 Okay, let's welcome Gregus for talk, talk, and just talk. I've decided to be completely non-digital, so I'll just talk and wave my arms around and I have printed paper, which is a rather new invention. My name is Gregus Peterson, by trade and profession I'm an anthropologist. I've been involved in this environment for a while, I was for a couple of years on the board of the Danish BST user group, but I would not pronounce or say that I'm a technical person, I'm a fumbler. And in this way I'm also, in terms of what I do right now, I'm a fumbler. I'm conducting a research project, which is focusing on the generation and creation and maintenance of property relations in the boundary zone between commercial companies and a specific free software project. So it's about construction of what is property and how is it negotiated in everyday life. So what I'm going to talk about today is sort of some thoughts I've had on this thing on property, ownership, value is an important thing, aspect. And my title is open source, is it something new? This is basically a rhetorical question because it's, from my point of view, it's nothing new. The term open source might be a new term, which has been produced or constructed as a result of certain intentions, relations, history and a lot of individuals' interests and aims and a whole lot of things. I'm not going to go too much into it, but what it is, it's in a sense a representation of a very basic struggle in human culture. And I'm going to try to talk more generally about human culture. And what the struggle is about is, it's a struggle about what is valuable, what is valued in our basic everyday life. What is like the foundation of how we understand the world and how we interact with each other. And this will, of course, be me talking and I'll take whatever I have on the shelves and in books and what I've heard other people say and I'm going to wrap it and beat it and pillage it and twist it and basically do whatever I want to do with it. So don't take anything, what I say, for being reality or real or objective or anything. It's something which is my personal comments to a certain number of things. But it's also a comment which is in a line that there are voices speaking out there that the open source mode of production will be the dominant mode of production in the post-capitalist society. So this whole idea of open sourcing, making things available, circulation is part of a struggle between a present mode of production and present economical model which is dominating our everyday life right now and something which might be tomorrow. So we might be finding ourselves in a position of change, of transformation, which again says it's a significant struggle which goes on here. And some of these, some of the things that I'll keep referring to here are terms like property, the state, mobility, nomadism, that we are mobile, that we move around, but also in the classical nomad sense, sedentary life, that we are not mobile. I'll talk about circulation, I'll talk about knowledge. So I have some terms which will keep on popping up and disappearing again. And what is in this, what I'm going to talk about is tying it together, it's this basic concept of value. And you might ask, what is it? What is value? And in that sense, while I'm doing this, feel free to ask questions, just pop in. I have a question. And I'm asking this question, what is value? Any of you thinking about what value is in your everyday life? A lot of people seem to think about it. You have at least three different notions of what value is. There's a sociological sense that it's, what kind of forms our life, what makes it, what structures it, what indicates for us what is good, what is proper, what is desirable in our everyday life. That's one interpretation of emphasis of what value is. There's also a different one which is economically based, what is valuable in the sense of how much is it desired by somebody else and how much can be value added in monetary terms. But there's also a sense which I think to some extent in this context is quite interesting because it's the value which is placed into valuable relationships, the relationships we have between each other, which are important to maintain. But we cannot value them as being measurable in terms of money, like we have a relationship, we don't but we could have one, in a sense we probably have. I assume we are both BSD system users? No. Okay. Sorry. I was, I made an assumption. But we could have been. Maybe I will be. Yeah. But, so we share something in common and this is important to both of us and to all of us that we share this thing in common and we're not putting it into a spreadsheet and find out, okay, what's my profit on it? And we're not saying that it's like something which in a very specific institutionalized world since guides our life and what we do in our everyday life. So it's something different. And you can say that what is, I think what is here is one major struggle which goes on is to focus on economic value that we are in our everyday life is measuring things in terms of money. And what we do there to make it possible to measure, to value something in terms of money, it's needed to take this product, this object we're talking about and detach it from its producer or prior owner. Has to be alienated. It has to be ripped out of all these valuable relationships which it represents when it's still tied to its producer. It has to be free-floating so that it's possible to measure it in comparison with other objects and not as a product of social relationships. And this is of course the paradigm of this present capitalist model that things have to be made into objects which can be freely and undetached, exchanged in relationships and transactions which are based on money. And this was a little bit of a detour but what it points at is a very important aspect and that is it's also defining a very specific interpretation of what property is. And in this sense property is something which is clearly tied to individuals. Individuals owns something which they control completely. They are in control of what happens with this object that they have bought or acquired or appropriated. And that's the whole basis of the capitalist economy is clearly defined who owns what and who doesn't own what. This is mine, this is yours. I would like what you have and especially if it's cheap and I can make money on it. But this also says, okay, so if this is one specific particular interpretation of what property is and okay, could it be that there are other interpretations, that there are other modes of ownership? And I thought as I wrote in this short brief on what I'm going to talk about in the program what if I take like a little bit of a historic or prehistoric trip? So look at okay, what is, if I use this term property what is, how was it when it all began? And make a small move and a very chaotic property one to the present. We can say okay, what do we know about the property in the prehistory? Probably not much, we don't really know what people thought about. We have all these things that we can dig out, findings and remains and artifacts and some cave paintings and stuff like that. But one specific thing which is quite interesting is that if we look at an archeological material, we'll see that if we take like a time slice, it's quite obvious that you might have a couple of places where they found stuff, certain artifacts, thousands of kilometers apart, but they're actually quite identical. So and there's been this, there's been an old hypothesis that these prehistoric nomadic hunter gatherer societies were quite isolated small groups which had no idea about anything outside of their own little valley, which doesn't seem to be the reality, it actually seems to be that people and things and technology and ideas have been circulating across vast continents. I think the best, some of the best material is from the period around the last Ice Age where you have something which assembled looks circulation networks which spans the whole of the northern hemisphere, because there was lots of ice and less water so you could travel quite extensively. And if you look at present day hunter gatherer people which you see, assume they are primitive and as in that sense, they are representations of what we have been, they're still living in present day time so it's kind of oxymoron, but still you can see amongst some of these fairly socially structured terms, primitive groups, you can see that they have no specific sense of individual property. They have lots of things they use, they have to carry them with them all the time or they have them for a very short time where they fabricate them and then throw them away again. But they have certain things that they keep on with them during their nomadic lifestyle but they're not owned individually. And one of the, there's a quite funny thing amongst a hunter gatherer tribe from Tanzania called the Hatsa, we have a social structure which is based on demand sharing. You have to share, if you have something you have to share. And to make this a nice, it's my interpretation, to make it a more, probably a more positive approach, they are extreme degree gamblers. As soon as they have a minute, which they have quite often, hunter gatherers have lots of spare time, they sit down and they gamble away everything they have. So it keeps circulating within the tribe which I think it's quite fun and at least it's a positive way of gambling because you can ensure that okay I might lose whatever I was carrying around right now but I'll probably win it back tomorrow. But it's not mine anyway so I don't really care. And what is interesting here is that they have this demand sharing system where if you have something you are demanded to share it. Somebody, everybody in the tribe can come up to you and say I want my part of that meat you have, okay you have to cut it. And you cannot say no, it's mine. Which is different from a very basic assumption about what actually keeps human society together. The normal, the more, let's say, dominant assumption is that we are basing our life on exchange, exchange of gifts as the basic foundation of social structures. We have an exchange cycle. It's also called reciprocity that you have an obligation that if you give a gift, you are like you're the receiver of the gift is obliged to take it, accept it. But when you have given something you're also obliged to receive again. So you have continuously exchange cycles where you give things back and forth across time and space. And this goes on forever in principle. And what is important here is the maintaining of a relationship. It's nothing about that I give you a cup which is worth 20 kroner. No, it's more that I give you a cup so you can drink of it and then you can give it back to me again. And then basically I have to give you something again because I got any goals. And that's the assumption that we are tied into these exchange constant and replicating and self-building and self-maintaining and self-reproducing exchange networks which are the foundation of our social lives. But then again, exchange, as soon as we start in this sense to be aware that we are exchanging something and we need to get something back again and the complexities of all this. And then we suddenly have, if we go farther up into history that something interesting happens, then like if we look at the first written records, what are they about? I was thought, it's actually quite fun. They're about how much grain is in this storage? Who owns what? Who's next in line? All these ancient clay tablets from Soumya, they're all about something which is in the storage. They're all about things and who owns what and who is going to own what. So it's already at that point when you have like an emerging straight structure, it becomes extremely important to specify what is owned by whom? Where are the boundaries of what is mine and what is yours? Where is the boundary of our land and your land? And we want your land because it's next to ours and it should be ours because long discussions and wars. But it also indicates something that suddenly becomes an issue to control how things are circulating and keep things only accessible to certain people and not to everyone. And again, this concept of circulation and non-circulation starts emerging. I think that's where I'm thinking about this, that open source is nothing new is that it's open source is about the circulation of things and knowledge and ideas and artifacts and that people have access to without anybody dictating that you're not old enough, you're too old, you're a man, you're a woman, certain basic things. But that these things are, that information is circulating or it's not circulating. And in that sense, there's an emergence here of something which is probably maybe it's a very important aspect in our basic culture is that there's a distinction in how knowledge is managed. Let's say you have these early and state structures which suddenly realize or it becomes evident that they are starting managing knowledge in a different way. It's not free for everybody to have access. And you can say it's not as it's quite often is talked about in Unix's context that there is this guru over here who he's going to help you because he's offering his knowledge away. You also have the Asian guru whose position and his amount of respect which is around him and his aim in life is to share as much as he can. And in that, in what is said, in contrast to this, you'll have a knowledge management model which is built on a magical conjurer, someone who keeps things secret. He hoards knowledge and he or she doesn't give it away and they make their claim to fame by keeping things. So you have like several elements which kind of keeps on pointing towards this clash between circulation and non-circulation between open and closed. And I think this is also tied into something around the creation of this state as structure which if you go back to one of the first philosophers who thought about or made assumptions about the state was Plato and he had this notion of the democratic state and what it should contain and you had these philosopher kings which should be like kind of guiding it. But the funny thing was that he actually also had a notion of the ideal state which funny enough didn't have warriors, didn't have philosopher kings, didn't have all these people who actually kind of took the power and controlled the flow information. But it still didn't hinder the development of these like first huge city-states and the whole first very large empires which culminated with the Romans. And what is significant about the Romans is that they made this decision. The whole world as we know it is ours. Very clean and cut. Luckily they only knew larger parts of Western Europe and a part of Africa and so. But they declared it's ours and everybody else doesn't own anything. It's Roman property and they liked to build big cities. They were quite sedentary and they went really into mobility in that sense. The funny part is that they got conquered and overthrown by hordes of mobile Huns and Visigoths and everybody started throwing themselves at the Roman Empire and kind of tore it apart and created what is probably mostly well known as the dark ages. Like the early middle ages, years before the early middle ages which are filled with all these groups of people who are roaming around and pillaging and stealing and raping and whatever they were doing. But the thing was that they were quite mobile and they were again you had like a lot of flux of knowledge and new technology which were being developed and a lot of new things happened. And in that way you can look at these mobile groups which are kind of exploring new possibilities and finding new land and so as kind of a cultural hackers. It's a misuse of the term hackers but then again you have these years, several almost thousand years where not much really went on in terms of history writing. But then again as Umberto Eco writes in the name of the rose the Holy Roman Church came about and they definitely know how to be in charge of knowledge. And I think it's very fun that Umberto Eco is using this model that they know how to distribute knowledge, they put it into a secure library, they don't make copies and they secure or ensure that the local data operators are blind. I think that's quite a fascinating way of ensuring that knowledge is not spread. But this didn't really work, this non-circulation of knowledge or circulation of knowledge amongst a very, very, very tiny group of individuals which definitely all were a member of the Roman Catholic Church and they were all probably monks. And because suddenly somebody found out we can make a printing press, start printing. We can start circulating text and break this monopoly of the Catholic Church and a very elite group with the introduction of the printing press. And at first it's probably about printing a Bible, the text of God. But it also quickly ended up with a lot of people starting printing books and texts where they asked themselves really silly questions like is if the earth is not flat what is it then? And started exchanging these ideas and somehow this whole renaissance wave came along with a lot of people exchanging new ideas and printing books and pamphlets and writing letters and you had like the emergence of quite efficient postal services and they all had these things that they exchanged and talked and discussed. It might have taken five or six or ten years to have a letter, like written letter discussion going on but it still happened and I have to admit I'm a big fan of Neil Stevenson. So and lots of strange things went on those days and I thought I wanted to just read just a little snippet and I'm probably having some problems with copyright because I haven't asked to read a lot. So let's not talk about that but this is just a short part about one of these, let's say, scientific settings in those days where one of the heroes of Quicksilver, Daniel, comes to visit some of his friends, were at Comstock's castle and all of this was obvious enough for Daniel as one of Comstock's servants met him at the gate and steered him well clear of the manor house and across a sort of defensive buffer zone of gardens and pastures to remote cottage with an oddly dingy and crowded look to it. To one side lay a spacious boneyard chucky with skulls, skulls of dogs, cats, rats, pigs and horses. To the other a pond clutter with wrecks of model ships curiously rigged about the well some sort of pulley arrangement and a rope extending from the pulley across a pasture to a half assembled chariot on the roof of the cottage. There were small windmills of outlandish design, one of them mounted over the mouth of the cottage's chimney and turned by the rising of its smoke. Every high three-limb in the vicinity had been exploited as a support for pendulums and the pendulum strings had all gotten twisted around each other by winds and merged into a tattered philosophical cobweb. The green space in front was a mechanical fantasy of wheels and gears and broken or never finished there was a giant wheel apparently built so that a man could roll across the countryside by climbing inside it and driving it forward with his feet. So you had a period there suddenly when people went or some individuals, scientists, philosophers went crazy about stuff. They explored all kinds of ideas and they shared it. Very important that they shared and again shared their knowledge across vast distances. And these years were also a period where it became even more important to find out what is mine and what is yours, again to identify property. And this was also a result of these emerging colonial empires, Western European empires in North and South America, Asia, Africa, the slave trade. And it made someone like Adam Smith ask themselves, okay, we have these new nations. How do we ensure their wealth that they prosper? And his answer was of course the free market guided by this invincible hand, free invincible hand, which guides it. Again, there's something there. It's not just, we can't allow that it circulates completely free. We need something to guide it. To be sure that there's something which dedicates, dedicates controls. What is actually the value here? What is this about? We don't, we can't have it like everybody just agreeing or making their own points. We have to have somebody who's in charge somehow. And a part of this, what also was also something which went on in these years, started out, was an enclosure movement. You had all until the beginning of the 18th century, you had vast tracts of land and resources which weren't really owned by anybody. They were like common. They were like, you had like common village fields. But then it started this enclosure moment where what became important to put up fences and clearly identifying who owns this field. You see the North America, they suddenly started putting fences up across the prairie and quite odd, but significantly important because it again identified what is my property? Who, who's this belonging to? Because if you have a free market, it only works if you know who owns what, so who can sell what and who can buy what. I think that's kind of needed. You cannot have a free market if you don't know, if nobody owns anything, then there isn't a market. So the market is dependent on clear definitions of who owns what. And this of course in this historical movement, it's difficult not to talk about Marx. He had his basic distinction between means and forces of production and relations of productions. So he says, okay, we have means and forces. We have what we're doing it with, land, natural resources, technology, which are necessary for the production. And then we have these relationships of production, which are social and technical relations between people. And again, property is still extremely important in this context, even for Marx. He's really lying that it's possible to identify individual property. And there was one voice who raised and asked a very, very, or stated a very, very basic comment. Puton said in about the same time as Marx, property is theft. Individual property is theft. We have to recognize that what we're doing is a product of ourselves standing on top of quite a number of giants, but also millions of dwarfs. He didn't use those words, but I think that's the sense of it, that he's saying our ownership of things, what is there is product of a generalized human production. So we cannot claim it for ourselves and as individuals. We can say it belongs to us. It belongs to humanity as such. And we can only reproduce it in terms of a mutual or collaborative ownership. And I think that in some ways this brings up to the title, this open source, this is something new. No, for me it's not if I look at this perspective, which has probably been slightly chaotic, but it's nothing new. It's a reflection of a struggle between individualized, highly controlled model of ownership and like a multiple or collaborative or a common model of ownership and recognizing it. And this again points to what is actually valuable, what is the basic value in our everyday life. Is it something which can be measured in terms of money or is it something which we value in terms of the relationships we have to others and respect, so these relationships and respect the work which has gone ahead of what we are doing. Again, respecting that we are standing on the shoulders of a lot of other individuals. And so I think this again ties together when we talk about value and property. I think we have to talk about something which is clearly tied into this whole construct of the state which we live in. This very specific state where we have a very few individuals who are in control of what is right and wrong and who owns what. And this might also be tied into a question about is it something which is closely related to a sedentary lifestyle like which came out of the invention of farming and the building of cities. Again, we're maybe living for some in a life situation right now where a lot of people are becoming much more mobile than they were just a few years ago. There's this sense of mobility. It might not be moving around that much but we are mobile in a different way. And definitely we are living in a world where there's an immense explosion in the circulation of information and ideas and technology. And it's also a reality that it's driven by some new defined licensing schemes whether VSD, GPL or CC or whatever. But that you have this reformulation of this idea that things is owned in objects. Ideas are owned in a collaborative way or a common way in comparison to individual ownership which still seems to be in the economical terms the dominant model. And I think the basic struggle here is a cultural struggle on is there what is the basic value is that non-circulation is that keeping things like they are or is it circulation where knowledge is circulated and things keep changing all the time. And I think that's one of the way you can say that open sources is in terms something new but it's also not. And it also points to one very specific thing we should remind ourselves is that we have to recognize that we are standing on the shoulders of people and we owe them for what they did for us. So do we feel in ethical terms okay with taking what is actually their work and just appropriating and say it's mine and I don't care about I'll just do whatever I want. Can we do that? I think that's a significant question which is asked in terms of open source as concept. And I think that was pretty much what I had to say. So feel free to ask questions. And I think especially these questions what did you actually say? Because I can confuse myself on that. How the BSD license fit in my picture? I think originally I suggested that I wanted to talk about the BSD license but it I ended up talking about this instead of. I think the BSD license is in this sense extremely interesting because it's if you look at it in comparison to other licenses extremely free. It doesn't in reality doesn't really dictate anything else than don't claim that you made it. As long as you keep crediting whoever made it you can do whatever. So in that sense you would expect that this if you look at it as a social model wouldn't be reproduced. It's like there's no like no nobody's gonna come and beat you up if you just make it into a closed product because as long as you kept saying okay I didn't make the original but I'm not gonna tell you what I did since the guy you can understand me. So there's no like in some sense it there isn't like anything which is controlling what you can do and what you can't do. So what is actually how is the social system the social society the social institution which is relied on how is this being reproduced. And I have to admit that I'm somewhat of a question mark in that sense because it seems to work. People are giving you know they're offering what they do for free so it might be that they very clearly recognize that they're dependent on who came before them and who was who coming after but at the same time it's it's it's also very difficult to to explain well how it actually works. Yeah. Can I ask just as an aside for a comment, in a certain sense you're a developer you've been around I mean you're obviously here contributing your time. Yeah I'm contributing things like source code to the project. You've really gone through that process. Not really I've contributed the documentation. I would argue and I think that this is sometimes very personal for a lot of different people. There's a certain kind of love and passion for the work. There's a kind of a love for the technology, good stuff, making stuff, a kind of a passion for what you're doing. It's more important than sometimes the work recognizing how many people have come before and the shoulders of all the giants are standing on. And what that's how wonderful experiencing all of that is and the creative lives working with politics. That it's to me and to a lot of people I know very simple to explain because it's a guarantee of the continuation of the work. The individual in the self is far less important than like hacking more if that makes sense. So the value ends up being lived. So if that means that it goes and lives in commercial products there's a sense of knowing enough history of where things come from to know that it's going to come out the other side somewhere and benefit someone else. And if it doesn't it doesn't matter because it will keep going somewhere. So in some sense you're saying that there are different interpretations of what work is. Yeah. Yeah. Which is clear. Yeah. I completely agree. There are numerous distinctions in terms of what work is. And you know there is a continuous discussion with an anthropology what is work. One example is that okay work is something where you you make money on it but it cannot likely as well be something which is all about reproducing the well-being of your family. But the well-being of your family as being the this extended kin system which expands 27 islands and contains 20,000 people of whom you've only met 27. So that's a different complete different notion of work which is far more close to what you're saying. Sure. Yeah. I think maybe even in his talk earlier how why they released some of their work also has a point that simply it's easier if you also have other people to help maintain your work by releasing it as part of the common. Yeah. The very first reason why you should just to avoid all of the people working against us. Even if they don't know that's they're doing. I don't know they're working against us but that's what they're doing. They are working against us which we are working against as a difficulty. point of view. But yes, I think that you wanted the veteran to make things easier to travel in wasting time. Yeah, this question about avoid wasting time, but it might also be that you just avoid that other people are wasting their time with doing something which you already did. So that you're actually deciding, okay, I might as well help whoever. I don't know them. I have no idea if they're out there. But if I release my idea and my code, then it might actually help somebody else with doing what they're doing without me having to have a relationship with them at all. Yeah? Yeah. Because you can say that with this releasing or not yet you can say okay, you will never lose the credits. You're always going to be the one or one of the ones who coded the thing when you talk about source code. And you can keep it and you can hold it and you can have it on your hard disks, hard drives at home, and no, I just did the best thing in the world. But if you just keep it there, it doesn't really make much sense. It makes sense to you, but it doesn't really make sense in social terms. So if you want to go into a process of making sense of your own work, then you kind of have to release it. You have to make it public. You have to have friends and peers and enemies look at what you're doing and maybe say okay, it's actually, I don't like it, but it works. So I'll use it anyway. Yeah? We've talked about ownership. It can be ownership in the sense that one person owns something like the money in the pocket and no ownership like nobody owns the universe. But it didn't continue. I own something, my family owns something, my city, the country, the community members. I think your question about how ownership is understood is a question of do you incorporate obligations in relationship to ownership? Like I can say one example, I've written these documentation, pages of documentation for a project. And I have, they are on my copyright. And by saying that okay, you can spread them as you want to, but you have to remember to give me, to mention that I was the original author of them. But one of the obligations which is there is that okay, if you want to make major changes, it would be quite normal to maybe send me an e-mail and say hey, I'm planning to wipe all what you did and replace it with something new. How do you think about that? Will you put some comments into that? So that you kind of have this obligation that you ask someone if you are going to make a major rewrite if that other person is still active. Okay, should we work on this together? What can I do and what can't I do if I want to keep this line moving? So in that sense you have a lot of different ways of understanding ownership. But what is interesting right now is that in this present day and time is that you have a very, very narrow dominant model of ownership which is focused on this individual ownership to very, very specific things which are completely controlled. You don't have any obligations. Like if you buy a chair, you don't ask the manufacturer if you can repaint the chair when you get it home. But if you had a different notion of ownership, you would maybe have to or you'll be obliged to ask the producer of that chair if it's okay to paint it red. If you take a step into say art, I mean it would be kind of not very popular to change a van Gogh even though you own it. You're owning it and you bought it but you couldn't just repaint it because you'd like the producers to be a rubber painting or whatever. But that again, art is actually very, very complex because on one hand you own it but it's also something which is an investment object. You know, you expect when you buy it you'll expect that you sell it for more when at least if you don't something went wrong with your investment. But you also have this thing that you once in a while you hear these stories about this old Japanese man and he used to be buried with his paintings or cremated with them and he has like four Picasso's and eight Van Gogh's and whatever. Which is when you hear it completely unacceptable for a lot of people but I think that's actually if you look at the logic of our society, why is that unacceptable? And which again is this you have like some common history or biography which belongs to humankind which is supposed to be commonly owned or commonly accessible but it breaks with a lot of other logics which are pushed. So you have these like zones where different logics are operating and somehow they some of them get maintained and some of them break down. Also one of the thoughts you know around the open source and other movements kind of assume that everyone acts in a philanthropic way to the best influence on the columns and what happens then. You know if you take the extreme the anarchists they say you need no government everyone does it as well. Well what happens then if one bastard decides that he wants to rule everyone else you cannot stop him because there is no government. So if you get my point then there is definitely a problem here because you cannot necessarily assume that everyone is acting in a philanthropic and decent way. In fact history has gone over and over again to prove that most many people are not. These are very decent. There are lots of clashes and you know it's not I'm not saying that I have a solution for anything. I'm just pointing. Talking about buying things on the gas we could sell them at a higher price after until I think contributing to open source program is something near like that because I consider I bought some ownership for some projects not by paying them but by spending time on them. I'm quite sure my motivation is just having them getting a higher value in the future not to sell them of course but myself my company is another problem but to have them more interesting more efficient more life of more everything so it's not the same because we don't want to sell them but there is the same idea because we want them to get a higher value but it's not the same version. I think again what you're talking about is this buying and selling metaphor is again something where you have to recognize as being something different you're not talking about capital but you're talking about social capital. Social capital is not really something which you can value in terms of money but you can still make things happen with it and you can concentrate it and you can put it into something like your project which is a representation of social capital. If you're doing good work and you've been doing it for a long time and invested a lot of hours you'll be able to ask others to help you in certain situations like because you have your representation of social capital. If that was a comment to your question. I think we are about there.