 with scientists here at MIT and Sandy Pentland's group, and I run civics.com consultancy. So here's some arson for the discussion, Mel. I think if you look at law, they're going to just challenge us here to address the observable fact that we are way behind. Law is an information-intensive profession. Why is law so very bad at embracing and using information as data and embracing the digital age? Law actually was the beginning of science. We've had speakers in the past at the Media Lab that have uncovered the history of how science, the scientific method, really took off and became part of society. We want facts in public debate. We want repeatable science. The scientific method, if you look back in England, took its cues very much from legal methods, from identifying evidence, from the procedures to establish truth. There's a direct lineage here. Law is founded, at least the rhetoric and the logical thinking from logic itself, these syllogisms. These, of course, underlie computation. Law, very much in the modern age, is code, as Sandy was alluding to when we set requirements for industry certification. Tax code, much of this, is ought to be computable. Other people are forced to refactor it into their software and their systems. Why doesn't the law express itself as code to start with? So some challenges are, I think, for the practice of law, attorneys and law providers need to be able to understand the underlying business and technical context of their clients cannot shy from this, be able to be conversant in the apps and the services and the technical context. We need to be able to adopt modern delivery methods, and basically so, in everywhere else in the economy, I joined their Slack channel on Telegram. We're collaborating on Google Docs or HackMD files. Why not the law? Why is it still locked in this almost medieval paradigm? It might as well be parchment, although it may be PDF, but it is not born digital. It's not data. We need to be able to explore the power of tinkering on projects. It's not something for the paralegal to do. Someone else should do our searches on West Law. Somebody else should put together document assembly, but when I used to practice law, I was fortunate to have a good boss, Ray Campbell, and we would spend a long time doing basically regex on mass general laws and on big procurements in order to sort and filter and search the underlying deal terms and make sure everything lined up. This is a tinkering project. Every good legal engagement could be like a hacking project to some extent. So some specifics, just to break it down, I'm going to assert that in the law, let's move from a paradigm of looking at legal documents as though they're uniform and start thinking about data. So I'm dealing in a project right now where all the contracts, like one of the 5,000 contracts are images of contracts. They're in a database. They're digital. They ain't data. We cannot interrogate the terms. We can't sort, filter, search. We can't connect it to updates from some things from the API. Go from paradigm of document to paradigm of data. We need to go from looking at legal rules. We need to look at legal rules as code and algorithms as software. Think about it that way. That is how it expresses itself in the modern world. And we need to look at practice as a kind of service, something that can express itself through an interface. So the big picture I'd say is, let's have a think at my breakout table on what are the problems and prospects for practicing attorneys to embrace some of these modern methods. What are the drivers and inhibitors for the legal market for broad-scale adoption of these modern methods? And then the specific call to action is, what will it take to express, when we're dealing with data coming from clients and from other sources and we're providing services back, what will it take to begin to express that as data at an interface? What will it take to express our artifacts, the legal memo, the opinion of counsel, the filing as a product that we deliver? So we can start to conceptualize it that way. And finally, what will it take to look at engagements as projects that can be managed? These are, I think, some of the core dimensions and facets of what it's going to take to transition successfully in the law and for attorneys into a digital age. So at the table, we'll look at some of this in particular. I'd love to brainstorm some basic vignettes of everyday law practice and everyday legal processes and how they've looked up to now, which is pretty medieval. And what it might look like, we took a page under the diary of a lawyer of the five years from that, Robert Meharry, who's just started Harvard Law School, let's leave him a better future. Let's build that together and come up with some vignettes of what that would look like as targets to him. So that is the spark. May there be fire. I'm sorry.