 As long as we are relying on human biases, we're not going to make exponential progress because there's too much self-interests. Whether that is safety of X corporation, safety of profits, or safety of positioning, there's so many biases. I think you mentioned this to your talk last time where we're going to have to incorporate the data that we have from evolutionary psychology and biology, sociology, anthropology, and then put that within at least some type of AI, right? That's the only way I see making rational, logical, purely data point-driven decisions. And in the end, we can still dispute what the machine says. There's no way the machine's going to run the show for us. We get the final call, but we need the machine to work out the messy stuff that humans are bad at, that humans are overly biased and can't think straightly over. That's what I want to bring the machine in for, that kind of purity of data points that we can then rely on from a responsibly and reliably attained database, because otherwise human bias creeps in, political agendas take over, and we're back to the same old problems. Well, that's what Ray Dalio did, right? Kind of, right? With regards to trading decisions. He made a negative feedback, like taped a lot of his conversations, data points of his decision-making, so he built his big data pool. And based on his data pool, he was able to kind of figure out patterns that you can extrapolate from that. But sometimes you'd agree with the machine, and sometimes you would disagree, but you'd use it as a tool. That's it. This is a good segue to your project. Right. The OSTOC project. Yeah, so I've been trying to get financing and trying to meet with various politicians, especially Trudeau, when he first got in. I think it would be very helpful to the Senate in trying to make decisions about important policies, because it's non-partisan. It would be just a helpful aid in trying to speed up. I think the audience can figure out what is it first. The OSTOC? Oh, Onion Skin Theory of Knowledge, is OSTO. Okay. So, you have to imagine all of these varying systems, from the physical sciences to the cultural aspects, meshing together all of these various forms of systems, so that we can better understand, for an example, what do we do with the pipeline situation in Canada? BC shut Alberta down. Canada federally tried to intervene. We ended up buying the thing for 4.3 billion or whatever, so Canada, us, we now all own this pipeline. Why did it get shut down? Because the BC residents said, no, we're green, we're all about green, and we care about Aboriginal rights, and you're not putting this stuff through here and whatnot. What a machine would be able to cut through is all the political ideology and realistically look at, well, what are you humans basing your economy, your transportation, all of your other varying systems, what do they depend on? We're still very much a crude oil based energy system right now. That's not great, but it is what it is, and so what we have to do is if we want to move away from a fossil fuel industry, that's cool, but it's not going to happen overnight. I mean, look at the technology we're using right now. This is probably the result of oil burners. This is oil, this is oil, this is oil, that's oil, this is oil. It's all around us. The move has to be more gradual because if you try to do it too quickly, you're going to lose a lot of jobs. I sat down with an environmentalist talking about this. I'm like, let's say for a moment I grew 100% with you, which I don't. Both sides have their points. They can't do it overnight. That was my debate. I'm like, what you're saying, literally imagine you're telling, imagine you are in their shoes in Alberta or these places where you have millions of jobs or a lie on the oil industry, right? That means family to provide roof over their head, food on the table, support for the family. So what you're saying based on your extremist point of view is like fuck all those guys. We're going to take whatever, two to five million people out of work and like I don't care the environment's better. Can you hear yourself talk? Well, the other part of that is that a pipeline may be better for the environment than trucks coming back. This is what I never understood. This is the part that really is interesting and naive about people who are against the pipeline. We should be able to ask the AUS talk of all the ways to transport oil historically what's been the best. And by best, then we can define what we mean by best. Best for human rights, best for the environment, best for screwing up ecosystems, best for not killing people like in Locke-Magantic, you know what I mean? What's the best overall? And dollars to donuts, it's probably going to come back with pipeline. Because they are the least invasive and the way pipelines are designed now, they do leak less, right? They are double insulated, right? You can do it right or at least you can do it better. And if it's an aboriginal issue, that's fine. Which should be able to work with aboriginal peoples to make it worth their while that we're going to truck this stuff across their land, right? Oil makes a lot of money, so there should be a piece of the pie for everybody in this, right? So, for some reason, Richard Harris wrote on his blog that I wanted to have senators program the AUS talk. I don't know where he got that. Like, was he even listening, right? So, no, no, no, we can't have that. Because I'm anticipating your next question, who gets to program the machine, right? Because really I got to go with Pinker on this, we have to find better angels of our nature. And they do exist. And those better angels of our nature are by definition machines that have been least corrupted by their own selves. You know what I mean? They're the ones that don't have the tumors. They're the ones who don't have any particular political affiliation. It's the same absolute power corrupt. They're the ones who will be like Socrates, who said when you enter into social service, you enter with the clothes on your back. That's it. We'll pay for your house and your food. We'll take care of your family. But you can't be given more because you're working for the Polish. You're working for the mass of us. So the clothes on your back, that's what you enter office into and that's what you will leave office with. That's it. You can't stand to gain anything. I believe in ancient Greece to have a life of politics with something sacred, something that you would... Oh, very much. Because you were sacrificing, you were a servant of the people, where it's the complete opposite now. Yeah, it's lobbying and it's money, right? And it's vested interest. So... John Oliver did a, I watched just last night, you know, the review, weekend review or something like that about the homelessness issue in California. And how much it's costing to put up these temporary homes, something that would take maybe $10,000 to $15,000 is costing the states like $400,000 or $500,000 per unit. It just doesn't make sense. Like, what are these units coming with? San Fran just wild. There's way too many middlemen. They just impose rent control. They're done, man. California is a sinking ship. They have so many political issues. I don't even know where to begin. Texas, the people from Cali going to Texas. They are going to Texas, you know why? The taxes are so much less. Tim Ferris did that a few years back. He moved to Austin, yeah. I love Austin. Oh, it's one of my favorite cities in the state. Properties cheap compared to Toronto. Yeah, and the people are cool, man. Austin is this weird little haven inside of a larger, you know, more right wing, you know, place to be. It's pretty left and it's pretty cool. Well, let me ask you this. Where do you see like based on your background and expertise and the knowledge you've attained? Realistically, where do you see politics going? Like, my issue with this is I don't ever see governments sanctioning or putting this in. Putting what in? Right. I'm hoping to see a rise of the independence. Like, I think we're seeing a trend towards the end of party politics because that really screws everything up, especially in Canada. If you become a liberal, like, look, this is going to sound weird, but when Trudeau took over, Justin, he said to his caucus, every one of you has to be pro-choice. Every one of you, because that's what we stand for. I was the Paul, I was the, I gave a eulogy at Henry Morgan Taller's funeral. So we were buds. We were tight. And he was responsible for making abortions legal in Canada. He went to prison three times. You know, his funds were shut down and whatnot. He sacrificed his medical career for the benefit of women's rights to be able to have safe and effective abortions. Yet, I'm still of the mind that a person, even within a caucus like the Liberal Party, maybe for whatever reason they're Catholic or you know what I mean? And they're not thrilled about the idea of abortion. Should they then have to have their own personal, philosophical and religious views overridden by political ideology? Or do we want to get rid of the party line so that it, because they're so divisive, you must be this or you must be that? And look at what it's doing down south, right? If we get rid of the concept of party politics and we put in the independence who are simply for the good of the polis, then a good idea is a good idea and it doesn't matter where it comes from or who said it. It can be based on what the machine gives us for the benefit of humanity and all of humanity. And so less vested interest cuts down on the lobbying. So the independence enter in with the clothes on their back and they're social servants. They are servants of society. And we get back to that kind of Greek notion of what was known as the golden age of politics where people listen to argumentation and if they were convinced they would surrender what they have now come to realize was a bad argument.