientists have come to think about their technical activities a form of First Amendment speech is over very over explicit legal battles over the DMCA. So for example, Yonah Hansen's arrest in Dimitri Skilerov was a moment under which a lot of programmers around the world banded together to protest their arrest and they often did so through a free speech rhetoric. So if there was an incipient socialization process going on these historical moments under which there's extreme sort of crisis and protest is a moment of declaration. And I sort of argue that that's a period under which a free speech ethic was cemented. And then the last element and it's the most complicated one in a sense and the hardest one to pull off which is why I'm sort of asking for help from people is the question of resonance. What is it about the particular style pragmatics and poetics of hacking? And by pragmatics I just mean like what you need to do to hack and poetics is the style under which you hack. What is it about those elements that resonate with a certain strain of liberal individuality? And that's sort of what I'm gonna talk about for the rest of the time. Oh by the way, this is a slide of one of the protests in San Francisco when Dimitri Skilerov was arrested and that's the arrest of Dimitri and Yonya Hansen opens my dissertation in a sense. Not in a sense, it does. So now to the topic of hacker performativity. So here I write hacking is not just about making great technology but is where a particular type of individual is also made and performed and this is often accomplished via the constant and ongoing performance of cleverness. Registered primarily in code and sometimes through humor and sometimes humorous code. Among hackers, tremendous cultural energy is placed on displaying and performing individuality. So again, in the liberal tradition there is a very, very strong emphasis on individualism and especially in the tradition of mill it's not just individualism but it's a certain type of intelligence and constant reworking of the self. And if we say that hackers have huge emphasis on technology they also really hold a very strong commitment to individualism and this is registered in a tremendous number of ways which I explore in the larger chapter and I'm only gonna give a small taste of it but I think humor is the most interesting one. So before I talk about why humor actually captures hacker commitment to individuality and cleverness so well let me just go over what I mean by the hacker commitment to cleverness and the poetics of hacking. So hackers share and celebrate an ideal about how their labor and production should proceed with remarkable wit. They draw on and play with various constraints and possibilities offered by form seeking to implement an ingenious solution that once in circulation becomes the moment when hackers perform the meaning of selfhood independently minded thinkers. So just at the moment that someone offers a very good solution, clever joke is also the moment in which someone performs and displays their individuality. So why is humor such a potent way to express this value for cleverness? So there's a number of reasons. So for example, when someone is hacking up a piece of code, there's often a debate over whether it's a really elegant solution, whether it sucks, whether it's great, whether it's not. With humor, there is no argument. When people laugh, it becomes indisputable proof that cleverness was performed in a sense, right? So you never have someone telling a joke and then changing their mind or laughing and then saying, oh actually that sucked. There is the actual pleasure of performance and laughter also. So at the moment that a joke is told, the pleasure of it is visible, which happens also during hacking, but maybe not so as visible as with humor. Another reason why humor is such a potent expression of cleverness is because it's parsimonious and distilled. It has no other sort of function except for the function of cleverness and humor and pleasure, right? So it's very self-referential in that way whereas technology may have that element. You hack for the pleasure of hacking but it also has a very functional element too. So clearly one of the things I'm saying is that because hackers have a commitment to a certain form of individualism and this is often not just stated but it has to be, actually it's unstated and it's usually performed. Although with hackers it's stated a little bit. There still remains a question of why it's so prevalent and why a lot of computer hackers are actually really good at telling jokes. And this actually has to do with their pragmatics. So here is a long paragraph which sort of says that if you look at the technical activity of hacking it's not something in which you're creating de novo, something completely new. I mean you may be creating a new program let's just say but basically it's a type of craft or activity or pragmatics in which you're working within an extremely, extremely complicated maze of constraints and these constraints can be everything from syntax to hardware to inherited code to laws to managers. And within this force field of constraint hacking always requires a sort of hyperactive awareness of form so that you can push the constraints out of the way and create a new solution. And so I think that there's a way in which the hacker body or mental dispositions if that makes any sense is cultivated in a way to always be thinking about form and how to undermine form. And after 20 years of doing this or whatever it just is almost second nature to do it. And Pierre Bourdieu who's a famous French theorist has a very, very, very nice term for this which is one term is habituus which is very famous but another one is a learned body it's called. The body believes in what it plays at it weeps if it mines grief. It does not represent what it performs it does not memorize the past. It lacks the past bringing it back to life. What is learned body is not something that one has like knowledge that must be brandish but something that one is. So it's a certain basic premise of anthropology that practice whatever you do over and over and over and over again becomes incorporated into the body in certain mental dispositions and it's there to be accessed very easily. So again I think because humor is often a play with form you take a system and undermine it in a clever way and hacking is also basically a play for a form there's a certain resonance or symbiosis between the two. Does that make any sense? Sort of. Okay. So in summary humor by highlighting by telling jokes hackers externalize what they see is their intelligence. They gain recognition from technically talented peers in a crew symbolic capital. By contributing a shining awe inspiring sliver of their creative self humor allows hackers to perform their cleverness in the moment of performance. They momentarily disambiguate themselves from others. So it's a moment in which you can sort of say or show I'm an individual. I think creatively I do intelligent things. I sort of just stated this but to reiterate a value for cleverness is combined with an incorporated ability to engage in certain techniques such as play with form and the existence symbiosis to make humor one of the most prevalent and noticeable signifying practices among hackers. At least that's my theory. Now I've just been talking about how humor is a way in which we can track and understand hacker individuality. At the same time humor also always undermines that individuality and affirms a certain type of collectivism and populism. And now that's what I'm gonna talk about very briefly. So like hacker technological production humor also works to implicitly confirm the relational self who is joined to others by a shared domain of practice in a common stock of implicit cultural and explicit technical knowledge. Humor more than any other signifying practice confirms the corporeal and shared sensuality that generally marks hacking. Like if you didn't have, it's no fun to tell jokes by yourself basically, right? You sort of need the recognition of others to tell jokes. And in a similar way I think that maps onto the fact that the labor of hacking on the one hand can be very, very individual and you can accomplish a lot by yourself. At the same time it also depends on two things that requires attachments to others. One of which is recognition. I mean you could sort of tell what's a good piece of technology but it is through the process of discussing it with others in which certain value judgments about good code are reached. And the second thing is literally people are borrowing from others and taking from others a tremendous amount much more so than I think is admitted in the academy at least in the social sciences. So humor is the glue that binds hackers together and the solvent that dissolves social ties at the same time. So it creates fine distinctions. It also levels the ground by recognizing the common world of meaning out of which hackers work. Now at some level you might think that's a contradiction. How can something be a binder and a solvent at the same time? Well really I think social life is just a series of contradictions and then there's all these interesting mechanisms by which they're mediated all the time which is what I'm gonna talk about in a second. And granted there are points in social life where the tensions become too much and they collapse. But that hasn't happened so much here yet. So humor is also if it's a microcosm of the value that hackers place on individuality it's also a very good springboard to think about the tension between populism and elitism that's in hacking. And again if anyone read the chapter on Debian this is something I end with but in this chapter I sort of introduce it and give it a much more expansive breath and attention. So as we all know there's a strong strain of individualism and a certain type of elitism that comes with hacking in which and you know the most famous version is RTFM. Meritocracy also is an expression of this although I'll talk about how the hacker implementation of meritocracy also has a certain type of populist strain to it which is different from other forms of meritocracy. It also reflects that much of hacking is an isolated experience or it can be that people do learn on their own a tremendous amount and this strain also pushes projects or developers to have very high standards that they expect from other people too and that you can't just have another person sort of be included unless they demonstrate that they've added value to the community. At the same time there's a strong populist strain in hacking and I think one of the interesting things about free and open source software is that it pushed the envelope of populism much further in part because there's an ethical philosophy to it, there's an explicit philosophy to sharing and an explicit awareness that without the help of others and the code of others you wouldn't get very far, right? And if much of the labor of hacking is isolated I mean if you sort of hang out on IRC long enough you sort of realize that it's one really long question and answer period, right? People give freely, they're sharing, they're taking so on so forth. And in a sense what I think is so interesting about Linux as well as Debian is that those two projects by saying once you contribute you have an equal say in this project sort of confirms or as a reflection of this populist strain you don't have to be the ultimate wizard or whatever to have a vote in Debian so long as you contribute you're allowed to have a voice. Now I'll get to the question of meritocracy too and how that reflects a certain type of populism that is not very common in the common implementation of meritocracy and capitalism but I think that's my next slide. Before I get there, so here again are some of the forms of mediation that deal or attenuate or lessen the tension between these two seemingly contradictory social forces. Now humor is another, it's a perfect one because humor is something in which you, it's multi-valent and you could simultaneously show your individuality as you sort of designate in-group membership, right? I mean not everyone can understand hacker jokes because they're so technically coded so that's a perfect one and that's maybe perhaps the most ideal form of mediation. New solutions like the new maintainer process and mentoring is another way to mediate this tension. There's a recognition that we should give some help but not too much help and this is the appropriate level of help we can give to a person and then the rest they have to show by themselves. The last one I think is very, very interesting too and this is part of the reason why humor is so prevalent in the hacker habitat. I think there's a way in which because there is such an explicit recognition that so much of the labor that's performed within this domain is collective that you actually have to prove your cleverness and individuality all the time. You could never assume it, right? And so in this social sphere where you can't assume it but there's such a strong commitment to individualism it kind of creates the conditions for an accentuated almost agonistic form of display of cleverness. Now the last thing I want to touch upon is meritocracy and the particular implementation of meritocracy in the free software world which has to do with the release of source code which I think is very interested and often underappreciated. So liberal democracies that are capitalistic have a certain version of meritocracy which says we'll have a base certain forms of institutions like the public education system that allow everyone supposed equal access to learning, to furthering your abilities under the law. But once you create wealth, whatever that wealth or value may be, you're allowed to privatize it. You don't need to sort of return it back to the community. So for example, some of the burning issues in society are who should be paying for public education, for example. Should it be a private endeavor, a public endeavor? What are the conditions that will allow equal access to the society? Within hacking or free software at least, this problem is resolved because you create sources of value which are pieces of technology but then you release it back into the community so that people then, and you gain prestige and you maybe are put in a position of authority because you created good pieces of technology but you never privatize that source of value. You reintroduce it back into the community allowing other people to do the same in a sense. So and again, this is very different from the logic of meritocracy in other systems where you're allowed to privatize a source of value. So that's basically the talk. Like I said, there's a lot more in the chapter but hopefully that'll give enough of an overview so that the chapter which I'm sending around although it needs to be approved by the list will be a little bit more understandable to everyone. So that's it. So you've spent quite a while in the hacking community and in the Debian community specifically. If you could change something, what would it be? If you would, like this is an advice to the community. I mean, it's, God, that's a hard question to answer. I think that I would like people to recognize that there is this tension between a certain type of individualism and certain type of populism within this world and free software and hacking more generally. And I think that it's important recognition to have because then you can implement solutions to the problem of things like scaling more effectively. At the same time, I think people have already done that. I'm not here to tell people to do this. In fact, I think something like the new maintainer process is precisely a solution to some of these tensions. I mean, I do think that the community works much better and the best with extreme transparency because of the fear that meritocracy can corrupt, which is just a fear. I mean, it's an age old fear that Plato, for example, talks about in his work. And I think that it's prevalent in meritocracy. So the more transparency, the better. At the same time, I think online interactions are difficult to achieve transparency too. But I really can't answer that. I'm not a social engineer. I kind of just understand that which exists. For one hour, you've given us a pretty thorough sketch of the type that is common to all of us. And somewhere in your work, do you distinguish subtypes among the hackers? Would you like to talk about that? Yeah, that's a great, great, great question. And I actually do. There was a moment in which I was writing about free and open source software and people were either pushing me or I was thinking myself because I've taught on hackers about the question of let's just say the hacker underground. People who push the limits of the law in the way that free and open source people tend not to do or the world of cryptography or encryption. And so the way that I resolve this was thinking about hacking not as a community that everyone shares the same value, but as a community that has a general ethos for information freedom and privacy, but then these articulate or differentiate into different ethical genres. And what I mean by that is in free and open source software, they've created a world in which there's a legal means by which to affirm information access. Among the hacker underground, they're a little bit more testy in a sense and they're maybe willing to engage in breaking the law to sort of implement an ethic of information freedom. And I actually think there would be kind of an unhappy lot if the world was open source because there's a pleasure into breaking into closed systems. For example, free and open source software has one of the strongest commitments to populism, whereas the world of cryptography, I think has a more extreme form of individualism too. So again, I conceptualize these as different genres of computer hackers or hacking. Not that there's different communities, but there are different ethical systems that people can move in and out of. Yeah. Okay, I know you talked a bit about this, but well, I missed part of your words. I have been trying, well, I'm working now for some economic research institute. I am not a social scientist, but I work with them. And one of the things I've done is to try to explain them, well, that the work we are doing as a community is also very close to strict academic work, but with some subtle differences that become too radical. I don't know if you have also worked on that explaining. Yeah, that's a great question, because on the one hand, you can almost conceptualize this world as a sort of pure form of the academic process, right? Like full peer review, extreme meritocracy, but there are some important differences. And okay, these are a couple of them. The academy is based in an institution, whereas open source hacking and free software is trans-institutional and it links different institutions together, which gives it a certain types of freedoms and flexibility that you can't have in the academy. So for example, it occurs in the free software project and maybe you work on it for your company or in the corporation, or you just do it individually. Whereas in academic, it's pretty much tied to the academy for his or her work, and this is gonna come with certain limits and constraints and responsibilities, right? And that is one very important difference. So when people say open source is just like the academy, well, at some level it is, but in some level it's not. I'm very constrained because I need to perhaps get tenure, so there's certain things I can't do that people in this community can do because they don't have to talk back to a master. So that's one important difference. The other one, and this may be particular to the social sciences and the humanities, but I think it's relevant for the hard sciences. And this is, it has to do with the fact that what you make, it works or it doesn't work, right? And so for example, I think that there's less anxiety about sharing because you can prove what you did works or it doesn't work, whereas in the social sciences, it's pretty much a rhetoric, right? And so a game of rhetoric of persuasion. Like here I am talking about hacker cultural value, but I can't really prove it, right? And I think there's this all pervasive anxiety in the social sciences because you can't prove anything in a certain sense and that actually acts as a barrier against help and collaboration, which is much more accentuated in the hacker community than in the academy, I would say. So those are two important differences. How much of your research is only valid in the context of Western culture or even Northern American culture and how much of it is also valid in like Latin American or Eastern cultures? That's a good question that I get pretty much every time. I give this no matter what to what audience. I would say definitely that a good part of it is very Anglo-European centric. It has to do with values that have been well developed, are very pervasive in the context of the United States and Western Europe. And even though there's differences, important ones, but much less so than in different parts of the world. So my story is largely a story about hacking and Anglo-American, Anglo-European liberalism, right? Let me finish this. At the same time, and this is something I constantly struggle with, hacking definitely localizes, right? I mean, you go to different places and just the fact that people speak a different language, language is gonna inflect certain forms of values, right? So there's gonna be differences. At the same time, I have seen very strong commitments to freedom and the ideology of free software, which I do think has roots in liberal values, take hold in different places. So if you're using the GPL, if you're adhering to the Debbie and Fries software guidelines, right? You're gonna adopt some of those liberal values. Now is it gonna be the same? No, it's gonna transform in these local contexts also. So in a sense, it's a little bit of both. Can we do one more question? Okay. As individuals, sometimes there are things that are difficult to observe about ourselves and people with whom we have close ties who spend a lot of time around us have often built a rapport with us and a level of insight that they can often tell us things that we can't see about ourselves. As someone who's spent so much time observing more specifically the Debbie and community, what would you say, what are some things that you could, or maybe one thing that you could lovingly tell us about ourself that we have the hardest time seeing? I mean, I had sort of mentioned, this was the last section of the Debbie and chapter, which has to do with crisis. And a lot of computer programmers adhere to an ideal about how dialogue and debate should go and what you bracket off your interests and then you talk very passionate less, you just bring the facts and you find a solution just like you might do with technology. And I think in fact that within any community, especially one that's composed of very different types of individuals from many different parts of the world, there's always gonna be crisis and passion in a sense. And so I think that it's really important not to be afraid of those elements but just have a reflexive awareness of them so that they don't sort of engulf the project in flames but are productive energy to push the project forward because you do always have to constantly change and shift because a project like Debian is not a static entity, it's a living growing entity and it's gonna be uncomfortable at certain points and that doesn't necessarily mean that you gotta be jerks to each other but I think it's unrealistic to think that you can sort of get rid of the passion and energy that comes with crisis. So I think my time is up. So thank you.