 So, this is the Weaving the World call on Wednesday, January 5th, 2022, and we're not talking about Weaving the World as much as story-threading and Unfinished 21 and a bunch of stuff that's happening there. So that's the setup, and if that event happened, that would be fantastic, and that got me thinking about a bunch of other things. So I'm just sort of setting up that conversation because the message you haven't read yet on the OGM list, the end of it says, and by the way, the all-singing, all-dancing event would have one or more story-threaders, would have a graphic facilitator, and would have one or more mavens, think Pete. And in a perfect world, what the mavens were generating would be fed over to the story-threaders and to the graphic facilitators, and the graphic facilitators would link back to the story-threaders at the different places where they're facilitating, and all of these would be sort of digitally meshed together, and I didn't say into the big fungus, but I hadn't even thought about that, but that's where this whole thing would be going. And that got me really excited. Yeah, it's super exciting. At some point soon, we should sync up with Wendy Elford because she and I have done another part of that, which is running a panel. Actually, it was a panel that she moderated, and then we've made a website for it. So I never got a debrief on how that conversation went, and you were in it, right? You were part of that call. I was there for the call, but I was an observer. An observer, yeah. Dance. Any feedback on it? It went really well. And Wendy's got more to say, maybe more to ask about kind of she. You know, it's the first one that that we've done like this. The first thing that she's done like this for a long, long time, I think. But on reflection, she she tried to like steer the conversation and keep people like integratively meshed and she felt like she did a pretty good job of that. So just the content of the panel was improved by Wendy doing key moderation stuff. And then there's a whole bunch of things that we've done and learned about turning it into a website. We kind of got started on the whole website thing like a week before, maybe even a less than a week before. So we hired a website design firm run by a principal. And then she farms different parts of it out to people around the world. But getting, you know, getting a website design done in a few days over a weekend, actually, and then and then going, oh, shoot, there's a bunch of Laura Mipsum in different places, you know, like the call outs and polls quotes. And, you know, and then a few pages. It's like, oh, wow, somebody's going to have to write all of that. So we learned a lot and and had had fun, you know. Oh, wow, we have to replace the stock, you know, stock photography with like something real and right, right. There's a whole bunch of gaps to fill. And then the whole process of we're right now, we're in the phase of kind of reviewing how it's coming together with the speakers and with some of the stakeholders. And so we and we built we built a I built a project tracker and it turned out to be in Google Sheets rather than an air table because we were doing it super fast. So anyway, it turned out to be when you start doing things, you learn really quickly how many things there are in in like a simple. Oh, because the first thing was, oh, let's just throw the transcript up on a web page, right? And that sounds like it's a 20 minute task. What could what could possibly go wrong? I can empathize so much with that. And now Stacy can, too. Did you did you did you try to pitch them on building a wiki instead of a website? No, I'm sure that I'm sure that crossed your mind. Well, we've we've built it kind of interestingly. You know, the whole pitch was around it was around a static wiki, essentially. The idea was to more or less story thread into the transcript. I'm not sure that we're going to do much of that. I think we'll just publish the transcript and bringing along everybody, all the stakeholders and into, you know, what this could be, you know, and why why they should pay us more dollars to do that kind of thing. That's that's all another thing, right? Getting stakeholders bought into the. Into more and more like processing of it. So the thing that we didn't do that sounds. So Wendy's already queuing up. This this was it's hosted or sponsored. It was actually sponsored by a Knephen Australia, Australia and then hosted by I think a blockchain company. And so Wendy's already it's it's obviously the first in a series. So, you know, we should all get together and talk about, you know, how to continue to do these kinds of things and as a time series. And a thing that we didn't do is some kind of any of the video stuff. Right. It's all just she descriptive the whole thing. And she's made it better. There was a heckler that that came on during the the conference that she's had to step out. Wow. So you got zoom bombed. It was, you know, it was one of those things where we had a small audience of, you know, people and it seemed like it was a fairly, you know, it's a heartfelt topic, you know, water and Australia and civilization and indigenous folks. Yeah, no hot topics there. So that it was apparently the the the Aboriginal speaker, who was the one who got, you know, heckled. Big surprise there. And it was actually like the heckler didn't hackle vocally. They they just had a toilet flushing sound. And and the reaction of the audience was really interesting because it's like, well, that's weird. I don't know what that that is. I don't know if he's doing that. I don't know why they're doing that. And it was actually chuckles and stuff like that. Yeah, they're just chuckles. Right. So anyway, that's fascinating. There's a in I think it's James Scott Book about domination and the arts of resistance. He talks about ways that you can resist that aren't noticeable. Like who did it, right? And he says, you know, as the king walks by in the parade, the peasant farts really loudly and you can't tell who of the coutoing peasants is the fatter. So it's a way of doing something offensive without getting your head lopped off right away. But in the zooms, you can sort of tell what a sound comes from. You can sort of tell. Yeah, that's so interesting. Huh. And that was very passive aggressive, too. Very passive aggressive. And it's like, anyway, so anyway, you know, there was some video editing and stuff like that, but nothing fancy like adding to it. And it would be fun to do that in in future ones. Sweet. Stacey, did you have a thought about that? OK, I was just thinking what about if this guy just went to the bathroom and didn't realize he was immune. I think that was the the conclusion of a bunch of people. It's like, oh, this is one of those things where I could tell right away. It was a sound effect, not because of the bathroom situation. Well, and the sound quality of it, you know, it was recorded. So it wasn't yeah, it wasn't any room echo or anything. In a lot of movies. How does this go? There's a famous screen that that is the home screen. The film home screen. So there's this one screen that dates way, way, way back that is in a lot of movies and gets used over and over again. It's a very strange thing. Actually, we were both going to look it up. Yeah. But it's kind of like, you know, that happens in music, too. So here's a. Here's the film home screen from 1951 from the movie Distant Drums. And then it was used, I guess, at the charge of forever for the river. It's a stock sound effect, and it's an inside joke. And I'm forgetting who the Wilhelm is, but I didn't put him in. That's very strange. And you don't have the sound. I don't have the screen embedded here, which is dumb. I kind of should. Shouldn't I have to fix that? I have to fix that. And so, Peter, I have a follow on question, which is just a lingering question, always in the back of my head, which is, I'm going to say one word and just for your reaction, mavenology. It's a good word. I mean, should it exist? Are you interested? I know you I know you like fully committed to the gunnels at this point, but but I'd love for there to be like a mavenology practice of some sort. If what if any sort of role would you like to play or anything like that? I mean, it feels like a thing that ought to exist. I think I've owned like the like reasonable domain names around that for at least a while after, you know, after one of your suggestions many years ago, I'm not sure that I still do. It's a little complexified by the by the connection with Mr. Gladwell, who gets kind of, you know, thumbs up and thumbs down, depending on who you're talking to. OK, you mean you mean people's reaction to his book? Like, yeah, OK, yeah. And Stacey, just to fill you in, years ago, I said to Pete because Pete is famous for coughing up brilliant, pithy, well presented research on pretty much anything and on the retreat list, like there's sort of a running running joke that you can ask kind of anything and people show up with, oh, well, there's this. And so I propose that he start a guild called Mavenology or a consultancy or a practice or whatever. And then somehow apprentice, how to take apprentices, basically, because this research function is actually genuinely very important to civilization. And we need lots of them. We don't like if we could scrape Pete's skin cells and culture them. That would probably be good, too. And so that's that's the whole idea is like, hey, hey, this is what we were talking about before, though. Yes, with, you know, we were in that case, we were talking about story threaders, but again, all these. Well, and story threaders would be like buddy, buddy with Maven's would be buddy, buddy with graph facilitators would be buddy, buddy with other people. Right. And there's probably a couple other trade craft schools that we can think of that fit nicely together for. More effective thinking together. Right, because because graphic facilitation is an attempt to memorialize the meeting and it's a thing now. OK, and that's and that's and that's all we're doing. Right. And we know that there's like so much more at hand, except it costs money and time and effort, except it could be and there's no proof that it is, but it could be super valuable. So I'm wondering, like, can we if we're interested, can we find a test bed case? Can we find a conference that's trying to be trying to do good and will fund it? Can we? I don't know. I'm interested now. And Kevin Jones's reply to me was unexpected and so perfect that I'm like, this would be really, really fun and useful to prototype in the world and directly OGM, because the effort, the work, the outputs, everything else would be feeding the big fungus like like really seriously. This this the whole thing smells really good. Great. OK. This with mavenology, I get stuck for a long time, years and straight suggest this like probably a decade ago, maybe even more. I get I get stuck on wondering if it's actually teachable. I'm not sure that I'm still not sure that it is. But I'm halfway through the decade, I was kind of like, yeah, even even if it's not completely teachable, that it's still I guess it's advisable. Well, so I don't want to say that. I don't want to say that I'm a genius at something, but it's a little bit like being a really good swimmer or a really good piano player, right? There are people who are going to like. There are people you just can't ever reach, right? But that doesn't mean that they can't tell you a lot of tips and tricks and get you up the curve. And that's a viable thing. That's kind of where I ended up. And I agree with that. And the feeling I had was first, you would only help people who were already kind of gifted in it, a little bit gifted and leaning in and really eager and anxious to learn more. OK, good. And then you could probably take them from 40 to 80. Yeah. Right. And at 80, most of them would probably tap out or or cap out. And that would at 80, they would be highly functioning mavens who could attend and participate in anything. And then a couple of them would shine brightly and would, you know, push beyond and do new things that we're not we're not even thinking about. And that's really cool because you'd want to you'd want to be like with them and next to that and learning from that as they as they push ahead. So that seemed to be like a dynamic that you'd really like. Yeah. And similarly, similarly to your answer to Jerry's brain after Jerry's gone, it's like the answer is there needs to be a community that's actually learned how to feed my brain, which is kind of what OGM is, but not yet. Similar thing for mamanology. Yeah. Yep. OK, all of which is wish where as often happens here, unfortunately. But but but this is like very tangible stuff, right? This is stuff that's practical, would be useful, we would love to do. I mean, one of the things that really excited me about Kevin saying, hey, how about story threading this neighborhood economics thing? It's like, OK, I would love to be doing my little friend of Jujitsu in that community for those purposes in this way. Like like drop me and this nice new little MacBook Pro in that room with some Wi-Fi and let me open my ears and heart as wide as I can and just like be in the flow. And that will work out. And that that's a really good thing. And Stacey, you were talking earlier about alignment. We were talking about blackmailing yourself. And one of my favorite talks is Jason Roberts, TEDx talk about better block and what she says, you have to blackmail yourself. And so so there we were. Well, the point being that you wouldn't have to blackmail yourself because you'd be in alignment. You'd be so you'd be so aligned. Exactly. Exactly. Kind of along that line, Wendy already has has noticed an effect where she's she's kind of passionate about the, you know, the water and rivers and stuff in Australia. And then and it's a big topic there. I think it's it's a little bit bigger than water in the American West or it's it's more socially engaged, I guess. You know, it's kind of a similar weight of topics, but there's actually more there's more activity around it. Yeah, it's more broader activity. Yeah, there's you know, there's some interesting activity about water in the American West, but it's it's pretty narrow, you know, a bunch of people. It's like, I don't care. I just go turn on the tap and it still works. So there's mostly in the US denialism about it. We're in Australia. There's kind of actual work to try to resolve these things. Yeah. So so Wendy ended up finding out a big sticking point around what's going on. And there's this big injustice. And she's like, crap, I and she felt called to step into the situation. Right. And so then she's got this weird, am I trying to facilitate the conversation or do I really need to participate in the conversation because there's this injustice that needs to get fixed ASAP? Right. So it was it was interesting having her bump into that situation. And I was, you know, it was easy for me to say that just means you need to find a champion to do the things, you know, in the content part of it that you need to see done. It doesn't mean that you need to step out of your facilitator role because that's really key. Right. So. I think to watch for or a thing to think about. Makes a lot of sense. So interesting. OK. And then so watch this space because there's going to be other events in that series. Yes. Cool. Then Stacy got stuck on the Daryl Davis transcript because there was a 10 minute gap in the transcript somehow. So what we're going to solve, I'm going to I can even do it now, but just go look at the original video, see if there are words there because then it was a copy paste error of some sort and kind of make that whole. But Stacy, do you want to talk? I only need four minutes left because I did I did it by ear. I just started typing. Yeah, yeah, old school. But at my best, I was only a 45 minute typist. So it's going to take a while. So I'd rather get those four minutes. Yeah, thank you. Do you want to talk a little bit about the active of perfecting the transcript and stuff like that? Well, I'm sure Pete knows about one because you even mentioned it when people jump in and overlap each other. Yeah. So that was a big problem with Jerry and Daryl specifically, in particular. And, you know, when people talk and run on sentences, that was that was a really big deal because I was there. I knew like when it was switching over because a lot of times when two people, you know, so I mean, look, it's you do learn by doing I walked away from this experience more convinced than ever that every CEO should really start in the mail room. No doubt that made perfect sense. Yeah, at New Science, the first tech job I had ever, we would have stuffing parties when the when the every two weeks we published an issue of our paid newsletter. And then we would have a stuffing party where somebody would print out all the labels and we would all gather in like a little tiny conference room and we would put put our clients names on envelopes and then put the issue in the envelopes and then put them in the postage, you know, the Pitney bows and blah, blah, blah. And you got to see all your all the clients names. And they just, you know, they just every two weeks they went by and and we would sit there and chatter and like be happy because the big push to get the issue was done and all that kind of stuff. It was cool. Well, also, if you're a boss and you have expectations for other people, you should know what it actually is they're doing before you say, oh, they're doing it too slow or it's taking too long. It shouldn't take this long. Great. And that disconnect is actually one of the biggest functions in American workplace. I have two stories. One of them is my first startup, actually. It was kind of early days, but not so early that we hadn't actually built some customers, but at some point we had, I don't know, systems or something had had made it so that we really needed to to run a bunch of credit cards all at once. And so the whole company got together, you know, all four or five of us or whatever and was we're helping run credit cards and the credit card machine we were using made a cool little sound when it actually, like, you know, banked the money for you. So it was really engaged. It was like catching, yeah. So, you know, it's because you get, you know, if you're in engineering or something like that, you know, you're staring at a screen all day and all night and it's like it's just a big mess and it doesn't feel real kind of. But but actually, you know, seeing the credit card things wearing up was really effective for the whole team, not just the finance department. The other story is just recently, like two days ago or something like that, one of the delivery companies, I forget if it's Dordache or Instacart or whatever, but they've got a rule that everyone does deliveries. I think one day a month or something like that or one day every other month. Everybody in the whole company. Right. And so I think the thread started on Twitter when one of the software engineers is like, guys, I make two hundred thousand dollars. I got hired to do coding. I don't know what the F I'm doing running a delivery. Right. And a bunch of other people are like, dude, seriously, you get the chance to actually see how the sausage is made. And you're going to like, you know, what's up with that? You should just quit, you know, because you're not obviously don't care. You know, so I thought that was a really interesting kind of thread going. And there's some company that that makes everybody, you know, do the do the sausage, you know, right, right? And there's a couple of companies that have that ethos and kind of interesting that I like because because Dordache and all these guys are squeezing like people on foot really, really, really, really hard. Yeah. So interesting that the squeezing is still happening, even though that's a company policy. Yeah. Just saying. And one of the problems of General Motors was that all the executives would get a brand new, new model GM car every year. And anybody who as much as meant, you know, drove a Toyota car onto the parking lot would be like ridiculed, banished forever, etc., etc. So none of them understood that these very well built little cars, much smaller, more efficient cars that didn't have an air conditioner that could cool the car from standstill at 100 degrees down to 70 in five minutes, because that was one of their protocols and making up the numbers. Like that wasn't on the Japanese car, just not one of the things they thought people needed. They were completely blindsided through their own culture and arrogance. And then and then they were building the gremlin and the pacer and some really bad buicks. And God knows what, just horrible stuff that fell apart with Pinto. Remember the Pinto? Yeah, yeah, drove across country to Pinto. Oh, seriously? And and live to tell the tale and live to tell the tale. You get a T-shirt printed. I drove a Pinto across country and I'm still here. So anyway. And they had heck of a fit and finish problems, too. And, you know, all the like quality stuff, the American cars have just gotten fat and sloppy. And and then there was a decade or so where it's like, don't buy Japanese cars. We're American cars. We're better. It's like, because we'll solve the problem. What the heck? Yeah, just just buy these shitty cars we're making. Yeah, because they're American. Yeah, and when we give you when we sell you the base car, like it's not really fun to drive because it doesn't have wall panels and it doesn't have like a carpet inside. It doesn't have a it's got like an AM radio that nobody wants anymore. So you're going to have to pay for all these upgrades that are standard in their car, but we don't understand that. Yeah. Yeah. So many things that break, so many things that change, like. And so the missing transcript minutes, it sounds like we don't need to look at that. Well, I want to go look at the original YouTube video and see if that transcript has those minutes. See if there was a gap in the original. So talk amongst yourself for a second. I'm going to mute and share your screen. OK, what would you say? Share your screen. Well, well, I ball it with you. Sounds great. So here's the video. Click on it. It's interesting because the brain is running inside Rosetta. There's this little gap. There's a pause. Can you put in the search? It's because it's when you talk about Diacon. Perfect. So I can go find. Oops, I got to move us. There we go. Open transcript. Actually, you're probably better off putting in white, right? Because Diacon was spelled wrong. Right, exactly. And can I search the transcript? Yeah, if you click in it, I've had success searching in it. Just click in there and then do commandos. Yeah. OK. Oh, God. White, right up under the documentary. White, right. So it's sixty two forty six. How's that? So then you should be able to click on that timestamp and go there. And Stacey, are you are you trying to not do that? Yeah, I'm trying not to exactly. Here's the end of my brain. There we go. See, you're off screen already. Keep going. Sixty three. Go for I have all that. I did all that by ear. OK, tell me when you tell me. Well, you could see the coin drop right around there. OK, perfect. Yeah, right after the word drop. Toggle toggle timestamps. And then so from here to where? Keep going, keep, keep, keep, keep. Can you say the words that you pick up? Keep going, I, I have to do this is all the part I still have to do. Yeah, I didn't do this. Keep going, Richard Spence. You could copy to the end, right? OK, stop. Now go back up. So I'm going to scroll a little bit more up. Oh, stop. But unfortunately, they don't call us, even though I'm not affected. Right, right around put after their life. After. Right in here. So stop there. Wait a minute, hold on, because he repeated himself. So maybe, you know, put it in because just in case. So why don't I capture all this? Yeah, keep going. OK, I know when he talks about the next part, we're good. So I'm going to go D. I'm going to go D, return it for a second. Since we now know how to do that. And Peter, I had to I had to do this several times because it was like. Yeah, I didn't get any of this. I had dinner nationalist groups. Cool. Let's see. There it worked. So now I'm going to copy this and paste it into the transcript document. Which Elias here is. OK, so. Scroll down. Yeah, there. Here's the problem. So persistent world. But I did that already. So now I can take out that's right. So let's let's get rid of this. Delete. Yes. OK, so let's go. Good. And now we go down to where you're slow. No, no, no, because I have to do any question. OK, I'm good to stay in touch. Good. OK, so we're missing begin to compare notes. You could see the coin drop and they're like, you know, and that's top it. Put it in there. So right there. And then let's just make it the same size. Please. This is all all fun. That was the other thing I had to see. And do you shift? Pace it up formatting and paste. Yeah. So command shift, shift to command V. Shift and V. You've got a fancy helper. I do. I have the yeah. Let me just let me just reformat it to the usual font size. Well, yep. Calibri. Twelve. Done. You just move it over, though, because you see how the margins are different. Because I was moving it over by hand. So the margin, the margins are actually funny all throughout. And there's a space here, but the margins are funny throughout. When you were done, I was going to sit down and remove formatting. And go add in formatting and stuff like that. Oh, good. All right. Because I was doing it by hand. OK, good. Don't worry about that. Just worry about what the text says. And so here's you can see the coin drop here. So you can see the coin drop. We're good. And then you can match it up again. Stop. Let me make sure we have everything. Yeah. But unfortunately, of course, thank you. My friends. That's pretty close to. OK. Sweet. Thank you. Sweet. Thank you. That's great. All right. Any other weaving the world ops things we should talk about right this minute? I still have to go back to Jesse and finish the descriptor. I haven't done that, but I'm I'm on track to do that. I'm just getting distracted by a picture he's been and now story threading and all that kind of thing. So one thing that occurs to me is that the current model is to do original episodes, which creates this production thing that we're sort of in the middle of right now. Another way of looking at this is to occasionally do original calls where there's a need or an opportunity or something really interesting to do, but that otherwise to go find a brilliant interview and there's a hefty crop of brilliant podcasts and other sorts of things already happening in the world, some of which have a beautiful transcript sitting on a website already, and then to just go weave those and to go go say, hey, here's our digest of that and then offer that back to the original authors and then put that in, you know, connect that into the big fungus. But to make to make the weaving act, the weaving party an episode. And I don't know how that's going to look. We haven't really done a weaving party yet. So I think that's that's an important next step is to figure out like are weaving parties episodeable? With what would what would happen in a weaving party? So I think that would be post corrected transcript, right? Yes, so there's a clean transcript and and potentially it's somebody else's transcript that we're just coming into and we ask. So let's pretend that we're doing. Let's pretend we're doing these hold. Sitting in my browser now for way too long. Is this nice long interview of Schmacktenberger by Jim Roth? Right, unfortunately, two white guys, so I probably picked something else. But this is a very nicely transcribed episode that's really interesting. That's something I'd like to sort of go into and look at. So let's pretend it's this one. So then we invite, we make a broad invite and see who would like to come in and learn how to weave in the sense that we're talking about here and bringing whatever tools they feel like. If it's a Miro board that they want to use to map this, if they want to use mind manager or whatever. And and then we show up and we start comparing notes. We basically talk about we then we then slow down the dialogue and focus on different areas and share what we know about it, create artifacts ourselves, share screen, share those in and then keep going. And beyond that, I'm not sure. When you say create artifacts, it would be into the mind mapper or the or into procreate or whatever you're wrote or room research or yeah. Or stop or stop, stop or like whatever, whatever the mapper the weaver wants to use, whatever their loom is, right? They show up and use that. And and if Mark Antoine had a working idea loom, he would show up with idea loom and say, well, here's the claim that was made at this point. I mean, that would be really beautiful, right? But I think that's ahead of where he is now. But that's the idea is that is that his acts is different from and complementary to the other the other tools that we're busy using. So the so where where I kind of think through that it's it's fun if everybody shows up with with whatever acts that they're used to. I'm not sure that that's very episode episodeable. I think what is episodeable is once you have a couple of people who can cooperate. So maybe you've got somebody who's drawing Strafon procreate and maybe you've got somebody who's editing in obsidian and they work together, right? Rather than rather than everybody kind of gets to do whatever they want. And you see what happens and it's kind of interesting, but mostly fun for the participants, right? Yeah, so so the early going you're saying would be sort of too messy and this disparate or disjointed. But if we could find a couple of people who are kind of grooving together with different tools where you can see that there's a fit and where it starts to make sense, that's probably interesting enough to episode. Yeah, that's sort of a good preference. Yeah, and I think I think the way it works is you start off with the the raw artifact transcript or transcript and video or whatever. And maybe some clip art and maybe a a framework of a wiki or something like that already there. And then you watch the whole team, the the artisans and the facilitators and whatever walking through the whole script. It's like, OK, this part is interesting, but we don't really need to thread it. Here's a part that we need to thread. Let's take this paragraph and turn it into, you know, so then the wiki person says, this would be great if there were a couple stick figures, you know, in acting what's in this paragraph. And I'll grab these links and, you know, and that's the interesting part, I think, when you see the meat of it. Or, for example, in Wendy Elford's conversation about water rights in Australia, when some piece of the conversation starts, Jean Belanger could show up and say, well, here's a here's a KUMU systems flow diagram of water complex and the issues around it. And then and then we could use that as a durable artifact for the rest of the conversation, in fact, the chain of conversations, right? So so that becomes a nice durable thing. And I'm wondering like you can't really annotate KUMU. You can't really like draw on top of it. But if we took a snapshot of the KUMU and dropped it into Procreate or dropped it into something else, then interesting things start to happen, although you then get out of sync with the with the with the live diagram. But but I'm trying to think of things like that where where we're using each tool and each craft person for like what they do really, really, really well and then fit it back into the mix so that it becomes this this useful elaboration, this isn't this isn't just and now the basis has a solo. This isn't just like the jazz quartet, you know, doing its thing. It's actually trying to shift to the tool that makes the most sense in those different parts of the conversation. So that would be really cool. It could also be that we record the messy parts and the original parts first just to have them. So so Stacy was asking me earlier before you got on the call, did did Emma Schmidt and I record our early conversations after each after having watched she separate and we didn't. We recorded a jam at the end and we published that, but we didn't record our early ones and it could be that we record the whole things and then we say, hey, the conversation gets really juicy starting at this marker, right? And then any hey, everybody start here, but for anybody who wants to, you can scroll back and see the messy parts when we were setting the table up or whatever, that wouldn't be terrible. And for mysterious reasons, super long form media seems to be popular again. I mean, Clubhouse has these marathons long. I look at podcasts and they're like two and a half hours long. Yes. And like, damn, somebody's somebody's and somebody's out there listening to these things. So so. And again, if we have in and out points that are really interesting. And and if we do this really well, the transcript of the call has markers, pointers, you know, basically a directory and other pointers in so that you could just go watch 15 minutes of it, right? And those 15 minutes would have at hand the Kumu map that was in conversation for the whole session, like like whatever the best resources are at that stretch. I'm not exactly sure how to do that. I'm just sort of imagining that. So my. They're at least on the wiki page that has the contents. My guess is there's two modalities of of listening to something. One of them is I'm in the car and it's two hours and 15 minutes. I'm going to listen to the whole thing. Yeah. And then another one is I want to see the curated view of this. I want to see the 20 minutes that really matters to me. And I'll just sit and watch the whole thing. My guess is that the intersection of those, the one where you say, oh, we have this curated view, but you can also expand it into the whole thing. And my guess is that's a real niche thing that that most people wouldn't do. So they either they either want the well curated edited version. Right. Show me the highlights or they're going to listen to the whole thing because it's kind of background for them. Are you are you also saying that it's hard, difficult or impossible to do both in one recording or one production? Or are you just saying that those audiences don't overlap? That's where I was going with it. Yeah. So for both of those people, it's I'm guessing it's fire and forget. It's essentially not interactive to them, right? No, there's a bunch of people that are just going to listen to a whole big thing. But then there are other people who want the highlights, right? But but even those people. So I'm more one of those people. What I I I'm not really just format wise, right? I don't want to have any. For both people, kind of you don't want to have any like overhead on your use case, right? Yeah, yeah, yeah. So it's like if there's any friction due to the fact that I could actually expand the whole thing and listen to the whole thing, any friction, right? It's like I'm not interested. And which means maybe so you can produce. And so the argument I think I make is you just produce both and and not even support the intersection use case. And yes, but also there could be like a non-destructive cropping way of doing it. So you know how sometimes you put an image into something and you crop it down and that and yet it's it's all right there and you know it's there, but it doesn't show in the finished product. Yeah. So here the script works that way. Exactly. Exactly. So it's got the source and then you can make whatever mixes you want out of it. Bingo. But you could do that here so that for the person who only wants this seven minute snippet, they only in fact see an artifact that looks like a seven minute snippet, but it's the same production behind the curtain. What I what I think I would do sociologically is publish the short version, publish the long version. And the people who are interested in the whole, you know, I want I want to see the source code basically, it's like welcome into the crew. You get to be a volunteer and you get access to all the source code we have. And yeah, instead of letting those people be audience members, you say, let's step you up and you're you're going to be a participant in our you know, our editorial process. So I agree with that. And there's there's another small issue here, which is. Which I think you're a fan of let's make lots of copies. Let's let's let's let the copies proliferate. And I'm really interested in links to a topic coming, converging back toward the same general place just to use a really broad word. And if the placement that there were 12 different copies, but they were related and you could find links into that, that's fine with me. But when somebody's talking about neighborhood economics, I'd love for that to converge rather than splinter into because because if you loved the seven minute episode that you were looking at and tagged it up and wove it into the world and that wasn't detectable or viewable from the raw whole episode. That's a big that's a big loss for me. That's a big loss for me. I want I want all good annotations and not all the crappy ones. But I want all good improvements to the work to show up at the canonical version of the work somehow. And so and so when I make available the raw footage of the Daryl Davis interview, for example, and then we produce it and then publish that again somewhere else, somebody pointing to the same damned words is going to be pointing to two different versions of the video and that and that irks me because I kind of I want convergence of the conversation somehow. And I don't know how to solve that. That I don't know how to do that in video and audio, but that that's the thing that you're looking for. So the thing that I'm looking for is to control the process of or to coordinate to coordinate the process of of making remixes and edits and stuff like that, right? So if if you just like dump everything out in the open, people end up like, OK, I'll take this part and I'll move it away from the comments. Right. And not even necessarily because they want to close it just because it's like, well, it's easier if I'm working on it. I'll make my own copy to go work on it for a while. Yeah. It's so cool. So the GitHub model has gotten around that because if I go to a project and I want to do a remix, I click the fork button. It's it's easier to keep it in GitHub than it is to enclose it or even accidentally enclose it someplace else. Right. So GitHub keeps track of the forks and you can go to a project and you can look at all the forks that have been made and almost all of them will be trivial or bad, but you can at least keep track of them all. Right. And then it's it's easy for everybody to say, OK, this one has improved, but they haven't picked up the improvements from the the base source code or and there's a management process where you can tell where the projects have gone after they've forked and you can also re-centralize them whenever you want. So Stacey, just to catch you up in case you haven't used GitHub and programmed on it yet. So so GitHub has repose or repositories and it's mostly open source code on GitHub. So what happens is I find a project that Pete posted some code on in a repo on GitHub. I then fork his repo, which means I make a complete copy of his code and it shows up in my GitHub and I can go work on it. And then I'm like, oh, I fixed a problem. I found a bug and fixed a problem. I then submit a pull request to Pete and Pete can can go. Yep, love it or no, forget about it. And if he says, yep, yep, love it, then my improvement to his code gets added to his main line of code. And that's really good because it means that a community can go like like little ants can go make copies for free, like a full copy of everything for free. It's like available for you to just mess with. You can break it, you can do whatever. And then you submit fixes or improvements and you can do this with a book. You could sort of crowdsource a book by saying, here's here's the draft of the first chapters, submit improvements to sentences or paragraphs within the book. So the model works for lots of different things. And here we're sort of proposing what if that model worked because because what you just said, I totally agree with, except if you don't have a pull request mechanism, then it's only up to somebody to follow all the forks and you don't know which were the good forks and which were the bad forks. And it's that feedback loop of somebody with judgment saying, you know, thumbs up, thumbs down, that that's telling us which are the good bits and incorporating the good bits into the finished main line is brilliant. Like, like that's fantastic because that process allows for the fragmentation and then the reconstitution of the main, the main line. And I like that a lot. So I think we're sort of saying that Fork and Pull will solve some of this problem. Yeah, Fork and Pull and the attendant kind of centralization of the workplace. Right. Well, Fork and Pull doesn't mean there couldn't be then three or four major different forks of the same work, which. But they would all they would all be on GitHub unless we go to GitLab, unless we go to IPFS or where you are. The one of the features of it is whether it's GitHub or GitLab or a Bitbucket or whatever, once, you know, once the source code is living there, it. And especially once a Fork and Pull model is going, it behooves everyone to just keep it in the same centralized place, the centralized host hosting service. Yeah, cool. If I'm understanding this right, yes, and, you know, moving it to like conversations, though, I would want to say it would be interesting to see those things that were rejected. I think that would be really interesting. It yeah, and and it it's that's a really good, really good observation and and it gets super fine grained. So if I'm looking at a pull request from somebody, GitHub shows me all the differences, GitHub or whatever, show me socially all the differences. And I can say, I like this one, I like this one, this one. I'm going to write a comment to them. I'm going to start a whole comment thread about this is great, but, you know, you didn't follow the coding standard or I only want half of this. The other half is junk or whatever. And then I reject this one, except this one. So not only do you see except for Jax, you also can do fine grained conversation around any of the changes or all of the changes. And then. Then there's another thing, branching, which you can have kind of, you know, as a as somebody who wants to modify stuff, it isn't necessarily that I'd modify everything and and offer it back. I might say, here's where I modified the last half of chapter one. And this this is another thing where I did a different modification of the last half of chapter one, where I corrected all the, you know, British Spellings and American Spellings or vice versa or whatever. Right. So I can have two different or multiple different copies of things that I have done differently. And so the maintainer might go, I love what you did here. This one, thanks for trying it. It didn't work, but keep going on this kind of kind of change. And all of that stuff can be done kind of just easily and simply. So why am I excited about Massive Wicking and get except we're not anywhere near any of. Some day we will be, but not yet. Well, cool. We've gone past our hour. This has been super useful. Stacey, we fixed the transcript a little bit. Take care of it. So you're free to roam. Anything else? Good for now. You both on the inner tubes. Thanks.