 This is the Fellowship of the Link call for Wednesday, August 9th, 2023 and we were just talking about Corey Doctro, how much of a fanboys we are and that showed up partly because we were talking about a question I raised, hey Michael, yay! A question that I raised in a call just before this was because we had started talking about the number of climate refugees there going to be. I think it's easily predictable that large numbers of people are going to be displaced by climate disasters in the next couple of decades. So my question was, is there any way we can jujitsu this problem into some benefit by treating refugees as first class global citizens and doing something as good as possible for them? Because being a refugee really sucks, it's a bad sentence these days, mostly you can't work because you don't have citizenship or you're not permitted to work, I don't know exactly what the numbers are, I'd love to know the numbers, but also apparently the average stay in a refugee camp is 17 years now, which may be a bimodal stretch because there's a bunch of people who've grown up in refugee camps and their numbers would skew the whole thing, I don't know, but that would be interesting to learn about as well. Anyway, that took us over to Corey who's got such imaginative writings about what the world might look like and that's kind of where we are. Yeah and on the global citizenship, you mentioned also Jerry's life, things like internet connection, internet services, of course computing as a right, an access to internet as a right, I really like that, of course, it is something that is in the realm of technical solutions which of course are allure and lure in the sense of they can lead to solutionism and so on, but I think in this case I sort of believe that internet access is different because it actually connects people and they can connect you know, arbitrarily, which is a bit of an internet with their own solutions, but in any case, I really like this approach which is like, you know, planning first on this for like these big problems, you know, this, you know, big solution thinking in the sense of like, you know, just telling a frame where you say like, well, we can run the numbers as long as we can, you know, have a first draft of like what we needed, we can run the numbers, find that we don't have the funds, but we know, you know, like that actually I think helps to drive the narrative, saying like if we had this much money, even in this capitalist system with all these drawbacks, then we could provision these services. So and that really I think pushes the ball to the other side of the court, to some extent, you know, to the question of like, why not? Why not raise this money? It's cool. Pete, thanks for the link to the article. Interesting. The Battle of Averages. As so many things are, it reminds me of the book, The Death of Average, which I really liked. I'll put a link to it. Oops, I don't think it's called The Death of Average. The End of Average, sorry, it's not The Death of, it's just The End of. And The End of Average was really enlightening in a couple of different ways. Let me get back to our chat. Here we go. Because it starts with a semi-famous U.S. Air Force study where when they get the first jet planes in Korea, you know, Korean War era, they get jet planes, they get better and faster, and all of a sudden, the number of deaths from test pilots goes way up. And they're like, what's going on here? Are pilots just getting worse or what's going on? And then it turns out that they start measuring pilots. And they measure some 3,000 pilots, they measure arm length, distance between eyes, all sorts of physical measurements. And it turns out that only like 5% of all pilots are average. Fall into some average setting. Everybody is often some kind of way. And so they invent the adjustable seat. They invent like what turns into bucket seats in cars. That's how it makes its way down to muggles. But they invent the adaptable jet fighter seat. And all of a sudden the pilot can see all the controls, can see over the dash, can reach the controls, and accident rates go back down. And who knows what else happens. But that's his opening salvo. But then he talks a lot about averages. And my favorite pet peeve about averages is the notion everybody has that a long time ago life spans were very short, that people did not live a long lifespan. And it turns out if you made it past a certain age, because childhood diseases and lack of hygiene were rampant. So if you made it past a certain age, you were probably going to live as old as we live these days-ish. You might lose your teeth and stop being able to eat food. But your chances were good. It's just that the infant mortality really skews that perception. Anyway, end of long rant about averages. And you were probably less likely to get cancer. Although they didn't have SPF back then. And they were outdoors a lot. So you don't know. Okay, the sense to stay under trees and wear hats and stuff like that. Well, and cancer, when did we start figuring out what a cancer even was? How did cancer get ID'd? And what did we qualify it as before? Was it just tumors? Probably true. It would be really true. Yeah, in the history of medicine, it'd be really interesting to see how we started waking up to the fact that cells, I guess we had to have cell theory first, but then some cells can start growing out of control and that is a cancer. Pretty late probably, yes. There are some very old sultas, Buddhist sultas, which deal with people who are sick. And sometimes they describe the symptoms and they are terrible. And they deal with how people cope with... I mean, it's terrible, right? But imagine coping with this metathatic cancer way before. Of course, knowing what cancer is or how to deal with it. Yes, pretty... Terrible stuff. Also very interesting to read it. Maybe through thousands of years, imagine sometimes a diagnosis. Yes, and just how people have to cope with it. So, it's another reason to be happy that we are in this age. Yeah, exactly. Despite all the many reasons to not be so happy. What is on anybody's mind that is fellowship-ish? So, I fixed a bit the hour-out-of-the-link in people. Yeah, so it's a bit in a better shape. Still not super populated with the bootstrap. But if you can already take a look if you want, I mean at your own pace, but you know, essentially it's seated. This is the index, like just like, you know, if you want to upload an index to any of the repositories, it will show up in the index. It's just the algorithm in a nutshell. And, you know, actually it's now the hour-out-of-the-link everywhere. I have made some code changes, so now it's genetic. So, the overall structure of the algorithm is the same as any other. Whenever you search for some things, which is like using a location, you can just click through to like, this is just like a convenience. You know, if you don't find anything in the algorithm, you can click through to your searching for a choice. Cool. You can get like Wikipedia, just in line, and then like everything that sounds like what you search, some context. These are like the connections to one from these. And then just like a full-text search, in case you want to, for example, like the OGM meeting index is here. You also have a, you can just, essentially the algorithm is recursive. So, for example, like the meeting index from the OGM gets surfaced in the index, and you can just like visit that location by clicking through. And this is everything we have. Most of it is MyGarland, which I added, because it's like in the fellowship, but they also have the OGM, MasiWiki, I think default repositories, and I think it has, yeah, 7,000 nodes, which is okay to start with. And this is already hanging. My browser here, but maybe your computer will be faster. This is like this here you all. And here you can find any contact points. A lot of these are from my own garden, but essentially if we like write about the same problems, like for some like sole poverty, just to take an index, here you see how many different resources that are named like these are in this algorithm. So, you can just play with that. And one of my, if you want to explore, you know, just like hop around. So, first, don't come to this page, because it crashes, because it's too large. But like, you can just go to, this is the wrong one. If you visit the algorithm, just click on random, this is one of my favorite things, and this is just like a nice way to like just jump to a random location. And I found it is super simple, but like one of my favorite features. And this experience essentially, like this is the level of, you know, visualization that we have now. So, for example, like this is where we are, this is what is linking here, and this is what is being linked here. Inbound and outside links. Right, exactly. So, you know, so for example, like Carpoper, somehow I don't have a nodon Carpoper. What? But, you know, yeah, I know, it's like, what, what do I do with my time? But you can read about Popper here. And of course, like if you want, just go directly to the Stoa and take a note, essentially. So, you can, the idea is like, so you auto pop, do you auto generate a URL for the Hedge Dock? Or what are you doing there? Yeah, yeah. So, this is like just like the easiest way, essentially. The Stoa's right now are services like, even like, you know, you can set like Carpoper, and then you are in this location where you have at least some tools to coordinate, like you can have like a, like a video conference, these words, just here, and at the same time just start working on a document. Yeah, on Carpoper. So here, I will say probably like what I have said, but I'm guessing that I call Carpoper Popper, just indifferently, is that true? Okay, so something got to, got there, but nothing very useful. Yeah, so in any case, unfortunately, for now, as you click random, you will mostly get my brain. I mean, it's unfortunately because, you know, not very diverse, but with time, you know, if we add more things, I think it's going to be, I'm also happy to like down rank or like just, you know, we have more repositories, I think will become more representative of the fellowship, and I would love to like, you know, advance that process. And of course, your, I mean, your brains, asking the people in this call are very welcome. Thank you very much. Pete, I'm thinking here of the Enhanced Calls project, and like it seems like there's might be some overlaps and some connections here. Yeah. So what is that? So it was Pete's desire to keep moving on how do we take, like, we're all in too many Zoom calls. How do we take the outputs of a Zoom call from the chat to the video to other sorts of things, slice and dice them to make them more valuable afterward? And I'm paraphrasing badly. Pete, you will correct me, I hope. Yeah, that's a good explanation. It's not quite a real project or it's, there are a few sub projects that I've got going. Some automation to download Zoom artifacts and put them in the right place. Yeah. Vincent with Catalyst has got something similar to, he's got a reasonable amount of sophistication about keeping track of artifacts. We should actually, we should fold Vincent into, or at least have an outreach to Vincent from Fellowship of the Link. That'd be great. Because he's doing a lot of the same stuff. Cool. So can we invite him? I'm just curious what he, I mean, this seems like Trove, the Trove piece, has that gone somewhere beyond, haven't been on Catalyst lately. And I don't know if the sort of ability to say individual items relate to each other is expanded in scope? You probably know about as much as I do, but he does have an individual object for a lot of stuff and then a hierarchy of objects. So he's got individual chat messages and then those roll up into a chat and you can also do a query to say all the messages by Pete, or all the messages by Pete in OGM calls or whatever. So he's got a lot of that in database form, the atoms he's got in the database. And then some you would search or browse to and some actually get like an event page. We'll have chat artifacts and video recordings and also the ability to index into the chat per message, that kind of stuff. Cool. Michael, the book you just put in the chat is an invented title or is that actually a book? Oh, it's an invented title. I like it. I like it. Could you just ask Chet to write it? Yeah. Yeah. From humors to tumors. I like it. It's what we used to call the national anthem a pun trap. It's like, you know, people would say something like the great fat speed. Oh, there you are. And somebody that that's an example of I remember that one because somebody actually wrote it. And, you know, I had to have it illustrated for tarot style. And but, you know, there were certain stories that were best left upon in the weekly meeting and not, you know, played out. So humors to tumors. It's a little bit maybe like John Cage's four minutes, 33 seconds or something like that. Although I don't know. I think the experience of sitting through it probably would quite be quite something. But do you all know what that was? Yeah. Yeah. So Flancia Cage was an experimental composer and musician. And he basically posed a piece where the pianist goes out, sits down, opens up or two or something. Yeah, opens up the piano, sits there for four minutes and 32 seconds, and then closes the piano and walks away. Yeah. Yeah. Sorry. I'm sorry. Yes. Conceptual art. Yeah. Yeah. And so much conceptual art is like, nice as a concept. And I was like, why did you play this out? Yeah, this is a category also the one that, you know, only works once essentially. Somehow. Yeah, I don't think they got a lot of repeat performances. Right. I think I've seen some actually. But they tend to feel more like a commemoration of the region I want to make them know, you know, but it's like putting like a urinal in a museum. It just doesn't have the same impact anymore. Well, it doesn't anymore because we sort of broken those barriers. But like it, you know, when it was when these barriers get broken, it shatters everybody. Everybody's like, no, this is horrible. It's not art. It can't be, you know, all these different funny things. Yeah. And then we get used to it. Complete. And on the topic of this artifact downloader and so on. I'm interested in that category of devices. And I tend to call them sidephones for lack of a better word because they are not a iPhone. Sorry, a Siphon. Siphon. Oh, Siphon. Yeah, sorry, my accent. Just because I guess, well, I don't know. I don't know about the world. The bridges, I usually reserve for like cross to side to way, right? Like connection, like a region between networks. And Siphons are more like one way to some extent. And I guess I use that because like I like the idea of like, you know, a Siphon very often has like an initial setup cost. And then information flows. And those are the best shape, right? I think when you don't need to take repeat action. So I guess I'm interested in essentially that class of things. I also remember there's a few projects in that space. I know of Dock Sheep. I know if you hear about that. I think it by Simon Willison, like the same as the dataset and a bunch of interesting tools. And just a few more of these that are just like more like frameworks for getting information from different platforms out into some user controlled location. You've never heard of Dock Sheep. Very interesting. And it's used for personal analytics, it says. Yeah. Well, I also remember. Outside of GitHub or is there So could you repeat, Michael? Does it exist outside of GitHub? That's the only thing I surfaced. Yeah. Yeah, it's essentially a collection of like tools for, you know, like for dataset, so yeah, that GitHub pages is the actual page. Yes. Dock Sheep with GitHub. It's basically import and export tools that help you gather your data. It's cool. Yes. And Simon Willison actually has a lot of great work in this space. And also in, now, with Lackman Models, I know he has a Python library that makes it quite easy to derive with different models. And he's just very prolific. Yeah. So in general, it seems like the pattern will be like tools that let users break out of world governance. Well, it's like Google has a data liberation front. I don't know if they still have it, but I thought that was pretty cute back in the day. Sorry, Michael. No, I just, I didn't hear the last thing that Francy had said. Oh, no, I guess these iPhones, I think of, if the use of this pattern, yeah, pattern siphon that helps users break out of world gardens. Oh, world gardens. Okay. Yeah. So maybe bridge becomes a better word there because I guess, if you have a world garden, you either tunnel under the wall or bridge above it. So mixed metaphors maybe. Maybe it should be called a Rapunzel. Right, a vehicle or something like that. All are welcome. Thank you, Pete. I think all we need to do now is a great answer. Let's put this out as an EPUB and go. Our neobook question is solved. I have a few links to share and also kind of a question that would be good for this group. Cool. Nice. I'm going to copy and paste from some massive wiki notes. Bill and I had earlier today. It's not really worth linking to a bigger thing, but so this is going to be kind of a mess, but whatever. Stowe is, I don't know if we, I know Stowe pretty well. You probably do too, Jerry. Maybe you might call. I subscribe to this to his newsletter, but I don't read it often. This is a recommendation from Bill actually, but it looks like a really interesting piece. Bill, Stowe has gotten deep into obsidian and he kind of did a survey of all the similar tools and he doubled down and tripled down and quadrupled down on obsidian and he's really pushing. So it's an interesting thing about annotation. The Incan switch thing is interesting. It's not new or anything like that, but Incan switch is an independent research lab, they call it. Probably like us. Maybe a little bit more organized. Maybe not. Anyway, they wrote a really cool collaborative editor that combines the idea of collaborative editing and version control. There's a demo. They say not to rely on the demo. It's not very useful. Sounds useful to me, but whatever. I think this is a nature article about research scientists using GitHub to, anyway, we were kind of, and then I think that's Mikey, the Macedon link about constantly reinventing Git like concepts under different names. So last week it was that Bill and I were commiserating about Git. So here's the question. I was like, you know, Git is amazing and a wonderful tool and I love it dearly and it's an important part of my life and it's important for the world and all that. Git is awesome. However, it's a pain in the rear for massive wiki. It is just mostly an obstacle, which is really terrible because, you know, the thing that it does, the thing that it promises to do and does like 85% of the time is amazing. It's amazing and wonderful, but, you know, the 15% of the time that it breaks means that nobody can use massive wiki except to me and Bill. So literally, by the way, it's gotten to the point where I've got a three-person collaboration. We've got a little startup and in each of us, I trained both of the other people on how to use obsidian, how to use obsidian with Git, how to use massive wiki. They're pretty good at it, but they're not programmers. They're not devs. And so in the course of trying to get work done, after like the fourth time the thing fell over when we're trying to get work done, it was like, okay, everybody sign up for obsidian Git. I'm sorry, not obsidian Git. Everybody sign up for obsidian sync and let's just work. And now we're all happy, you know? It's terrible. So wait, so it was massive wiki itself that got left out of the process in the before. So I don't want to make sure I follow it. Yeah, no, that's a great question. Thank you, Michael. I was getting ranty. Not that I'll stop being ranty, but so there's an observation that Bill and I have been coming to for the past couple weeks with massive wiki. One of them is the part of massive wiki that you kind of see if you step into our world is massive wiki builder, which I think we're either going to rename it or have renamed it. I forget which one. We're renaming that to be massive wiki publisher. We had starter wiki, massive wiki starter wiki, and we realized it's only a starter for the publishing thing. So there's this whole use case of massive wiki, which is just, you know, I can use get, I can use obsidian or Emax or VS code with a few friends that I'm doing massive wiki, right? Massive wiki. And so we kind of realized that, hang on just a second, I need to answer somebody who's at the grocery for me. We kind of realized that we're teasing apart, there's using massive wiki like it's a wiki, and you don't have to do any publishing with that. Then there's using massive wiki, it's very convenient actually to use massive wiki as a publishing tool, a static site builder that gives you a nice website that then is not interactive kind of by design. So massive wiki publishing is not an integral part of massive wiki, even though we made it feel like that to most people who've bumped into us over the past couple years. So to answer your question a little bit, Michael, a private collaboration group can be using massive wiki really effectively and never publish, and that's what we're doing. Can you use it really effectively, modulo that's falling over, tripping over get every once in a while. I'm going to take a break and put this on mute. No, it's crackers. We fence. What? Just saying, he's apparently got somebody fetching an order from the grocery, and I think they just called. Oh, yeah, probably. Oh, sorry, I think. It's interesting. So while we're for a bit because I'm using his question, what is your experience with Git? I guess it's like just to... Git is just to our cane to use. Like, you know, in obsidian, I can... Pete coached me through, excuse me, using obsidian to push files using the git plugin for obsidian to GitHub. But then there's another way you can do it, which has a more complicated display that shows you all of the staged files and you can push from there. I look at that display and I am lost. I am just a lost puppy. And so I think the problem is that it's just a wee bit complicated for people who aren't naturally thinking about that. Sorry, Pete, you're back. I'm back. It is actually Joanne, my dear wife. So it's not just a random... Oh, okay. It wasn't a rabbit? Ship is the one we're using. So long story short, we think we're going to get better at presenting massive wiki as a wiki and figuring out the sociology of wiki. So it's a whole, another whole kind of worms. It's actually really... It's hard to use wiki as well, or it's not obvious to use wiki as well. It's easy once you're in wiki nature and thinking wiki. It's hard to get to that state. So my question is, Git is just this pain. And last week I'm like, you know, we don't need all the fancy stuff of Git. I don't even really need it to do diffs. Like last file, save wins, all the fancy things it does, I don't care too much. I care about versioning and I care about sharing. How about if we just write some simple demons that run on your box that do the right thing, that do the very minimal stuff that you need to do? So by the way, we've also gone through the sync thing. Sync thing is another amazing and wonderful tool. But it's built for a different use case, which is making sure that you have the same files on different computers. We have a different use case, which is we want the same files on different computers, but we also want a version log of them. So, you know, to the last post in chat, the masterdom post, it's like, you know, people do this over and over. It's like, well, I need my information decentralized. Git isn't working for me. I'm going to write my own because it's better. So half of me goes, it's a great idea, you know, like the three or four things that it should do really well that's different from other needs, apparently. Is it crazy to think that we should follow that path a little bit? Should we just try to wrap and get into submission or something like that? Yes. It's my provocative answer. And very sync. Both, yes. So I think, no, just being facetious, I think building something on top of Git that essentially out automatically manages the 15% of cases that are not working. Seems to me like a better approach and probably more useful to the world beyond the initial impact of the project we developed that for. I know a lot of people have developed like, have had solutions for this kind of thing, including myself, and I'm able to link mine. So it just seems like it's, you know, it has like a bigger upside, even if we, the tools we developed that for fail, maybe that will be actually useful in itself. Also, it allows people to still pick behind the curtains as they grow that. So that to me, and this, of course, leads me to the path of like, that this maybe exists and maybe there are like a million projects called EasyGit and they don't do what we need, I mean, another one likely. But yes, that will be my default. If we, after we exhaust that, then I will go into the direction of a different demon or service, just because I think, you know, in practice, there is just a lot of downside to like doing our own thing without having at least try to build on the tools we already have. Oh, that's really smart. Thank you. I needed that. I don't know if it's right, but then I don't know if I'll follow the advice. I know, I know exactly how you feel. This is my, this is my 10 line hack, which works for me, TM. This is what runs in a loop as a system D service, essentially, you know, so the tool could be something akin to a system D service that runs these. The one thing that I, I believe this is lacking. Yes, yes, yes. System D is like a, you know, the unit and like a system, is like a, is the system that I'm in terms of diamonds, like, you know, system services in like most Linux. And, you know, Mac has its own. It's all. So I think if you just, if you are fine discarding updates, I think just base, get commands are probably enough to essentially rebase and, you know, automate that process. I don't know, but my, my, my follow-up question is what is actually in the 15, 15%. I, so I have a similar mine is actually a cron job. The thing that isn't part of my cron job is that pull rebase falls. Exactly. It took me a long time to kind of realize that, oh, you mean, you know, because, and, and it actually took a while to even, I don't know, I like, I think, I think the way it was set up or something like that, we had some people with, they had rebase set to false. Some of them were set to true. I think I had a system where it was sometimes one and sometimes the other. Yeah. Yeah. And so, so it took a while to go, you know, this would be a lot easier if we just didn't have it rebase everything. Yes. I think the other big component of it is a couple other big components. One of them is getting it installed on an arbitrary system. Somebody has a Windows system, somebody has a Mac, somebody has a Linux box. You know, what do you tell them? And, and Mac is still the native, the native Git is still in developer tools. You know, so it's like, don't worry, you're gonna, you know, you're going to, you know, have to agree with Apple that you're, you know, blah, blah, blah, whatever. It's like, you know, come on guys, you know, Git is a beast to try to get installed on an arbitrary machine that for a non-technical person. So that's one thing. Then the thing right after that is getting authentication, right? There's like four or five different kinds of authentication that might work. And depending on who's, so I've got a population of semi devs. So, you know, there's HTTPS, there's Git, there's you can use. So part of the problem here also is, problem is a weird word, but, you know, you're authenticating to a service. So GitHub, for instance, GitHub has kind of rotated through different authentication methods and preferences for them, right? So depending on who got set up when, you know, they've got some old creaky personal access token that is about to fall over, that hasn't yet. So then you go in and tell them, oh, you need to switch all your HTTPS things to Git. And then you tell, yeah, you break all their, you know, so, so that's another part of it. And we've, we haven't automated anything. But, you know, I think we've got pretty good how-tos now for installing Git. The thing I would prefer is just to use, there's a Java, a pure JavaScript Git clone. Yeah, yeah, isomorphic Git. Yes, yeah. Yeah, you know, and let's use that. Bundle it. And then I think the thing to do with authentication is something similar, you know, you just automate the authentication stuff. Yeah, yes. I think I, or just go with Git. And like, I could totally say, maybe sort of like the Massive Weekly community, the Aguara community, and so on, could maybe run our own Git servers or federation of, you know, like a foundry. Yeah. And then iterate with that, maybe over GitHub, although they would, you lose the network effects and, you know, we have the conversation, but I will be super happy to like, maybe have like a re-instrumentation just on that. That's a good idea. Yeah. The thing that I hope to get to someday, I still hope to get to someday is the GitHub style collaboration or requests and, you know, fine-grained commenting on changes and, you know, that kind of stuff. That's amazing. But maybe that's a thing to do on our, maybe we should get outside of, there's the network effects too, but maybe we should use one of the new foundry, you know. Yes. And honestly, I've been actually, it's interesting, when I interact with GitHub, I'm actually believe, unless I'm doing something wrong, that the tools for commenting, the review flows and so on are very basic actually. So I found, although they are good enough because they have comments and so on, but like, I really believe Githi or the fork, who's name I forget, maybe we'll actually leave for Githi. Maybe I'm wishing. Yeah, that's a good observation. So Codeberg, I think is the fork you're thinking of. Yeah, that's two forks. I think Codeberg maintains one of the forks. I don't know what it's called. They did a fork of a fork, kind of. Oh, so they call it for Joe. For Joe. Yeah. Yeah. The, I think I get what you mean. The collaboration tools in GitHub are actually pretty simple. They're not, like if you were doing, you know, the fancy annotation stuff that we'd want to do and, you know, it's, you can't really do it. On the flip side, I think what they've got is super usable. It's really easy to start using the GitHub collaboration tools and to continue using them. You don't have to do training. You don't really have to understand what's going on. You can kind of just fumble around through it, like millions of developers have without reading any documentation. They've smoothed off the UI and the UX for it so that it just kind of works no matter who's using it. Um, so that's the, that's the thing that I worry about missing out, even though it would be nice to get it to be fancier and better, maybe. Yeah. Yeah. And maybe for Joe's. The other thing, I feel like we, and I think we discussed this earlier, but just to, like, I guess bump it, that I feel could really benefit. I mean, I could be part of this political package that we build either as a standalone daemon or as a component to it, like maybe a packaging of it is a automatic merge for Wiki like edits. Yeah. So that's not there. But if we develop the tool, like I can actually tackle the, you know, in my experience, majority of merge conflicts for like, I got a nose and so on, which are like, you know, Wiki like, that will go a long way. Essentially, the question of like taking a conflict in Git terms, text complex and resolving it using the same rules you will use if you were, you know, resolving a conflict in a CRDT, right? Or, so, I mean, or just resolving it in any way, honestly, right? But better than our writing. The typical example is you add a block, I have a block, and suddenly we have a merge conflict, but it's not really a merge conflict. They are two blocks. Any order is okay, right? So, you know, hierarchy, they are like, what, what looks seek, you know, the sort of that. So I would be super happy to work on that, actually. I would be too, except I don't have any time to do it. Exactly, yes. But maybe we should make a notional project for it, and as possible kind of add. Yes. Well, a non-technical person's technical question, which is really more of a philosophical question or a paradigm question. I've been talking a lot to people about paradigm, paradigms for information gathering and dealing with the whole notion that we live in push world where, you know, stuff is coming at us and it's not all stuff we want. And, you know, all the solutions seem to be about moderation and, you know, at best filtering the stuff that's being pushed at us. And then we're trying to push stuff outward to compete in the push world. But that what we really want is a pull world where, and I don't know how this relates to what pull requests mean in get world. And it may be something completely different. But the notion that everything that we have and want, well, that we have in the way of information that is our digital selves that we don't want to share lives with us and stuff that we want to share, we make available, but for somebody to get it from us, we're not pushing it at them, they have to pull it from us. And likewise, if we want to bring information we are choosing among things that are accessible to us. And we may be setting up automated feeds that are essentially algorithms. But there are hours to set up saying we want this information from this source that is accessible to us for free or for a payment delivered to us at this interval, like I want this in the form of a weekly newsletter or I want it in the form of an RSS feed that comes immediately as soon as the thing is published, whatever it is. But it's, we are in a non-technical, non-git terminology, we are requesting that pull and specifying our intention to give it some of our attention rather than having to demand our attention that all we can do is turn it off in a push world. So my question, rough single with all that, is does that paradigm relate at all to the get-notion of pull and pull requests or is it something completely different? You could, it maps kind of exactly, a pull request is an announcement to a listener