 This is the OGM weekly check-in call for Thursday, February 17th, 2022. We are here to check in. And it's lovely to see everybody. We were just talking about a podcast interview that Doug recorded some time ago and then we discovered recently and then Stacey listened to and moved Stacey a bunch and I'm going to post that link in the chat just as a way of starting this off because I've got it handy. Think, think, think if anybody wants to watch it. And then we're going to just go around and as people show up we'll talk about what is OGM in our lives and I just wanted to start off by checking in with two things. And one is this week I bumped my routines and schedules and everything sort of pretty reasonably dramatically and I've been starting every day just by sitting with like me and trying to figure out why don't I sit with me more often why don't I show up the way I want to show up in the world. And it's been really interesting and it's still still in progress and still going on. And part of that, once I've figured out some of those pieces of all. I'll probably try to, I'll ask for your help and reconfiguring what we're doing in these efforts like right now there's a bunch of standing calls that are standing calls because because grandma used to cut the ends off the ham because it's too small, which is why we still cut the ends off the ham. Right. And so let's let's see if we can't tackle ourselves in some in some more not organized but intentional way, I think that would be really good. And a piece of the work I'm trying to do is about grief and forgiveness and some things like that. And then the second thing is that I'm just stood up and finally have a website for pictures brain, which is, I've, I've, this open goal of mind has been a labor of love and is totally fun. So I need to figure out, like, how do I, how do I turn what I love to do into some form of income and pictures brain is a way to do that. It's, it's basically I have two brains. I did a video long ago that says I have two brains and they're both open. So here's the, my brains are open, there we go. And I was basically playing on, on Paul Erdos, the mathematician who toward the end of his life traveled, visiting other mathematicians, and I don't know that he ever showed up on an ounce I don't know enough about the actual rhythm of it but he would show up at somebody's house and say, my brain is open, and then he would live with the family for four or five six months and write papers with the mathematician in the family. And at this point, the Erdos number is like a Kevin Bacon, you know, six degrees of Kevin Bacon number and if your Erdos number is low that means you were a co author on papers with Paul Erdos, and, and so on and then he's a little bit like Kevin Bacon and that there's so many the web of papers that that relate to him is pretty gigantic. Anyway, for pictures brain I've got this one on board which is not a bad strategy brain and then I've got the one that you've seen a bunch that I bring into things that I've been curating for 24 years, and the two together pretty interesting and if you go to pictures you'll find you can see a session that I recorded with Wendy McClain and then I just finished editing another one I did a couple days ago Scott mooring, which are sort of sample sessions of the whole thing. And anybody you know, who might be interested, please refer. That would be great. I haven't set up a referral program I should probably do that, or a bounty or some other sounds so commercial. So my apologies for that but I'm trying to figure out how to, how to stand in the middle of the things where we love to do and occasionally make a living from doing so. With that said, let's go around the room and check in as we often do. Grace is eating so I'll wait until I call on you a little bit later. Let's go Stuart Dave. Caronza. Oh my. Okay. It's a it's a it's a full plate. I was teaching last night between seven and 10. PM for me, working with folks at Fiji telecom. I hate to say this you guys, you guys, many of you who work in tech will appreciate their telecom was not good. It was really kind of a pleasure to work cross culturally and to see after a very short period of time, how much we are all alike beneath some very very surface differences. I've been enjoying the first session we had yesterday of the project that Ken Homer organized about about climate. And then it was interesting that in this morning news feed, Seth Godin's got a new book called Almanac, where he has like 300 of the people currently looking at what's going on. And, and I just got a note for my girlfriend this morning do you want me to, do you want me to buy this book for you to get get this book for me which I thought was really, really sweet. And probably most, you know, not that many people know on this call, not that I have been a real activist as as Gil has been, but I was a an Al Gore volunteer. I've been working at climate science for a while, you know, back around 2003456 in that slice of time. It's an interesting phenomenon of me that about six months ago I decided that I only want to be in conversations that matter. And aside from this one there's a few others going on. And it's really, I'm really pleased to have made that made that shift. Who knows if the tilting at will mills I do has any meaning, but I'm dancing as fast as I can. That's my check in. Let's do it. Thank you. Thank you. And I know, I think Pete also we know way too many people who've worked in the wrinkly corners of the world installing internet access and Wi Fi and broadband and point to point other weird things and all that and these people are awesome. And one of them is Dave Hughes the cursor cowboy. There's a, there's a bunch of others but it's a been a bunch of years and people trying to try to weave the world together actually technically, right. Exactly. Let's go, Dave Whitzel. Mark Karanza Stacy. Hi everybody. I'm Dave sitting in Oakland, California. And gosh, what else man. Well, look, you know the conversation I really like to have is I would love to talk about how to fund open source software. So, and I actually don't want to talk about how you talk about funding but I'm kind of curious. Actually, I was riffing off of the exciting exchanges on the email list but I'm really interested in the topic and I kind of feel like the model of how we find it open source software kind of as a city commons applies to data as well and I'm involved in a couple of projects that have a data layer that you want the data I think to be available in the city commons, but somehow it needs to be funded, and you know you still have average costs that you have to fund but you want the marginal cost to be close to zero so I feel like data is an example of an abundant resource that we don't want to make scarce, and it can be extracted with but we still don't have a tool to do that and it feels like this is a group that would have a lot of insights and what the ways are to do that kind of thing so I would love to have that conversation. So just kind of broad one I've been really been, I haven't been given responsibility for this but a very dear friend of ours just became head of the Berkman Center this week, out of Harvard, and the Berkman Center is, you know, was established 20 years ago or so around the internet and society, and you know she's going to have to recraft kind of a mission statement for it. And I think it's different but I'm not sure how it's different you know and I kind of grew up in that in the old Berkman and they were all my heroes were kind of fellows at the, at the place. And it's like well what should they be thinking about today, you know, and I'm really curious, Sue Hendrickson. Okay. She's a Kennedy school buddy. Love that that's that's really cool. But anyway, so another topic possibility is, you know, really curious. Let me scroll back to open source for a second. Can you talk about how like, I'm going to ask this wrong but where are you stuck in the process or what are the, what are the hot questions for you like what, what, what have you found that worked what have you found that broke and what's the edge you're at. So, the, there's a couple of cases ones, you know my wife's case where she's doing aggregating health data in California. And right now, it's largely being funded through the health insurance companies, and probably, you know, arguably ought to be funded through the state. Like nobody kind of wants to take responsibility for funding the infrastructure that makes the data available. And they're just now getting to a point in California where health, the California Medicaid program will pay for ancillary things that affect health, for example, housing. So the new program that's just launching now, where in because of health issues, you can get funding for housing. Right. So we're starting to see the integration across kind of the civic sectors. And, you know, it's coming from health, which I think is where all the money tends to be, but the effects are going to be, you know, a lot of other places. And you expect this stuff to be data driven, I think, but the data doesn't really exist. And you can see that from our response to the pandemic the public health, the individual data doesn't exist for health care but the public health data doesn't exist either. Right, our systems are really suck. And they're, they're, they're disaggregated, they're spread across the state and counties and hospitals and doctors and, you know, Dennis never even get considered into any of this stuff, which is like my baffles. But anyway, so, so there's a very concrete question which is you need this infrastructure they're starting to build this infrastructure they're a few years in, they're making really good progress, but they don't have a financial sustainability plan yet. Right, they've got they've got a few things in the work, but it hasn't come together yet. So who funds it and how do they find it kind of is a very concrete question and then another one is, is stuff that actually I've been listening to Hodgson on around environmental data kind of climate but hopefully much broader than climate. Again, we were going to want I think in a data infrastructure that serves farmers and serves, you know, business people and people are doing biodiversity and all kinds of different things. And the data set is kind of interrelated. Somebody needs to manage it. Somebody needs to make sure it's available for for actual productive work. You know, I guess one of my assumptions is we don't really want the government or the UN to do this because they suck at it. You really want, you know, you want a Linux foundation to do it. And that's one of the cases that I that I've got and the issue is like even on the email discussion yesterday or the other day with the reaction was kind of like, Well, you need a red hat to fund things which is how Linux got started. And that's like an insult that we an insight that we had 20, you know, 15 years ago. What have we learned since that, you know, who else is doing this and what what are the models and what are the, what's the governance look like, you know, who gets to decide how the data is used. And people talk about having for individual data that the person owns the data, which kind of makes sense and especially maybe in like in an indigenous people's colonialism kind of sense that way makes sense. But if people own the data, then it's not abundant. It's, you know, so anyway, I feel like these issues are genuine issues are really important high leverage issues for a societal value model. And I just don't think that we've explored them as much as like we know more than we than we can can frame this issue. Pete has a stand up and I think I saw Sean raise this hand as well. So, so I misread that let's go to Pete. Okay. It makes me think of a buddy I've got and and some of some of us know him, Jim Fruchterman. Jim is Jim is somebody I know pretty well I went to university with him so I got to know him as a friend as well as as also a business leader, open source social good leader. And for a long time he ran something called Ben attack. And he's kind of graduated out of that. And but he couldn't actually retire, because he has too much fun working so now his new gig is tech matters. I was, I brought him up recently kind of in a similar question. There's, there's something that Jim does really well, which is have a fit in both kind of business sense and social good sense. And, and he gets social good software, usually projects funded. And if you look at it one way he's just doing startups. And if you look at another way he's just doing social good. It takes a, it takes a talented kind of set of people that can live in both environments and talk to funding partners about why this thing makes sense. And if you're talking to funding partners about why this makes sense you really need to know why it makes sense. So, there's a whole bunch of Jim and his team working on software architecture and fit the purpose and things like that, like a startup does. And I think that's really important. It's important to essentially build a good business. So Jim's, you know, when he's doing a project he ends up with a business case and a technology case and an architecture that all makes sense in in economic reckoning. And I don't. So I think one of the one of the things that it's kind of tempting to it's tempting to say you can kind of end. Oh, this is a social good project it doesn't need to make sense economically because we hate the capitalism thing. So that's throwing the baby out with the bathwater capitalism, you know, can do all kinds of bad things but the thing that it does well a thing that does well. And also, then it takes that the thing that does well and makes it a horrible thing in the world but the thing that the structure does is evaluating fitness for purpose and evaluating, you know, evaluating things on business case. And so a thing that I've learned from watching Jim over the years is that you can do that kind of thing. And it doesn't mean that you have to do it in a capitalist capitalistic frame. But you kind of still need to do the, you know, essentially an economic by a validation of what you're trying to do, you know, why, why does this matter. And you have to make that case to people who think. So I guess, Jim and I are technologists and Jim's a lot better at me at also interfacing with, you know, funding partners and things like that but there are people like Jim and I who are experts at technology. And then there are people who are experts experts at evaluating, evaluating social solutions or were public policy solutions and things like that. And they, you know, and, and there's an interface where the technical people can build and you know not only the technical architecture and all that kind of stuff, but also the economic model the, the, the, the service model, and then the essentially the business people the public policy people can talk that and take over with that and go okay, you know, these are the these are the ways your analysis makes sense these other other things are where you're going to run into public policy problems or you're not serving the right populations or things like that. So, I think that I think an answer kind of Dave to your question is, is to take the good things that we've learned from capitalism and economic development and things like that, and not throw those away take take real serious responsibility for doing a good job, you know, not only technically but but also socially and in a public policy sense and stuff like that, and that ends up taking multi multi disciplinary interaction and analysis and cooperation, things like that. Thanks, Pete. Another great place to look is the the internet archive for clever business models and for a bunch of other stuff about how do you preserve data for a long time. Yeah, and I guess and I agree with you, I guess one of the things I think is missing is, is kind of the cookie cutterness right. It's like we've learned a whole bunch of stuff about how that works which is exactly what you're saying, but it isn't codified sufficiently that you can take it to public policy people and they grok it. Right, it's not part of our normal process yet and that's I think that that's the stage where we should be at 20 years later, but we're not, you know, and so the state of California is still floundering to try to figure out what to do with this stuff, because you know, like, oh, this you handle this kind of stuff this way. And I think one of the assumptions that I've got is the data, the data layer of the stack is not the product, right, you want products growing out of the data layer. Right, any more than Linux is the product your Linux is the infrastructure, you want products growing out of that so you want a lot of capitalistic investment in reusing the data. You don't want the data to be the capitalistic investment right because that makes it scarce you want it value that is marginal cost which is zero. Right, so data is abundant. How do we, but how do we do that in practice, you know, and then that I just think it's the opportunity to still got out there. Thanks Dave. I deal then grace have more comments on this. Yeah, a couple of things Pete you said that introduce a good interdisciplinary interdisciplinarity is necessary for this that's probably true for most anything useful. So just note that capitalism is good at a certain kind of fitness for purpose but it ignores all sorts of things both costs and benefits side so that's the problem there it's not the market mechanism itself it's what the market mechanisms are blind to. But I don't want to go there now I want to stay on the open source question I have long standing here sweet spot for that. And one of my personal lasting regrets is that I didn't open source the first the we built the first corporate sustainability dashboard back 100 years ago. And could have open source that probably should have and didn't and now there's a Jillian up and then, you know, anyway, slow, slow path there. My concern about open source always has been that it seems to depend on volunteers. And volunteers and doesn't give us a sustainable business or economic model going forward it's it's subsidized as I know are you just are you disagreeing with me or you're saying yeah you agree that's a bad thing. I don't know. Let me just let me get into some more trouble and then jump on it. Excellent. It seems to me that it depends on the generosity of people who are resourced in other ways to be able to spend time to develop open source stuff which is great and laudable and I love it. But that doesn't suggest to me sustainability and scale and permanence. So that's one question it may be that universal basic income is one of the ways to address that. Now it's only people who have the luxury of being able to donate their time, we can do that. I'm somebody who doesn't I have to, you know, when I think about doing something meaningful I always have to think in personal terms about how does that sustain me and Jane financially, which I often much rather not have to do. But I do. So you be I may be a piece of that puzzle. The, the other thing is to expand the discussion about open source is really discussion about the comments. It's broadened and out to not just be thinking about open source software but how do we deal with common resources common assets, and non extractive ways of developing and leveraging what those common resources are with so Dave what I heard in your in your last comment. You didn't use those words but that was how it landed in my head. There's where there's data that is that is analogous to the Commons, and there's applications and uses made of that but they have to not degrade the common layer and the common capability and the capacity of the comments to move forward from that so I'll stop there and I want to hear what that was. I'll do. If you don't mind I'll jump in briefly and then you know more than I do. So, my favorite example here is IBM in the early days of open source where IBM realized they had five different web server projects internally and that web server wasn't differentiators so they adopted adopted Apache, and then they started assigning programmers who were paid a full salary by IBM to work on Apache Linux eclipse. Many years ago IBM had some 600 coders who were being paid full time salaries by IBM because IBM saw it in its best interest long term, will actually mind the Commons. That's interesting that's interesting and that's sustainable, and a mixture of people who have passion people have projects companies that have interests and realize that their best interest are pooled. That's huge here and a lot of insurance companies used to be mutual aid societies and demutualized years ago and became corporations. I think most insurance ought to be mutual aid, and that's some of them still are. And some of them are remutualizing it's very it's a very interesting sort of function it's a little bit like cooperatives right the one that Ben Franklin started 200 whatever years ago is still mutual, which one is. But but mutually run insurance companies are rare rare species these days unfortunately, but but but I think that there's this shift of humanizing capitalism when it starts to realize that shared assets are super important and they need to invest in them for their own profitable business. And if we can figure that out that message out for the data layer that gets really really interesting in different ways so that might that's a piece of Dave's question. Um, I might my disagreement was was largely what Jerry said, I also want to honor what what what Gil said. There are an insane number. I don't know if it's dozens or hundreds but an insane number of like absolutely critical like the clinch pins of our internet, you know, servers or routing or technology or DNS or whatever. It's insane. There are literally projects where you know everybody everybody in the world, who's using a computer is depending on one one person who's been doing a job for 20 years whatever so it totally does happen and it's insane that we let that go even. But there is also definitely a model. The one that Jerry is talking about is the one that I was thinking of. There are a bunch of companies big and small that have realized that they're working on on codes. It's, you know, important to their business but not a competitive advantage for them to hold secret or anything like that. And so they get a lot of value out of making it open. I think I've also I worked. Jerry and I have a friend who's got it. I'm thinking of Greg Ellen, our friend Greg has an open source software company that serves federal government agencies with key, you know, key functionality. And it was interesting watching him. He chose early on to make his system open source and he got a little bit of benefit out of it and and a lot of kind of unbenefit from it. There's there's something there's a tricky line to and I've done this to I've made a bunch of stuff open source and I don't get any benefit of it. There are just leeches you know I think there's a there's a way that we don't help open source people that that would be really nice to have and there's a way that those infrastructure people I was talking about. There's we need some function that recognizes that hey there's a public good here and let's I in in I think Greg's case it would help a lot actually just to market the fact that he's got an open source solution, he should be having so what what happens in his world is he gets onesie twosie contributors. He doesn't have that he's got to do sales and marketing to his customers he doesn't have the time to do sales and marketing to an open source community that kind of isn't there yet. I've got I've had that same problem with open source stuff right it's oh it's open source and people could be using it to make their lives better and make the code base better that nobody picks up that I don't have time or I don't have the talent to do the marketing that that it takes to build a community around the open source that I've got and my projects are smaller doesn't matter so much but we need we need I like the technology models are there the business models are there the thing that we don't have is kind of the marketing and distribution models, we don't have an awareness that there are these common space solutions that are, you know, they're commons based, but they're super small because nobody cares, nobody knows about it nobody's able to know about it because of the way that we do sales marketing. So, there's a missing piece there in in getting the world to, you know, help itself help or help these open source software developers help everybody. Um, before going to grace Steve Palmer many years ago, did a bunch of stupid things but, but also, one day he said, Aha, I figured out what's broken about open source and he said, Look, there's all there's a super long tail open sources claims to be these thousands of people contributing but it's really only this this you know front end of the distribution. And then, I think it was Ethan Zuckerman or or maybe it was Clay Scherke who said, Mm hmm. Exactly. There's this long tail because there's no membrane that the I think was Clay Scherke that the membrane that surrounds open source software is permeable, you can go in and you can copy it and you can look at it you can do whatever you want with it, and then a few of those people and maybe all that means is that you learn what to do with it, but a few of those people contribute back improvements which then get folded back into the software and that's how the damn thing works. And Microsoft for everybody they hire they have to pay benefits get them an office do all these so there's a very hard barrier around what Microsoft built in particular if they're trying to protect their code and make it proprietary. They then have to make the code secret, which creates a whole bunch of other problems. And then this this dynamic, a lot of companies have shifted their brains over to, hey, participating in shared assets really works as long as the assets are, and here I'm going to go over generalizing probably lower in the stacks so that so that having common assets at that level really works. And then they're all like great so my sequel or name your open source project. We're just all going to contribute to a bunch of these things because otherwise it doesn't get better. And then we're going to worry about the secret sauce that we're going to add, which we may keep proprietary but then we're going to build a whole lot of different projects. And IBM saved the company by adopting open source and within a couple years of selling $2 or $3 billion in service revenues using mostly open source software for their projects. Now over to you guys. This is a really rich conversation and we all have very different perspectives on it. It's quite interesting. And there's a couple things I want to point out one is that it really connects to have you open Jerry with this idea of like how can I do the stuff that contributes the most to the world, and make a living. I've actually in my life completely separated that out. It's like a wall between the stuff that makes money and the stuff that I want to do and I'm trying, you know, like you I'm working on raising funding right now for a very specific project. If it doesn't work, then I'll find another way. So the first thing that I have to say about resources and money, and you know, I love to talk about money is that resourcing needs to be thought about a little bit differently. There's tremendous amount of resources, and I definitely am aligned with what Gil said like you know maybe it's, maybe it's UBI or you know people who are resourced in some other way. And I've said, you know, several times, if the Ethereum Foundation when they raised all that money bought, you know, some land and some solar panels and some, you know whatever, and said to people look we're not paying any B, but we're creating our own ecosystem separate and parallel, then they wouldn't really care so much what the value of Ethereum isn't dollars because they'd have their own actual ecosystem, but they forgot in their ecosystem discussion about human bodies, which is part of the programmers have to do this stuff. And so I think for open sourcing, you know you have to think about resourcefulness another way. And I think the difference in our perspectives has to do with the timeline and the trajectory. It's kind of like right now we still need money, but there's a trajectory in which we can create separate economies are different types of economies, and that's a longer trajectory. I tend to work on that longer trajectory which is I work with reputational systems and this week I'll have something by the way for you guys, working online finally got my video together, but you know I'm working on a longer trajectory but it's kind of like how do we have one foot here and one foot there and you know like move towards this better world while we still need some sort of financial resources and I've been like both for myself and for the projects I work on always asking this question like how do you become less and less dependent on the fiat system for the types of resources that you need. One of the answers by the way in that framework which is really interesting not yet working is hollow chain, and they're an open source project in the book. They're not a blockchain they're distributed ledger technology and hollow chain is a foundation which owns a company. The company is designed to create, you could say competitor to Amazon today to AWS, and they've got boxes I've got one in my house that's not working. But I just reset it and rebooted it and I was like oh this new version didn't work but right you know it's an alpha. The idea is that each of these host boxes is is is, you know hosting data, and the hollow company hollow limited is going to get some percentage of that for running the network. And that's a computer resource so it's like a it's a computer data farm and processing power farm, which is owned by the hollow chain foundation which is the open source foundation. Owns a company, which produces a resource. Will it work I don't know hopefully they'll get out of alpha one, one day and we'll see, but I really like that idea of like we're going to create a company that's, that's owned by our open source foundation, which kind of flips it on its head right it's like oh how does red hat fund this or IBM fund this. And regarding some of the, I mean, there's, there are, I would not call them unintended consequences to having these kinds of like IBM working for this etc etc. And one of the examples is this issue of identity, which is very close to what David's pointing out with data, like who owns the data. And you know how did we get into this situation where Google and Facebook ended up our data with our data, you can listen there's a really great 20 minute talk by Harry help and at web three, where he talks about look, a bunch of us were sitting around trying to figure out how many bits bytes, you know, length of whatever hashes blah blah blah for self sovereign identity for open ID. In the meanwhile, Google's like hiring people off of us and creating their own Google ID and Facebook ID and now everywhere you log in you're like login with Google login with Facebook instead of this open ID which was the idea because a bunch of open source people arguing about it. And he's like every time I turned around. And I was on my team last week's like oh yeah I got an offer for Facebook. Oh yeah I got off from Google. And that's the not unintended consequences of this model of yeah you know IBM has some people working on it. And we still have that in the self sovereign identity space, you know, and, and these companies aren't one thing so Microsoft is very heavily into that self sovereign identity thing and part of them is like doing all the stuff the self sovereign identity is because they're kind of fighting against Google and part of them who knows what they're doing with the data. And it's quite confusing. And when it comes to data and sovereignty it's very difficult to even know what ownership is I think that it's the wrong phrase. I think ownership like when we talk about data theft. It's a lot more like assault, because people are manipulating our minds without our knowing. And so we're calling it data theft but I think it's assault. It's kind of a health data right who is going to know that my hand is shaky, and that my hearing is going first. Well let me tell you it's going to be Google and Amazon, because they're listening in they're going to know that I turned up the volume. And so that's really, that's the world we're in is not data theft but really data assault. And so what are how are these resources used incredibly important and really having kind of a long term vision of like how does this get resourced outside of the capitalist system is important as we do get resources from the capitalist system and look like how are we creating a different world, maybe in a decade or two decades so that's kind of how I look at that problem. Thanks Grace. One small thing before I go to Julian. Jordan Sukut has been in our groups, not in these calls very much but he's been very involved in sort of OGM in general and has a very ambitious project going, but he's a, he spent a bunch of years trying to figure out what is a model that creates a stable enterprise that doesn't mean to the world. And he came up with something called steward ownership which he did not invent. It's kind of an older model there's a bunch of companies in Europe that are steward owned and stewards that the TLDR for steward ownership is, there's a nonprofit that owns all of the shares of a for profit. And he takes the standard whatever country this exists in you take the standard issue C Corp in the US and 501 C three or whatever, you know, in the US those, those are, they have deep roots in the legal system, everybody knows how to do them. But when the nonprofit owns all the shares then the mission of the for profit is tied to the mission statement of the nonprofit and as long as you sort of maintain control of the board of the nonprofit. You can direct the enterprises for this thing to do good in the world doesn't need to like suck the value out of everything that touches because otherwise shareholders will will sue it. And it's interesting but complicated it's one of many different schemes that are now being proposed. And I think that we're in a moment right now of this kind of punctuated equilibrium of trying to figure out what are the new platforms and you know, one of the the new platform is hey it's all going to be crypto and dows and NFTs and another one is you know Zuckerberg saying no just just come into my economy and we'll have a metaverse and that's like we're actively in that that set of conversations now. Julian then gil then let's get back to the queue. I wanted to agree vehement with grace and mentioned that I have an unopened Amazon Echo highest bidder can get it. Nice. Thanks Julian. Yeah, mine is open I ran it for a day and stuck it in the drawer so I got another echo available for somebody who wants that. We don't play that. I put in the chat, a Harvard article listing about a half a dozen or a dozen corporations major legacy corporations that are owned by foundations that model is there. We're starting we're seeing a lot of work on these hybrid corporate structure for firms in the growing momentum toward cooperatively owned businesses. And how do you transition privately held business of the cooperative cooperatively held business and the various layers of ownership stewardship reward governance and different ways of structuring each of those very creative work going on there. That's something that I'm looking at some as I think most of you know I'm trying to stand up a fund. To do sustainability turnarounds exiting to co ops. So I'm deep into that literature by the way just shameless plug I'm looking for a really inspired MBA MBA analyst type person to help me work on this really cares about stuff we're talking about so if you know anybody send them my way. Thanks go. Back to our queue. Mr. Carranza Stacy then bill. There. I saw that Allison, you had your hand up. Did you have anything to contribute my apologies. Go ahead, Mark, I was going to join in the conversation late it was always interesting talk about comments money all that stuff I get excited but I love what I caught as possibly a Freudian slip from good David Wetzel. He started an insult. No insight and noted that. Oh, wow, that's that's fantastic. I think somebody called me white, somebody called me a white man. Boy is that fantastic. That's so insulting and insightful, and not to insult white man. Hi white man. How you doing. Who said that is a woman of color of power in my organization. And I have to, you know, talk to the HR people and say hey, you know, this is really dangerous kind of, you know, area that that we're kind of going into. Because, you know, the way I feel that this woman operates is kind of as a bully, and she bullies with women of color and and you know, sort of a kind of woken us and boy do I feel uncomfortable. Hey, we love that so we had a Friday gathering where we in person outside talked about some of the trolling that we were getting about the D web the distributed web and it turned out that on Twitter. And I have not gone to Twitter and I have not seen this, but the trolling was by furries. This is the weirdest thing I've ever heard that the furries are trolling the distributed web, because they think that NFTs are, you know, extractive bullshit and I tend to agree with them. And I'm trying to find, you know, counter examples and I've listened to a lot of NFT talks and we're having another virtual talk about, you know, what is the ethical position of the Internet archive, when it comes to the big new shiny thing, which basically is the, what did I see about Canada's Yukon they called it the stampede to go get the gold. And this fascinates me and it fascinates me because what led up to this was. Somebody talked I talked and then it was like, hey, we don't want all these white men talking and like what. And this notion of speaking order was brought up and I hadn't heard of speaking order I searched online. I didn't find it but I knew about the progressive stack, which basically says hey, the non dominant people speak first. This is really weird because in my research on speaking order. It's like hey, the powerful people speak last. It's like wait a second, this just doesn't make sense. We want the powerless people to speak first, but normally, the more powerful people speak at the end. What the hell is going on, I don't know. You know, to me dominance, non dominance individually is just more pointedly an experience than any group experience, whether I have a group experience as Chicano, or whatever kind of gender queerness I have. It's totally not your business. Do you think I'm a man, I'm fine with that. I guarantee you. So I have to blow to prove you wrong. That would be like an acid test. Exactly. My best mutual unsilencing experience in a living group was in the early 80s abalone alliance anti-nuclear consensus process. I'm just going to post what I found online with the American Heart Association of all people and a wonderful woman who documented the consensus process for them. Everybody gets heard. And there's, you know, there's different models of it and it's really kind of interesting but you know the success of this in the abalone alliance. You know, as Doug Engelbert noted, as of all human systems, it critically depends on all participants being trained. That is a human investment of real time of real people, which is very, very difficult to negotiate. And it's further improved by at least one, possibly more trained facilitators in the live back and forth of the consensus process. And what was very fascinating reading Progressive Stack on Wikipedia, that Progressive Stack is just an imperfect way of eventually getting. So I don't know and I'd really like to figure out if there is a wisdom of crowds type with study of wisdom of consensus where basically, you know, where it's truly wise and where it's an anti pattern. And I haven't seen any DAO processes embracing similar values of the consensus process and anybody is aware of that. And, you know, or knows about this sort of wisdom of crowds was a consensus where it works where it doesn't, because of course it doesn't work everywhere. I'd really be interested in that but basically, what do I do about being white. You can stand this up on a stage somewhere and get a really interesting set of conversations going. Mark you've, you've popped open a bunch of really interesting Pandora's boxes. I took a course from Scott Peck long ago, where one of the important things he covered at the beginning was consensus like what do we think consensus is and there's many, many different flavors of consensus. Some people think consensus means everybody said yes. And it's 100% agreement of all the participants. And that is a very debilitating kind of consensus because it gives every player full veto power, etc, etc, etc. And I don't know how this plays out but the questions you're asking. Some of the questions you're asking are at the heart of collective decision making, who gets to speak in what order forward reason. How do we then come to some agreement. What is the agreement process, all those kinds of things are important, you know, and these are very og me questions extremely. And then, and then what is each of the individuals identities. How much does that play a role and what's going on. How do we call in or call out those dynamics or those those aspects of self what role that that's really like it's hot on the table right now for society as well. Anybody with thoughts would like to contribute to this set of issues that Mark put on the table. I wish I could talk about what to do about white but I can't. But I wanted to note that consensus, one of the one of the strange places we see consensus happening that isn't examined enough is Wikipedia. Wikipedia has a really broad and really deep consensus process and if you've ever gotten caught up into it it's it's mostly painful and unfriendly and and makes you crazy. It's incredibly Byzantine it's incredibly unfair. There's all kinds of terrible things that happen and yet it still works. I don't necessarily say that that Wikipedia is where do you where you would go for the best example of consensus but on the other hand, the people who maintain Wikipedia and talk about what Wikipedia should post where what Wikipedia should delete is a running example, you know decades long example now of how how humans do consensus and I don't think anybody's killed anybody because of Wikipedia consensus process which is, which is, if you study humans doing consensus. That's like a pretty high bar, because humans humans at scale just suck at consensus. So, if you're interested in consensus. I think I've done a little bit of spelunking into, you know how Wikipedia does that and it's fascinating and Byzantine and and a good object lesson in what's practical and what's not. So, and more people should do that and more people should write it up because it works, even though, you know, working at scale with lots of humans is is a mess. But I don't mean to say that it's, you know, a mess and a failure it's a mess and not super successful but you know more successful and many political national political systems for instance. Which are even more of a mess. Stuart then back to the Q. You're muted. One of the things that that that that popped in mind is this notion is of we becoming we become a culture of victims. So many people are wearing their, their, their victimhood as an identity. And it's amazing how that snowballing and it's something that that of all people and ran. Kind of warned against that we become a culture of, of, of needy people of victims and it just a thought just a little brain flash I don't know what to do with it. So Stuart, let's get another Pandora's box. It's truly a big one. And it's, it's really complicated. I think part of this is that there are a whole bunch of people who are the product of generations of crap and shit and abuse, which has not been recognized which has not been healed, which is, which has set them out of complete disadvantage and declaring those kinds of things isn't to me victimhood it's like God damn it would somebody please like recognize this thing happened. Then there's a whole bunch of other dynamics including people of privilege, claiming that they're the victims of reversing it's basically Darvo. It's a you know reversing victim and aggressor. And it's happening all the time right now it's a very, it's a very clever strategy, you know, in play. And then there's a whole bunch of whole bunch of shades of pastels in between. So, at the risk of eating the rest of our of our call time right now on this particular topic I think it's a fascinating topic, and would love to come back into it at some point. Just, just, just very, very briefly Jerry, I was, I was really pointing to the latter to the to the latter phenomenon not that not not the former I couldn't agree with you more that, you know, that yeah, there are systemic problems challenges of abuse and degradation that we have to address otherwise we're not moving any place. And thank you and thanks for clarifying that. And then I'm going to put a link in the chat to this spot in my brain in case anybody wants to go wander through the culture of victim hood, white victim hood that the empire of trauma, a bunch of different things that I've collected up on the topic. And let's go back to our queue, which right now has Stacy bill Allison. I can what's living for me was framed by four things. One was a podcast that I listened to which was done from a few years ago. The other was the week to the second session of what we're doing with Ken, listening to that which really confirmed for like I keep saying the starting point is with the food system, and that confirmed it. And the other thing was the incident that happened on the OGM mailing list, and the final thing was Jordan's email about the meta project. And those four things, not just frame what I came here with but what everybody here said today, all fits neatly within that. And you mentioned. So first I want to say, I want to say with the Jordan thing. I think there really needs to be a meta discussion about the email about the meta project. meta. And because you were talking about repurposing Tuesdays and Wednesdays call, my suggestion to everything living in the in this frame is that Tuesday be the meta conversations and in this case I would really want to discuss the email, Jordan's email, not the, not the incident. And then the next day, a different set of conversations which I had spoken to Ken about hosting would talk about the conversation that Dave brought up. And that would be the way you framed it, where you asked the questions and everybody talked about it in like a normal way. And you didn't have to worry about the things that happened in the incident. And that's where I am right now. And I think I think it's really as far as meeting that meta conversation before the starting point. It's because you can't just rush and say, All right, everybody start, there isn't one starting point. And one of us is already on our own starting point. And before we decide where we're going to stand. We need to know each other better. You know this split that grace talked about where we have our professional and then who we are as a person is at the world we want where we're are two different people all the time. Just knowing that somebody's in a group doesn't mean we're going to have instant trust with them. There are a handful of people in OGM that I really, really trust. But the rest, I like we seem aligned, but I'm not ready to say I'm dedicating, you know, my life to working with you for the greater good. So, I think the reason I want those meta conversations is aside from being able to learn how to look at things differently, we're really, we have to get used to having the difficult conversations with the people we're closest to first, before we just mix everybody in the pot. I'm complete. And Stacy, thank you for for putting so much thoughtful material in about how we structure what we do and where we're aiming and all of that. And I appreciate that. Anybody else's comments on those thoughts. Otherwise, let's go, Bill Allison, Sean. Hi, I feel a little bit like I really haven't been in these conversations very much, although I've watched several of the videos. So, but I will say, well, first about being white, my wife has told me we just did our voting shows, don't take it personally, but I'm done with white men. So, and, you know, and actually just as a side thing, as we're voting, we're trying to look at who are the younger people running. Who are the people who are living in Austin, Texas, so who are the people who are not white that are actually running for offices because we vote for judges with the visits. It's a bit of a mischievous here. Anyway, so that's, that's just an, it just came up when y'all were talking about. And I think I mentioned before I'm basically trying to unlearn everything I learned about growing up as a privileged white boy in New York City about how the world actually works and how fortunate I have been to have been born that way. At that time. And what Stacy said about this thing about trying to get to know each other is, or just can't be just takes time that really and you know this role, I mean I'm quite used to the zoom thing and seeing people and having little chit chats and, but it just in a way you can't rush it. Maybe that's the good news. Too old for this so the only news is it takes time. And I've come across and I've been reading a lot from people who are just not from the European tradition. And one author I've really been affected by is Amitav Ghosh who has written a couple of books about climate change one called the great arrangement, which I'm reading for the second time, which is even more fascinating than the first time. And his recent book, I'm called the nutmegs curse, which opened to me up to really paying attention to the world is not just being mechanistic, but being vitalistic about actually trying to look at this tree outside my window as my companion while I'm living here in Texas, not just this big tree. And so that he is trying to really unearth some sensibilities about what he calls unseen beings in hidden forces which, you know, the humans have talked about for a long, long, long, long time. And I'm just trying to open myself up when I take my walks about trying to just pay a little attention to the dormant grasses in the lawn. And just stomping across them. But so it's for me, it's really, I'm in a kind of, I don't know, unsettled in the sense of I'm trying to look at things differently than my scientific. I mean, I studied chemistry for 10 or 12 years. In a way I learned how to think by doing all that study. And now it's like, it feels like it's got some blinders associated with it. And I mentioned this before, but I read, I think that we are living in a time that's very much like the 1820s and 1830s on the earth. There was an international everybody in the world was kind of talking about the same thing, even though they didn't have the communication we have. But there was a big change in how countries and interactions and international interactions happened. And it just feels to me that that's what's happening now. A little more about the kinds of movements or events or things that were happening in those decades that that are resonating for you. Well, from what I've read. So, you know, that's, I don't even know what I know. And not being able to talk about people talk about, you know, there was this thing about all the industrial revolution and this thing happened it wasn't the industrial revolution never really quote happened in the world until you know, after the 1850s. And there were many inventions done years, decades, decades before people still behave the old way. There were big landowner kind of systems there were royalty kinds of systems or this. You know, and this idea about really having market based capital it's like in the 20th century we sort of took that. Well pizza on this, you know, we drove that we drove that train off a ditch. What I'm going to get on this neoliberal, you know, capitalist time market is the answer. We're on this thing. There was a world and I think it's like just like, oh yeah, well that's a big wall we just ran into. So, I just feel like it was it and things were happening around the world. You know, in, in, like the Ottoman Empire was, you know, that really didn't until after World War one. Right. It's like, well, wow. So there was still a bunch of thinking that we sort of have a hat release when I grew up had an odd or picture of. I hit a stat that I that it's really stuck in my head and I just put it in the chat which is that at the US Civil War 80% of Americans were farmers. And that shifts dramatically between there and World War one down to 20% like boom everybody goes into cities into factories leaves the farm like like an insane transition and today 1.5% of Americans are farming. So, so then it tapered and went all the way down to 1.5 and who knows what the number is right the second but but but the shift like civil wars 1861 64 like wow that's really late and we were still all out making food. Oh, and the other thing was like the development of the nation state and really having that become the kind of geopolitical unit that didn't happen until late in the 1800s. We all sort of everybody got it together like this is the situation now. Here's how we're going to do it. So there was, you know, things are a bit a lot more fluid aside from that just you know rampant colonialism from, you know, my ancestors, whatever. And the internet was much slower back then. It seemed like there was one just because things were happening in every part of the world that were similar. Right. Maybe it was just morphic resonance. Children. Yeah. Unseen beings. Under the monkey. Thanks, Bill. Let's go Alison Shawn Grace. I am white people, fellow white people. Here we are. And how that frames the coyote really. Thanks for bringing all that up I think it there's just so much to cover that it's hard to know that place to begin. And one word that comes to mind is equity. How we understand it how we understand capitalism had come up. And how we frame our conversations that has to do with who we are in the room and under what system we've been educated into what degree economic trauma is having its way into our understanding of how things should work. And I think we have a frame that has so much to do with this future security, which is equity. And so it's the commons. I think have everything to do with how we're leveraging power over one another and our fear of the future and our fear of having a piece of the future and our fear of having an equitable piece of the future and our fear of being compensated or not compensated or surviving. And I think it's interesting to the next day. And it has a lot to do with how we respond to things I am. Yeah, I think it's interesting to that we have had a lot of similar conversations maybe come up bill from from that period of time in history right now. It's about money again. And that was a conversation that we'd had in our in our country throughout throughout the history of its formation right from our colonial beginnings and through Henry George and progress and poverty and through the Gilded Age and the bimetalism and through the populism and and now it and then it kind of went dormant for a while, as we told ourselves that this was we're finally working it out and poverty was decreasing across the planet and that's still celebrated like what what what myths we tell ourselves as indicators of going in the right direction or a lot oftentimes really mythological poverty is decreasing around the world has everything to do to with this sort of like if we can go back to what Stacy said about the food system and look at that and understand how that is emblematic of our essential selves we are in relationship with nature. Now that tree is definitely more than just a pretty tree outside we're in relationship with that tree. The fact that it's there has a huge impact, not just on the oxygen, or maybe the shade that you have outside of your door but on your heart and an enormous amount of factors in the way that we are nervous systems are are at rest or not at rest which has an enormous impact on how we think and how we relate to one another as the state of our nervous system. And so the state of the planet and its health and our connection to that and feeling a part of that. And that's where food is that's our ultimate connection into where there is no boundary between me and the biosphere. And so understanding those principles of, you know, biomimetic kind of design to understand what it is that we're going for. How do we keep our thought process in check with those fundamental prerequisites of life itself, instead of going off on to some mythologies that we've created under a financial system that has dominated like the I have. I don't know I why do I come into the group and use my time probably because I'm home. I get to work from home right now I'm teaching this whole process everything that we're talking about is pretty juicy and I think that we talk about consensus making and talk about governance and how do we really do governance and how do we really do economics and what money has to do in that and how can we have groups of people in consensus making where we don't really know how to do that or where do we begin to know how to do that. Where do we begin to identify what our needs and wants are and be able to communicate those in a way that feel good, and that are open to consensus, not just because we want everybody to agree with the outcome. But because when we agree we reach a possibility that transcends the thing that we thought we might be agreeing about because we get further input from each party. And, and that kind of equity and decision making is synergistic, instead of just sort of kind of like the budget mentality of how much of the pie are you going to get and how much rightness, are we going to get and split it up. It's not life isn't like that we're not. That's not nature. We don't have to be seeing everything as as a budget, and who's going to have what say, and that's where we've been with equity. When we come together and we're all playing a role in it. The outcome is oftentimes beyond what we think that it could have been. And I think that that's some of the understanding about how to come together and co create that. I'm really feeling is important to be teaching with youth. And, and so I've brought it up to some of the people in the group before because we have. Shimon who's not here right now who has kind of dedicated his time to a salutogenic project and I'm not really sure. That's, it's really big. And if, and so I think maybe you guys have heard him talk about salutogenesis. And I was really interested in that as a framework. And I would be interested to see if you guys would like to poke holes at that model because it's something that I'm bringing into my classroom and my students and I'll drop an article in the chat in a minute. In terms of how, how much does that help as a thinking tool to be able to ground our systems thinking into basic understanding of what human needs are what it is that we're actually talking about talking about how do I get my needs met right now and how do I, and how do I have a promise that my needs, my contributions will not leave me high and dry in the future. And that's been the main critical design fly think in our economy and our finance. So that's my proposal is maybe you guys would indulge me to be able to poke holes at a salutogenic model of thinking about monetary design and economics that I think would be as appropriate for as well as I do for students who are understanding when the world is completely changing and our economic system isn't giving us the outcomes that we want. How do we look at design and and understand how to design towards flourishing. So that's my, that's kind of where I'm aiming at. I'm wanting to be effective with it. Thank you. Thanks Allison. And that feels like very much a part of the larger envelope of conversation that's around the money conversation that grace started for us a couple weeks ago, and that we need to go back and continue so I think baking in some time to spend learning about genesis and then going, you know, going into it would be great. I appreciate that. Mr. Cronza, you're muted. Although, very lively. Yeah. I really suggest the handbook of salutagenesis it's very interesting book and I looked around for people who were criticizing it. And it's so unknown, it seems like it just hasn't gotten to a point of criticism, or that's my impression I'm happy to be proved wrong. One, I mentioned this before one of the bathroom books I have is at least for the last about three months is Alvin Toffler's future shock. And in the back of the book are some solutions. And they're surprisingly close to what I had kind of thought which is basically stronger community. We basically have a community in the skull. We have a community in our physical neighborhoods we have a community for the people that we interact with on so many different levels, and how do we make those stronger and integrated. I don't see that in the salutagenesis literature as of yet. But other than that, it's interesting literature and I also recommend it. There's a piece of this which is in the back of my head that just popped out because of what the way you were saying what you're saying mark which is, I would love to find a way of synthesizing so that we understand better these different kinds of models. There's there's donut economics of salutagenesis there's like a countless of these communities and thinkers that are trying to figure out what the right answers and how to solve these things. And how do we, how do we crystallize them so that they're easier for one person to get a view of many of them. And then how do we pick the best of for what works for us how do we find our way into communities that are doing work on each of these. And how do we prevent or avoid trying to build one model to solve everything and say this is the only model and everybody must suggest about this model and then everything will be okay because I don't think that works. But then, but then the question is, how do we find that coherence or alignment across these different movements and models so that they're not working across purposes. And so that we're all pulling together for the benefit of humanity in some sense because some of these models are pretty contrary to the to each other. Right. And so I think that's an interesting project that's very ogemi project in the sense of, how do we distill out of these things that some of their essence and so that they're understandable explainable and usable useful in the world. And then I juxtapose them compare and contrast essay contest, I don't know exactly Allison. Definitely. It's going to be it's going to be a long process so I think that, you know, and it should be an evidence based process so what impact does going through a curriculum and it is and designing and understanding these things have on an individuals ability to connect collaborate co create and and create so that they can then prototype and see evidence so what is it that the prototypes are going for right well it's going for regeneration which aspect of regeneration will soil regeneration and it's going to be measured this way. And so, and that actually creates this return on investments if you can, you know, if you can have evidence of your of your outcomes, optimally. I think my, my fantasy and dream is that, you know, that we really have an evidence based practice when it comes to economics, who just won the Nobel Prize for economics the Nobel Prize for economics which just, it's not really a Nobel of course, right of banks, not to the experts in the field and in 2021, it, it went to three men, three white men, whatever, who had studied life. They actually researched impacts on people. So think that that just they were following the impacts of minimum wage. And found out that low and behold, against common economic assumptions that didn't decrease the amount of people working. Yeah, that was a Nobel Prize that they actually studied and unturned the same thing with Eleanor Ostrom right that's what she did she actually looked at stuff and blew up what the common assumptions of the field were. And her husband was an experimentally commonist who also was doing that. And she, I think that his approach to try to make the commons work in real life and just continuously getting rejected because the profit margins weren't there for those who were funding the projects. That's what he kept getting rejected and so she was able to step back and say, okay, I'm just going to look at why the things that are already working work. And that's what she did. So they were completely like this and I'm sure that, you know, without his pulling strings and things like that her work wouldn't have been seen. Anyway, what was I starting to talk about I got excited about. I love that. Thanks Alison. We're not going to make it through our entire queue we have 10 minutes left on the call my apologies to those of you I didn't get to. So long queue I've got Sean Grace Pete Ken Julian Gil Mike Michael. So let's go Sean Grace Pete and see how far we get. There you go. I'll be quick. Hi, Sean Murphy, long time fellow traveler, first time caller. I've been very, very, very dedicated to this whole global mind mission myself for a very, very long time and and started a number of a number of entities to drive that forward going back to the early 90s. And yeah, so it's, it's lovely to be among such a band of enthusiastic pursuers of this fresh kind of unity that we might achieve in a glowing future hopefully one that that we survived until so more, more a question about about the, about the limits of mortality than that I think necessarily about the imminent collapse of civilization, but that's just a bit of hopefulness I think. And what I'm up to is, yeah, I'm a technologist and I'm beavering away at, at trying to build. I'm a database kind of guy from way, way back, a semantic web sort of fellow. More recently into into blockchain perspectives on things, but trying to trying to put all that into a. Very much a systems thinker of self organizing systems enthusiast and trying to bring all that together into a into a framework for into a stack essentially for collective cognition. And so, yeah, no, I've been a been a long time fan of Jerry with his, the biggest brain on the, on the internet. And, and yeah, I'm basically trying to build in effect a multimedia semantic, semantically grounded hosting framework for the great conversation, if you would. So, nice to meet you. Love that. Thanks, Sean. Are you still in Berlin. Where are you. I am in Berlin. Love that. Yes. I used I lived on Ulan Strasza for a year when I was 13 so. Oh, that's that far. Sweet. The only thing that I recognize from that neighborhood anymore is the focal toy store, which is where I used to get all my little model airplanes and stuff. Cool. Let's go. Grace Pete Ken. All right, so also do a quick check in and what I really liked about my marks check in was that he just kind of said was liking him. And I'm in Italy right now. And in Italy, there's a three tiered system. You either have no pass, a green pass or a super green pass. And depending on which type of tier you are, you have different privileges. If you're over 50 you are required to be vaccinated. If you're a resident of Italy. The fines are very high. And if you don't have the right kind of pass you can get into grocery stores, even without any pass but basically you can't get on a bus unless you have a super green pass. Wow, which means vaccination. I don't know for coverage even counts within the last six months of either your second or third dose. And I refuse to carry digital identity like that. You know, I always go and I get a test and I will get a QR code, just to, you know, basically get around in a foreign country but in my own country on these paper documentation that campus scan. And here that basically meant I had to grab the car. I can't, you know, I can't use public transportation I can't go to a restaurant. The only reason I'm coming to this country is because my sisters. Since the start of this mess and I probably won't see her for another couple years at the way this is going. And this was sort of the best place for us to be based on her travel plans. Yeah, it's really frightening. You see, there's a really large uprising all over the world. Regarding these mandates Canada's sort of the forefront of that and the way it's being reported by the media is like these are a bunch of maniac and the vaxxers rather than these are people who don't want to carry digital identity and let their government know when they had sushi. You know, we started talking about data at the beginning of this thing and I've been in the crypto industry for a while and you know Canada's frozen the cryptocurrency accounts of people who've contributed to this campaign that they believe in. Yeah, they and they've, you know, businesses have to close down because there was a hack of the people who donated to this campaign. And for donating to the campaign their bank accounts are now being closed down. And it's absolutely shocking to see what's happening and you know to me whether you're a freedom fighter or terrorists just has to do with whether you know what side you stand on. And this is a civil disobedience campaign as far as I can tell it along, you know whether I agree with it or not it aligns with what I've been taught civil disobedience is. And these people are being portrayed as terrorists and having their bank accounts closed down and being put under emergency acts all over the world you see tear gassing and fire hoses in Paris and Brussels and it's just. Absolutely shocking disintegration of civil liberties everywhere I look and that's what's been on my mind. That's a lot. It's heavy. Thank you and you're kind of. I love what you posted in the chat earlier about that. But I'm in Europe I moved back to where I belong. Well it's really interesting how white changes over time because if you were Italian Italian immigrant in the US a long time ago. But and then if you're an Irish immigrant in the US a long time ago, but you know, people who are now fallen the general umbrella of white were not considered white or whatever before white was a thing right is all these ethnicities and all these differences really fragment us over time. Thank you grace. So that's a couple more people Pete Julian guilt. Thanks, Ray. Grace I would, I would, it would be really interesting to talk more about that civil disobedience versus, I don't know, nuisance terrorists, whatever. But for another time, I'm going to hit return on on my news and I'm going to go through it really quick. The new issue of biweekly plexus dispatches out yesterday. Click the link and read it. Send me stuff for next week or next two weeks. Wendy Alfred and I have been working on websites for events. We've got one up the water choices one. And we're getting orders to do more. So this is, it's coming along pretty well and it would be interesting to talk a little bit more about what what we're doing where we're doing it. Bill and I are talking about using Docker to deploy multiple massive wiki utilities, eat more easily. So we're super excited about that. I did, I kind of accidentally did a cool photo illustration, yesterday for biweekly plexus batch and I have a little bit of pride about it. I really liked the image. And so I've got an NFT, a clean NFT account I was playing with last year. And so I put it up for sale there. I mean, not energy draining from the universe. Yeah, so it turns out NFTs are like a 99% horrible things. And that doesn't mean that they're 100% horrible things. The marketplace I'm in is a wonderful little marketplace. I have to warn you it's big. It's got a little bit of not safe for work stuff in it now and I don't know how to reconcile that because it's a wonderful community and I don't want to limit expression but I also now have a trouble sharing that marketplace with, you know, with people. So I don't know how to resolve that but so don't click the NFT links if you're, if you're not, not NSF, WS or something like that. And recently I deleted Spotify. That's a link to my Twitter thing why they have a podcast host who they believe in and I can't. It turns out title is almost exactly like Spotify but better kind of so I'm super happy I used to my music a playlist converter. The other two things there sound is and for your music or also playlist converters to get everything over. I use, I listen to music a lot it's my primary kind of thing that I would spend money on after the internet music is my next kind of got to have and so I was really happy to find a new service that I could move to. Thanks Pete, and thanks for the list you're. I love that you like Boop here you go with links. Julian you have the last word I think because we're going to have to wrap the call after you. Well mine is very quick because of putting out fires. I haven't actually gotten any work done, and especially with the kitty going in and out of the hospital to disturb my workflow. So Pete brought up NSFW and can I close with that is say their gate at UC Berkeley, and the say there gave a lot of money to the campus. On this gate the pillar on the left side says in memory of Peter say there and gives the states, and the pillar on the right side says erected by Jane case either and gives her dates, and since the two of them were married for quite some time. I think the latter statement is a factual statement. Where is the gate and Berkeley that's right. The old campus boundary. So I'm, if you're standing looking at the gate there on the right side would be Sproul hall and on the left side would be the student union. Cool. Okay, Pete's already found the Ricky PD link for it. Thank you. I actually need to transit I'm happy to pass the condos somebody if everybody wants to stay in. We haven't heard from Mike and Michael, but I've got to boogie any or should we wrap the call. I got to drop off to so. Thank you for letting me come in late. Yeah, dropping whenever. It's nice to see my thank you for for coming in. Thanks very much. It's been a, it's been a great call and see you on the inner tubes.