 Hi, we're coming to you from San Francisco. Happy Thanksgiving. Happy Belated Thanksgiving to you. It's Dazza Greenwood, your regular host from the LSE Legal Forum, but we're coming to you today from the embassy network on the West Coast. And we're going to have a little discussion about community living, about virtual nation states, about the commons, nurturing the commons. And yeah, we'll see where the conversation takes us. My name is Tony Lyme. I'm the CEO and co-founder of Legal.io, and I follow at Codex, the Stanford Central Legal Informatics. And so we're pursuing a particular theme and discussion around computational law and the science of information within the legal system, but also the ways in which the legal system is developing and coming into play in different aspects of value exchange and decentralized networks in the ways that rules can emerge or be sort of top-down created, the different perspectives around how we sort of model the effects of those rules, and ultimately how those rules come together in corporations and cooperatives and different kinds of legal structures and ultimately nation states. And I think that's something that several of us here have a lot of background in history and thinking about and talking about, and it's a pleasure to have some particularly strong thinkers and erudite folks here, if you would say. So we can go around very quickly just to do some introductions. Maybe I can start on my right-hand side. Tony Lyme. Hello. Hi. Thank you, Tony. I'm also Tony. We're squared, Tony squared. So my name is Tony Lyme. We have Tony Lyme and Tony Lyme. I am the co-founder of Cointelegraph, but that is not actually what I do. That is something that I did in around 2013, and I am the founder of a company called Culture. And Culture builds virtual sovereignty in virtual nation states working with the co-author of SSL and my other business partner, who is one of the most powerful and influential indigenous elders in the world. His name is Chief Bill Lane. So he is responsible for, you know, managing interactions and diplomacy between every indigenous community nearly on the planet. Specifically and explicitly in North America, in Canada, out of Humamory and beyond. So we use boxing technology to create virtual nation states. That's fascinating. I really want to talk about some of that. My entire life is about building what I call the Internet of Sovereignty and that being based on the idea of the future of governance as a model that is similar to a quantified burning land that empowers both the autonomy of the individual, often to multiple cultures. My business is called Culture that are effectively nation states. You can be in as many governments as you'd like to be in. They're all dependent marketplaces and you have highly participatory relationships with the idea of these different governance structures and the incentives and the different governance structures are actually rewarding civic participation in a way that is shifting the way that we think about how we engage with and contribute to our communities that engage these forced like taxes or forced like violence and there are some broad implications to that but that's a big overview of what I know. The one thing I want to just put as a bookmark there is there's a nation of competition for different regulatory marketplaces. There's something there that we're seeing happening already around the just say regulation of ICOs right blockchain and like the different you know that all the different regulatory agencies around the world are looking to each other as to how they're going to regulate and how they should be regulating some of these different ways of fundraising that we're seeing and I think that's a very precise, a specific example of regulatory marketplaces that we're going to see as you have sort of comparative interpretations of things that are in some sense very global today and so how those sort of regulatory sandboxes get set up is some of what we're thinking about when we start speaking at a municipal level about computational law and the ways that regulation can be developed. It could be municipal, it could be community, it could be blockchain ecosystem, the different governance that you apply on each of these different structures can in a sense evolve and I think that's that's some of the interesting sort of theoretical side of things that that the hype and awesome that have gone into that we can touch on a bit. Thank you, Tany, then. Oh, and Twitter, anyone's watching it? It's at T-O-N-I-L-A-N-D-C. And my website is just tell me when you have come. So if you want to follow our findings, go ahead. Not a Y. It's not. Steven, Steven Veniak, we're away from beautiful, beautiful ones. Thank you, Tanya. Do you live here? No, we're creating more online spaces. How should I, that's so projecting into a single dimension? So Steven, I've had the pleasure of spending a beautiful, beautiful hour with you over the last few months working on some of the critical stuff, but can you give us a bit background about some of the things you've been working on? Yeah, so my name is Steven Veniak, I'm from London, I guess I'm a social entrepreneur from the UK, founded a organisation a few years back called the Social Innovation Partnership, the Social Innovation Partnership and what we've done over the last six, seven years is work with governments and foundations and corporates helping them to design social programs and trying to improve education, justice, entrepreneurialism, but also to think about how they measure the impact of those programs and to think about how they engage citizens in them and develop things that mean that they work on a true social impact. So over that time, developed initiatives that turned into organizations around the world in London, developed some kind of protocol which about helping children use systems to measure the impact of this work and to think about how it's up to this game on that front and have also done just a digging on that very briefly. The special thing about Project Oracle was not only that it was backed by the Mayor of London who was a truly cross-sector framework that he created to align some pretty disparate kinds of organizations. So basically it was a systems approach to encouraging impact measure learn in a place. So we basically identified the different actors you made up that system, there's your funding services, there's your providing services, there's your measuring them. We basically found ways to incentivize them to work together and to come around a particular system of metric because a lot of the time social good or public good work is disparate. It's a race to the bottom. People are just using different approaches to secure funding. So we basically built any good system and built a martial place that then funders, providers and academics were using the same language, validating themselves against standards and basically that leads to an improvement in the system and in the provision of a public good and then obviously improving outcomes for children and people. So we took that model and replicated it in Canada with the Canadian government and it's also been replicated in other contexts and it obviously been great. Like we've turned in the last few months looking at how we bring that approach to some of the kind of legal incubator learning we've been doing with Cartham and CX. So that's been a really good journey and that now is spun out as an independent organization and I saw the border there and it's still going. And yeah, getting involved in other things down and the thing that's two things for you that's exciting a lot is in London, again working with the mayor and in Hackney and Citizens Day to build something called Civic Hall which is about bringing different actors and assistants together to design new products and tackle new challenges and also working in the UK on a leadership programme to discover people who look from underserved on the big background. Well, one in the UK and the US as well. In the UK and in the US as well. Yeah. To do it in the UK as a result of that. But yeah, that's the problem. Well, that's okay. So I just want to touch on two threads that I want to come back to as well. One is the way in which Project Oracle was set up was it was to actually try and prevent against top down imposition of programmes that they think work and actually recognise that there's a there's a way to align the rules and the outcomes and the incentives for a system that's designed towards saying improving use and education outcomes that was actually cognisant of the lots of different local attempts and ways that recognise local information and the situation of the ground that would then measure their outcomes in the same way, but it didn't impose down to start that program, which I think is interesting again from this broader concept of complex systems which the next chapter I'm going to introduce you all to has a lot of background in and understands a lot better than I do. But as I was writing about up on the one in earlier today, he commented is like that Tony complex systems excellent. So I'm going to have the intro to Sean over here who's I hope can tell us a little bit about applied cognitive sciences, also in education. But it's it's absolutely fascinating. And he's got a bunch of amazing people doing stuff all around the world. But I'm glad to call him a housemate. So Sean Martin, if you give us a little intro to yourself. Thank you. Except for a little bit as well. I'm covered. Yeah. I'm Sean. I'm applying cognitive science findings to learning. And so we're just thinking about what kinds of experiments we might run that discover ways to configure better situations. But I have a suggestion. And I know that we're in theory. We are watching, but like, I think it would be really nice to have a team in the sense of like, just conversations. It's not about that. Right. So that's like, leave it there and leave that again. There was this was a this was an experiment. I guess this is the running. Yeah. Well, I presume it is. But it is. Yeah. I mean, it's a good idea. Yeah, I think there's two ways to do it. I think it was like. Part of it was mostly because they were like, say, you don't know each other. It was kind of a nice way to have a bit of a. I agree with that. I was going to talk with you. It was. It was going to be. And anyway, I think this is like, I love experimenting with the format. And so one thought is like, you know, yeah, it's just playing around with panel structure versus like. Sitting on the porch and chilling with each other, which is. We have a live stream or more live stream kitchen. That's also an option. I think it's nice. It's nice to have a salon given that. Yeah, let's do it. But yeah, sure. Sorry, we weren't we attracted to each other. She goes, let's do this to each other as much as anything. Oh, now I have to do something. I think I said it was the point of science. I think people can learn faster. The interesting thing is that the findings from cognitive science that seem to hold in academic research suggest that the way that our minds work is kind of counterintuitive. There's some weirdness there. Yes. And so the thing that Kege and I did was to take some of those counterintuitive things seriously and say, well, could there be counterintuitive stuff going on in learning situations? Let's just not prejudge the situation. Let's just try and measure if that is the case. And it turns out that six years later, we found a whole bunch of really interesting kind of counterintuitive, not obvious things. Why learning? I mean, there might be more kinds of reasons, but why that is your opportunity, right? We didn't start with that. We actually started just one July ourselves in 2000 by wanting to apply this set of findings and see what was true and what wasn't and how to actually figure it out in a messy, multi-factorial real world. And just do a business. And we asked, can we find some way of doing some kind of commercial business that would make money? And then our clients could pay us to do our own research kind of thing type thing. So we used to work for nine months of the year for clients and three months of the year doing our own research, usually with data and experiments far away from the clients that we just work for. So we kind of carried that on from 2000 up until 2011. And then we started to realize that we've got this interesting set of truths and some interesting points of view. And of all of the academic research that we looked at, we kind of now by then knew like, OK, some of it actually doesn't work in the real world. Some of it you have to completely reinterpret to figure out what would be a good hypothesis in the real world and some of it doesn't work. You know, I noticed in our conversations for about the time, you know, Kiki, you seem to really love learning and opening access to learning to others, especially others that had obstacles or difficulties that you can help overcome with your science. It seems like you really love that. Yeah, and it's funny because back in 2010, we made a list of we just actually said, OK, we've got some tools, we made a bit of money, let's try and apply what we've learned to something that the world might benefit from. So we made a list. So we said, OK, climate change, everyone's thinking about it from the point of view of technology, like make a more efficient car, more energy efficient light bulb, and so on. But there's this thing called the substitution effect where when you make a more energy efficient light bulb, people buy more light. So the total energy consumption in the case of light doesn't change. So now that's very carefully measured and documented in the case of light. There are all sorts of speculations about does the substitution effect apply in other realms? And it's much harder to measure because there's kind of a lot of ambiguity about what you define as transport. So can I learn more efficiently? Do I just learn more things? I still have the same total surface area. I don't know. Or will I sign this? You are so classifying. So one of the things that I find particularly interesting from some of your findings is that one of the broader points around the nature of context and how important that context is, as you were saying, rather than any individual willpower or ability in the context and setting the right context, is so fundamentally important to the possible outcomes that you're measuring. And there are ways in terms of that kind of context. But that contextual knowledge, or sort of specifically tailoring the sequence, potentially, of contextual arrangements so that learning is accelerated to its full potential. And I think that's the actual evidence-backed findings are sort of playing to this again, this notion of how important the complex systems piece is. Thinking about the interrelation of all of these different individual parts is actually the answer. Rather than just focusing on that individual, atomized individual, and saying you, alone, are responsible for your success or failure. And I think some of that science coming out is some of the most interesting. But from my perspective, especially in the way it ties into some of these broader notions of how we create these complex systems or complex adaptive systems that create the right rules for this individual. And that's the emergence of individual behavior that we want. So, Jesse, how do you want to talk about some of this stuff as well? Well, I can riff off actually the individual contextual perspective that you bring to the table, or that's what was coming to mind in this moment, which is thinking about if it is as much a context as it is the individual's responsibility for how they learn things and what opportunities they have in life and all those other things. And the environment in which we live, whether it's socially, whether it is residentially, whether it is professionally, becomes very important. And I think that's part of why we were excited for you all to live with us and why we all want to work together in the environment that we choose to live in here at the embassy. And so to then zoom out from there a little bit, Rami and myself and several other people, Tony, Tony is here, Sean is here. And we've been living in communities like this for a long time. And I think didn't start in these communities with the intention of being experimental. We started them just through pursuing our own sense of kind of a fulfillment completion. What does it mean to live a whole meaningful life? And what do we want out of that life? And what does it mean to actively create that experience? And we're very lucky to find other people who wanted to kind of try that along with us and learn how to do it and stumble a little bit and do it again. But so I have been living in the communal living environment, intentional experimental living environments for 15 years. And let's see, we are, I think at this point, really come at it with a perspective of experimentation and what does it mean to how we intentionally create pockets of prefigurative reality that we can kind of lead the witness of society in terms of where we want to go and where we want to be going. And for me, the longer arc of that is really thinking about the future of humanity. For me, it's always been humanity in space. And so when did you first start thinking about, I guess, it was from a humanity in space perspective, where you were thinking about how people lived together from the humanity in space perspective? I would sort of actually say that they came together like they were separate things that were independent and motivated, but I think that humanity in space has, I have a background in space and space exploration in space community. And so I work on space policy and I work on software in the space environment. And this question of spaces, there's lots of inspiring potential, things that inspire potential futures. And many people have their own thing. And for me, it's always been space. And space represents this sort of possibility, like this abstract future, this utopia, and just over the horizon, yeah, possibility space. And yet, we talk about space as where things can be different, where we don't have to take the mistakes of what we did on Earth. And we can start a fresh slate and a clean slate. And actually, if you stop and you think about it, that's not the case. We're most likely, if you imagine going to the most oppressive, dangerous, physical environment you can, you're not going to get there and say, why don't we throw everything we've learned as society out the window and start with something totally experimental? Let's do something tri-tested and true until we're not dying. And then let's iterate a little bit. And so it's really important for us to be experimental now, so that when we get to, say, living on the moon, that we will have some tri-tested and true ways of making decisions together, governance systems, resource sharing systems that represent the values that we always, I would like to contribute to that, that are not sure about the unexperimental, but that have been iterated upon and tried for some other fact. So those are these two axes that I think starts with, and that has led through many conversations, Tony and others, to reflections on what it means to, for example, be a sovereign, sovereign entity, sovereign organization, sovereign state, like what does statehood and nationality mean? And in this time of decentralized alignments and relationship building, we don't need the nation-state structure in the same ways as we did before. It still exists, but how are we beginning to affiliate with other new ways and apply, for example, meet basic needs outside of the nation-state structure? And once we start to do that, we can start to kind of experiment with and go beyond this, you know, like Benedict Endersen's idea of what the imagined community is. I think we're getting into a phase of the chosen communities. We are choosing these communities. So what does that look like? And how do we choose them? I mean, I'm interested in that as well. Thank you, Jesse. The piece about space that you did mention, which we spoke about with Robbie earlier, and more generally around what house-based inspires. And maybe this kind of speaks to house-based inspires, but one of the things about designing things in space were their sort of governance structures or their spacecraft or sort of living modules is you have to, you're designing for a certain kind of resilience or you're designing for it to take into account the externalities. That was the point we were talking about, right? So here on Earth, in a sense, we get to design without necessarily fully taking into that the externalities. They kind of just go out and, you know, the more you can discount your externalities, in a sense, the more profit you're able to make, one might argue. Whereas when you're designing in space, in a sense, you kind of have to take account of the full life system, or at least that's some common best practice. And I guess I don't understand that fully. I haven't fully thought that through, but that's something we'll do. Well, I mean, if you guys read the book, The Martian, or I know it, or you've seen the movie, Oh, yeah, that was great movie. Yeah, it was great movie. But it really kind of showed the idea of dramatic what a closed-loop life support system is like, where every amount of wattage you use and every amount of oxygen you breathe and CO2 you exhale is all part of the self-contained system. Right? And the concept that we were talking about yesterday is, you know, when you're in a spacecraft, it's space outside, you know, like if this is a spacecraft, this everything in here has to actually work, from our food to the power to water, oxygen, et cetera. And so then if you fuck up and do something, for example. For example. Not to think on here. Not that it would be you. But the future generator has not. And actually, today, if we just make a movie about a space, obviously, in Gaza, or somebody has to be a cool guy in the movie, I would not make that a movie. Well, you guys have the hilarious Macat and Disadventures that ultimately work themselves out by the end of the episode. Yeah, and yeah, you'll be the love of all of it. Yeah, all of this work in South Africa is always a hero. And then we can propagate on Mars later. Anyway, back to you. And no one remembers that because it's the one who forgot to clean the reaction the first place he used to say is the thing. Forgot to clean or created that important smudge that we live on. What it's a drama is a bit of fun. It was a very boring journey to Mars. We needed to do something to entertain ourselves. Thanks for always killing ourselves so that we can get there. That's all I'll say for the Macs and Jakes on the way. Amen. So last minute in space, you, Al, and San Francisco, the remainder of your point. Well, my point is we would recognize the fact that you fucked up very quickly. Oh, this shit. Right? Well, not years. So because we have, because of the Earth as a system is extremely complex and extremely interconnected and really hard to actually see the effect of one's behavior. And sometimes we don't see that effect until years and years into the future. And sometimes we actually are a second situation where we were making all this negative externalism that we didn't know. We had massive check-in comments. And we have this societal place, not just engineeringly, but just the entire global economic system or how we actually govern all human-evented systems in a time when we didn't actually know of these negative externalism that we were actually doing. So the concept of thinking about space as a micro-gozen for a teacher of society, one thing that is interesting is what are those government systems that you can do when all of a sudden you have a truer cost economic system? If you want to think about it, do something, everything is economics, just a filter to take away. Where one's behavior you could actually attribute the effect of their behavior back to the action that was actually made. That was last night. Yes, that was last night. But I think there's also a nice reflection on one of the pieces that I think you'll be working on, that you're not a star, which is this notion of the queryable earth and the notion that you can actually reduce that lag that we have had for so long around these externalities because you're taking data images of the earth and you're able to see some of these previously hidden externalities of certain actions on a much more live basis and that can feed much more directly into policy. And to the extent of policy and or maybe insurance policies or government policies or any kinds of policies that are looking for some kind of input that triggers an action that is going to counteract that externality or the effects of that externality, that's where we might start thinking about computational regulation and computational law to the extent that we have sovereign entities that are interested in actually creating better feedback groups and better systems that make the commons work the way that it's supposed to do. And I think this is then, again, thinking about that notion of both markets and commons and we've got markets for getting price and data and the ways that people want to allocate their resources on more accurate knowledge. But you've also got this notion of how we more sensitively and appropriately govern the commons or create the frameworks for which rules get set not in a top-down way, but that are actually being informed and adapted by local information or globally collected information. So you've got data streams from imaging, we also got data streams from IoT network devices, data streams from people interacting in various ways that can potentially go towards. And again, we're talking very abstractly here about maybe climate change regulation or specific sections against certain corporate actors for chopping down more trees than they're supposed to be or just completely founting certain laws that might be in place. And again, at the city level and or at the financial regulation level or any number of things that are sort of riffing a little bit. I mean, that I think is the power of data. It's the power of having that feeding into policy decisions or at the loops. What was that you referred to there? I think I read what you said. I haven't heard that. I don't want to go down that ground. Oh, you can skip it. Yeah, we probably want to skip it. Okay. But the broader point is that we in the early 21st century have now we're collecting a kind of data everywhere. The unit is a bunch of metric, a metric. A metric, okay, I'm good. And then associated with that, we also have massive amounts of understanding from vast amounts of data coming up with interesting insights of things. But then if we get coalesced from indicators found in all of that data, then we could actually measure some things that were unmetutable before. But then, like carbon, like methane, like emissions. And right now, that's not valued in a stock price. That does not come into the whole economic system. But this is exactly what law comes in. This is where public policy comes in, as well as public sentiment comes in. Well, I think my perspective on this is more like the idea of where does law come in and where does public policy come in is the idea are we creating a system where law and public policy are being the agency of the individual? And if so, then are those systems really effective based on the tools that we have to actively govern society and self-governance? Because this world should be a self-healing world. And we should have a self-governance, self-healing world where any citizens are self-sovereign. And so if you have an idea of where the rule of law or the way in which you're actually thinking about implementing policy is saying that someone should negate their agency and to give their authority to an individual to make a decision for them because they don't have the ability to free them from themselves. It's like the same brains in a sample and to listen to a person who tells me what information is true because they're on the news and instead of actually doing their research and do diligence to make an objective opinion for myself. Are you saying, sorry, that was a lot of content. Or are you saying that your ideal would be a world in which we don't need to have sort of like policy that is alienated from individuals? Like where people can participate in policies? Is it important to understand the way that this is like, what if we let people who knew about things invested in those things? Like I think that's maybe the simplest way to explain it. Like, what if we let people who knew about climate change, investors, intellectual energy or invest their money or invest their time or save money in these issues? It's like, it's the simplest way to put it is like, and so it seems so obvious. Like what if you were, what if accredited investing to look at it from another angle is that what if being an accredited investor meant that you were actually a smart person and didn't mean that you needed to have like an excess amount of capital and then you needed to have $2 million in assets not counting like your houses or whatever kind of income per year kind of thing. What if it just meant that like you were smart enough persons that understand how to make an educated decision about where you spent, I think we should look at this the same way or decisions that are happening on areas where other people are paying knowledge in ways that not only it's not just the idea of like this globalism, like the earth is a closed loop system but more the idea that all of these super small, it's the idea of if we're living in a closed loop system that all of these closed loops are hyper interdependent. And we have a level of hyper locality that uses one core infrastructure to govern the idea of our legion to our individual sovereignty as an internet and then from within that internet of sovereignty allowing for hyper locality but hyper local structures of governance to shape themselves and to be interdependent on each other in a way that aligns human principle, human action and human participation, like civic engagement based on not only the idea of our shared values but on actual economic incentives. So I get paid for picking up in one culture or one city or whatever you wanna call it. I get paid for picking up trash on the side of the street because this is how we've designed the, this is how we've designed the incentives in the system and I can upload that to massive data days where someone can explode my character and my reputation in terms of the way that my social identity is processed in a world where we may no longer have nation states because climate change could destroy, climate change could put several nations under water climate change is not gonna care of your richer poor, right? And so coastlines are gonna change, or it's a caps or melting. So it's more the idea that not only the way we think about the idea of our governance as a collective responsibility that's incentivizing civic engagement but that the idea of our individual sovereignty is something that's based on what already exists which is networks of verified social trust and reputation based on our action, participation in different groups, government sense kind of thing. Yeah, I think so what I want to try and pick out as part of, I think, the potential of some of the things that you touch on and I think you touched on a number of things there which I'd like to sort of like, pull through in succession and with the input from others is there's a set of opportunities that you're sort of laying out that speak to the, you mentioned agency. The agency of an individual to operate within the context of a set of rules that they can freely understand and a free, transparently visible and the ways in which they can contextualize that set of rules. Let's say within a community like this, we live together, there are a set of understood rules that you can operate within that enable you to trust the people within the house that you don't need to worry about certain kinds of interactions that you might not be so open to say, just regularly on the street or in the mall or something that's like a set of, and these aren't necessarily articulated formalistic rules that are written down that you check the box in terms of service when you walk through the door but they're an informal set of agreed and understood rules that collectively we've built on a community at the time, they apply to the notion of the transit of trust when a friend invites a friend, invites a friend and you can work a set number of times. Are you afraid of him? Yeah, absolutely. And I think how that then plays into the agency of that individual within that context, if they understand the rules versus if they don't understand the rules is one piece I wanna pick out because I think lack of knowledge of the rules or lack of distribution of knowledge of those rules can be a hindrance to that notion of self-organization that I think we want to look towards as a potential opportunity within some of these decentralized systems we might be talking about as opposed to the top-down imposition and enforcement of rules which is what we're seeing as like a status quo, right? So that's what it's kind of here. Can I come in here please? Sorry, I'm gonna challenge a little bit and just be a little bit kind. Say, and if you're looking at this very simply, I know, I guess, how do I take what it is? I mean, so I mean what I'm hearing is that there's something beyond the nation state, right? There's some sovereignty that plays out there. And again, I didn't want to validate anything. I'm just talking very specifically about this one. I am, you can go off against any of the pieces that you want to, I just wanted to articulate that the piece I was talking about specifically is just the notion of, and this could be siloed if it's not to replace anything. And I speak to what Jesse was saying earlier is that nation states can and should continue for various different reasons. Do you think you and Gondash should continue in a country where they tried to pass a bill called Kewal of the Gays, threatening to murder people who were trying to find it? I don't want to go into specific, to make a collusion. But wait, but I mean to merge, sorry. Clean air, eh? Yeah. I guess for me, there's two interesting things I've heard, right? One is actually over here, you know, the fact that we live in this open, complex world means we get away with fucking up so much shit, right? And you know, that's really interesting. And so what you're saying is that once you start going out into space, because you've got to control for everything, you actually have the opportunity to do things properly. It's a bit like you're a captive audience. It's like when they talk about trying to rehabilitate prisoners, it says really, you know, you've got a captive audience because they're locked up in the network whereas they're not going anywhere. So you've got an opportunity to turn people's lives around. So it's really interesting to hear this comment on Blacksie when we're in space, you know, you've got to be somewhere in prison. It's like you're in prison. It's like you're in some harsh mystery. Yeah, so everything needs to be in tandem for you to be able to live. So that changes the whole dynamic, you know, to how we're like new rules. So yeah, so there's something interesting there. And I guess this question from me around like nations versus like virtual sovereignty or whatnot, I guess my challenge with it is that, if I'm being brutally honest, it's okay for us here, smart, educated, worldly, curious, inquisitive people to kind of have that discussion. But fundamentally, when you're just like, you know, a normal human being out there trying to like eat, survive, live and get on, you end up just looking at things around, you know, like bonding social capital, right? So you bond and you connect to people that are around you. I'm not saying that that's right, or it's true, or I agree with it, but I'm just saying that that's really like how we have survived and how we've moved, right? So I'm interested in how we make that, yeah. I think that's just, so just to connect what you were saying. I think it's in opposition. And I think that was the point that I was trying to make is, and so, yeah. I mean, some pieces, it's a translation, like some pieces in interpretation, but there's aspects of actual true social norms. And that's kind of some of what I was trying to talk about in the context of say, you know, non-formal legalistic rules, actual rules based on promises and social context that actually can rise to the fore when you start thinking about ways in which things actually work and things actually happen. Right. And so, let's go to that. I mean, I want to let you or just like have to go back to this initial point that you were talking about, because you raised two separate questions. What about you? Who's the new guy? And what about me? And true. And so, sorry, you want us to respond there, I mean, Steven, that's not you talk too much, anyway. I think the point of all of that is just to be brief, the formal regulations pass the point of comprehension where you're not actually going to incorporate them into your behavior because it's impossible to digest all. What's your name? Oh, I'm Tim. I work with the Economic Space Agency. Ooh, it's a different kind of space that we're talking about, right? Yeah, economics. Economic space. Yeah. And that's the space that I think affects us on a day-to-day basis. But I think that kind of projecting that out into what happens when we're in space is actually what you need to think about. Because if you do have a closed economic system, what kind of economic system do you want? What kind of decision make the system do you have for that economic system to work? So, I'm here. Yeah. Jesse, you have direct point. No, I would like to get in line with the reflection prompted by Sheveri's comments. That was a turn of things. Oh, no, sorry, you said you had a separate. Yeah, I was making a note about getting in line with Sheveri's point. I got it. What? Okay, just tell me, what are these different gestures? One figure is... New point. New point. New point. Yeah. Two is direct. Two is direct. Oh, sorry. I know, I thought I saw two fingers. I actually didn't know that one. I was queuing behind you. I was like, I'll do first, I'll go second. I thought we'd be good too. I thought we were doing two fingers. Yeah, two fingers. All right. Two fingers. One hand? Yeah. One finger is new points. And then twinkle fingers is just like, I generally agree. Signed with five fingers. Signed with five fingers. Yeah, that's pretty good. That can be offensive sometimes. Well, it means, okay, I hear your point, like your point came across. So you don't need to continue with me if you don't want to, right? If you have something that you feel like you can't do. Or it's indirectly a way of saying you said it already. You said it already. Yeah, I got it. Yeah, I got it. I got it. Yeah, I got it. It's like an affirmative, it's an affirmative, but it's like, let's progress to discussion rules. It's actually really, really helpful. Also, like, I invited it. Yeah. It was like that. But personally, like, it's nice. I really like it when people do that because then I can just do like great things. Yeah, yeah. No, I don't care about that. Feel free to do it. It's okay. I think it's my favorite. And there's, there's a thing we want to like, Emily should do it, which is sort of that. And well, there's, shit, I forget what it is. One of those basically says, like, I don't feel safe. It's sort of like, it's like, yeah, I'm, this is like going beyond what makes me feel like comfortable in some metaphysical or I'm supposed to sit away. It's like this. And there's a, yeah, there's a block. There's, I mean, a whole bunch of everything works. It's cool. Yeah, it's cool. We did have a tremendous salon, which was touching on some very, very touchy subjects once in here, where the facilitator, who expertly facilitated a very touchy subject, gave us a full sort of, like a language. It's like a language. What's nice about it is that it's out of band. So like somebody can be talking, you have to interrupt them to say, I would like to respond directly to you. You just sort of say like, you do this and the moderator can read this other channel that's happening, which is your like, you know. You can keep flow, flow to the direct point. Was that one? Do you want to know? On discretion. On discretion. Okay, new point. Okay, so, I don't know, a thing that this discussion triggered for me was, reflecting back yesterday as well, let's talk to you about common law, and in a community like this, so like, you know, practical example, we've been around for, in this house, this particular instantiation has been here for five and, five years, just five years. We have a lot of decisions we've made that essentially add up to common law. They are things that people who have lived here for a long time know are true, or know we're true, or we're decisions that were true. What decisions we made after specific instances? Houses and like, you know, thoughts. And they weren't recorded as law forevermore. They were simply, you know, informed decisions made at the time. There could be references in the future. There could be references in the future. And so this came up of like, you know, for example, like, you know, Sean and Kate King would be on about a year ago, and Stephanie and we've been recently issues around, and we don't have any institutionalized way of passing on that knowledge. So it's really like, it relies on the fact that these people are around, and that smart people come along and ask questions, but we don't have any real formal doing that. And when you were talking about autonomy, and like the experience of autonomy, and I was just thinking like, so to be empowered to kind of iterate on the systems that exist, we have to know what those systems are. And when we don't have good ways of passing along, even knowledge about common law, nevermind like documentary rules and rulings that we make, it keeps the level of autonomy basic, actually. And often it comes up in a lot of groups that I'm going to try to approach it because I'm really interested in these groups. You know, I seep them out and I try to spend time in groups like ours, and... Don't you tell us about a few other groups that you've found that sort of have been able to dig into this? Yeah, I'll say, just to finish this one point, which is that I think there is this association that is perhaps largely correct, which is that groups' interest in autonomy and self-governance are kind of going back to basics a lot of the time. We are reinventing the wheel constantly for better. And you know, we're asking ourselves really basic questions like how do we want to spend money? How do we want to make decisions together? How do we want to like, I don't know, we just, in being around for five years, we've asked ourselves many times, how do we want to buy food? What's our philosophy on that, right? And how do we want to pick new community members? And totally. And you know, part of that is a commitment to learning. Like, we don't want to assume them just because we've made the decision before we have learned, we've learned the right way. That is a bias in this type of governance system versus other types of governance systems. But if we had better ways of passing on institutional knowledge, autonomy with sort of building on the history of knowledge in the systems that we've made in the past. Right. So there's a sort of polarity that doesn't need to be in opposition necessarily between autonomy and efficiency? Yeah, we're like institutional knowledge and it's building on, you know, the past, I don't know, it's just- Autonomy and legislation, how would that? Well, it's not biggest, but is it not legislation if it's good for them? Yeah, it's- I think there's a difference between the idea of what it means to start a new nation or new community and have a new process for governance. Because everything that you just outlined is starting a new nation. You're saying like who do you wanna have, or a new community, like who do you wanna have as citizens? Like what do we want the world for our community to be? And I think the idea of starting a new nation and creating a new governance process are totally different with governance. And I think in some ways the governance process is an emergent property of the values that people share because different people have value, different things in totally different ways in different situations. I would be super, like I said for one example, it's like in some cultures, like you go to Burning Man and it's acceptable for you to run into the middle of the street naked. There's a girl at our Thanksgiving party last night and you decide and she would feel more comfortable if she is naked and we were like, okay. And it's because we live in a, we have there's a huge community of learners that were like we itself accept your self-expression. But if you were in other areas of the United States, you'd have the police call and you would have a police call and you'd have a public community. So it's like, I think that when the idea of what it means to have a governance process and the idea of what it means to create a culture are two totally different things. And I think it would focus more on the idea of how we wanna create culture than instead of how we wanna create governance because governance is more the idea of like what are the rules? And when you start out a process by saying, that's like entering into a relationship with a person you don't know and setting a logical paradigm above the shared experience that you're doing. Culture is more of a shared experience. And yeah, and that's like saying like, okay, well I know that this is the way reality is. And because I know that reality functions in this way, your own, if your own wants, feelings, needs or desires are different than my binary perception of reality, then you're gonna be breaking me law. And I think that model, that the binary interaction of governance entities and people or people governing each other is like looking at telecommunications network and seeing that you just have people write letters that are paid. And I think it encourages violence. Sorry. Personally, binary as opposed to say polycentric and sort of like you've got these multiple relationships and it's not always just between these sort of individuals or some in-state or something. Yeah. Polycentric is the right word. I think it's like an internet. Like I think it's, because the idea of polycentric is still saying that the function is based on the idea of the individual's interactions subjectively in my mind. Like it's like, yeah, we have a lot of its networks actually is how I would phrase it. Because polycentric is still an I, I think it's an I-based phrase. I didn't understand if you were saying that you think like formal governance structures, like we're contrasting against culture. If the formal governance structures are structurally oppressive versus culture, which is emergent and which is something that we can kind of like find our way into and opt into as being more like supporting of autonomy and agency and that is what you're saying. Well, the expression as well. And I also think that the challenge with a lot of old governance structures is that they're 30 years behind you're more on actual real technology than they're enabling systems of oppression based on, you know, against populations. I mean, Do you think all forms of governance are, like I guess that's what I'm curious about. Every government that has power has engaged in. Governments are the government. Every government that has power has engaged in an act of terror against its own citizens. I agree. I actually, so I agree with that. I was personally, I see as different governance in government. Yeah, I mean, I get the answers of practice. Yeah, and it's a practice that applies to Governments have governance. To non-profits, to hedge funds, to, you know, Governments have politics. Yeah, I think it's not how it's supposed to be. So, communities and corporations are non-profits. But the distinction is something we talked about earlier, right, which is, you know, when you're small and, you know, it's all, it's all contactable, you can build a culture, you can build a relationship, you can come out and expect a new perspective. Yeah, you know, so new people enter. So that's why this thing is working, right, because, you know, it's at a particular scale. You know, I think it's only once you get to a bigger size, or you want to get to a bigger size, where you need to introduce, you know, Governments start to commoditize it, depersonize it, and make a possible existence for the, I think we're getting to the, the, the nub of the, we're getting to the nub of the, the, I think this interesting turning point that we're at, where, you know, do we now suddenly have a mechanism, not suddenly, I mean, it's been going over time, but is there a mechanism where we can bring together the best of agency and development of culture and emergence systems of, let's say, governments for now, not in the broad, like status quo, oppressive governance, but in the emergent or complex adaptive governance that actually is designed to, you know, achieve better outcomes. We're defining what these better outcomes are, and then we're allowing for these different parts within a more complex whole to, you know, in some sense self-organized based upon these more transparent rules. And again, part of it is about the rules themselves are much more visible. They're much more the knowledge about how they work. They're clearly visible. You can see the effects of them. You can even model them beforehand to see what you might do in a particular situation and how the rules might affect your particular outcome. You can't understand without clarity. Exactly, you shouldn't just ask a game. That's exactly it. And so, so this is, I think this is where some of the, the recent discussion that went, is the Bible Chora. Yeah, yeah, exactly. And my degree, bringing it back to the meeting before of NASA. It says, let's, let's, let's, let's, let's, let's, let's, let's, let's, let's, let's, let's, let's say what's it saying about NASA? Good morning NASA. Good morning. I would like to, I would like to know after a little hour of context or setting. Okay. Yeah? Do you think people are ready for me? I think so. Almost. No, you're not. That's agreement. Would you tell us? No, instead what I'd like to tell you is, is ask you. How is it that people can self-organize and can identify governance mechanisms and methods that are appropriate for their communities that can be authoritative and enforceable, but also operate at the different scales and levels of behavior from formal rules all the way down to culture and to unspoken norms? Like, what would be that would allow us to do that? I would always go to get up, number one. Jesus, could we do a little bit of what Jesse was talking about? Just as an example, if you had all of these controversies and resolutions documented in issues and wiki pages and marked up documents, repo after repo, could people have a chance of finding it again in the future? Could you cross-reference it in an issue? Could you build a body that was... There are groups. I'm not a robust or part of the community if you use those tools for exactly that inexperimental. I'm just wondering, the major question I think is what and why, which is what you were trying to push me toward. I'm not buying it because I haven't the faintest idea. But I can deal with how a little bit at this moment. I'm wondering, well, how do we express these things in a way that's workable and usable and then reusable? I'm not too sure, but I would like to explore GitHub. I think GitHub is cute, but I don't think it exactly meets the interface needs. Not because you're cute or cute. I'm going to also use a key. All right, that's fine. It is cute. You can also add adorable. You know, this is the weirdest way I've ever heard GitHub describe it. It's super cute. It's a beacon of creative innovation. She knows. It's like the first step and it's so cute. It's like, yeah. Can you say a new pleasure when you say cute? I mean, it's not really there. I mean, it's not like object. I like to think in terms of object oriented organizations. What if you really had an object oriented paradigm? You actually apply that to your organizations. I mean, that's why everybody's working at the Holy Grail. Object capabilities for, you know, like in an object oriented programming language. And there's this second coming of the object. Apparently I'm worried about from economics space agency. And they're looking at object. It's wrapping lots of different entities and capabilities or lots of different types of things and treating them as objects. It's trying to get pretty good mileage out of it, but it's sort of, it's yet another fresh look of wrapping things as objects. In the text space, if you can see, once you kind of get Ocap, you're like, oh, like it's like kind of the Holy shit moment where you're like. It's good. Yeah. Oh, may I ask though, is it necessary to have object capabilities of like processes that are, you know, applied in order to document and use common law of governance and to document and use like documentation of projects? Yes. It strikes me that it's not necessary, but I'd like to understand why it would be useful or even necessary. What do you think? It would be super fucking useful. I mean, essentially, if you can treat everything as a note that it's like every note is some database that it has some meta data. It's on properties that you basically determine its relationship with other notes, which essentially allows you to build any type of organizational configuration or decision of configuration or preference and all of that. And then have it be functional and interoperable with everything else. Okay. I want to apply that now because it was two people sitting within like two and a half feet of each other that live in and are good constructed players within collective community situations. Like you and a hacker collective in Oakland and you right here in the embassy network. So if we just take one typical thing and play it through for a moment. Let's see. Is it how much mileage you get out of object capabilities? Or would we be way better off and wouldn't be sufficient to do it on get out. So what is something I'm thinking like how do we buy food? How do you go on board a new person like who could be in and who's out? Those are going to be typical ones. But can you select one because I don't know you both are living in and I'm not. Yeah. I don't think I understand what you're saying maps into your operation processes to go first. So if you want to do that, I could follow suit. Okay. Great. Yeah. That'd be better. Think the best one for object capabilities. That's tough because it gets complicated quickly. What I've been working on lately is how okay. So we just read map to our new station and I know structurally got my notes. Do you got the notes? I do. Yes. Okay. Go. Okay. Thank you. And thank you for teaching me. Remember what you have the space node. Yes. You have the gravity node. Yes. Which platforms these folks are putting out. You have the accelerator node. You have the exact node. Executive committee. Like all up your. You've got the admin node. You have the operations node. You have the communications node. You have the futures node. Was that nine yet? And since I mentioned comps, I want to just put a shout out to Dr. Poppers. David, who's runs the comps and who gave us this awesome microphone. I think he's watching us right now. We love human. He's probably the only one watching. So to remap into notes and then like what about a common community thing that if we're on GitHub, people would know what the decisions were. We could find it. You can have knowledge transfer to new people. You could add up issues and comments over time. Like, I mean, is this not a good tool for that? I think for like a deliverable, it's a really good tool because you can kind of just even if you are using a different tool to actually craft, you can continue to export as an issue update to be deliverable. And then people can basically post issues, which would be proposed modifications. So it's essentially a proposal or really a request. I like to formally offer certain types of offers as requests because then that implies that consent relationship where people can acknowledge and accept the request or they can provide a counterimpose. Request is great. Semantics. Request for proposal. Request for bid. Go back to the notes because you were describing a specific use case that we all could like pass through to distinguish the advantages of object-based capabilities in contrast to a more flat mic, flat files and version control system. Access. Distributed. Access to this. Request. Yeah. I mean, so GitHub hasn't been inherently included decision flows. Sorry. Which I think the issue is really good. We weren't actually asking that, or the idea wasn't about GitHub. It was more like, how is this idea of OCAP applied in your community? Yeah, it was actually. And now, and I just so you know where I'm headed, I'm totally going to compare and contrast with GitHub. And then if it turns out that it's so much better than Git. Then GitHub or I've missed something that's really essential even then I would drop my pension for GitHub for this and start having to figure out how we want to apply in a common simple way, like in JavaScript or something, object capabilities for stuff like collective living and then ultimately maybe a legal framework. You've got to have to GitHub to have it, which I do actually prove up. I think it's a good thing. It is. It's a good place for outputs. Outputs should go to GitHub because they should be public or they should be accessible like a Wiki format. However, where the actual stuff is crafted to some degree is actually the thing I would like to do. But I don't want to get into that. It's supposed to come up object itself. It's like, okay. So essentially the object was always like, okay, if you treat as something as an object, then it has traits that are associated with things. Those traits can be rules, parameters, permission, constraints. You could pretty much apply any tax nominal consideration to the know in terms of its function. This just sounds like object thinking. Yeah. I mean, so Jesse's a computer scientist. I understand object based software programming. I just want to provide the context. Yeah. And many people aren't. Yeah. So like object capability mode. Yeah. So like object capability model is like sounds like a, like very particular. I mean, the internet is telling me there's a computer security specific model. So like, do we need to use that term? Can we just say objects oriented thinking? Is that like, I'm thinking I think is actually fine, but I think for it to actually work, then you need object capability. Which is essentially market. Right. Just for. Yeah, so. Um, Is this merely a law for C to find in computer science terms, like the idea of the different notes you're describing is like the first business I built, which was the media business. Like we had a management node and we had an art node and we had nodes for our editorial staff and our different editorial offices. So it sounds that you're merely relating the idea, I'm not a computer scientist at all, not a technical at all. I'm like an anthropologist, I am a performance artist, I study human beings and human life and the only thing I care about at the end of the day is human happiness. And a fund manager. Yeah, and a fund manager. But, so the only thing I care about at the end of the day is human happiness because if we don't have that, we have absolutely nothing, nothing else matters. And so, but what it sounds like you just described to me is essentially the idea of a, it's a human organization paradigm, a policy out wide in terms of the way you're thinking about computer, like orienting the way computer science interacts with team management in a way that's redefining interaction and human organization. It's not inherently holographic, but I think it can be. I think that's a schematic that could be applied. Within a particular organizational unit or across a federation of organizational units, but it inherently is not tied to any specific organizational practice. So my background is organizational behavior. Is there a way we can talk about this, that like I'm torn because like, I think it's really helpful and yeah, it's useful to reference specific terms that other people have given us. And yet like people have given each of us different terminology, is it like, if you're training is in, you know, build X versus Y, you might reference different terms. So like how do we create a conversation where we can all like speak? So one of the things I like about just the way you responded just there to the, I think very welcome raising up this notion of holocracy is, holocracy is an interesting example of a roles based framework where the very nature of the organization is designed to be decentralized in a way that is explicitly non-top down, which as you say, is one of the ways in which you could use an object capability supporting framework to allow for specific kinds of permissions and authority and data storage and other frameworks from a computational science perspective within some of these this modeling that can be particularly effective and might enable scaling of human supporting systems in a way that hasn't yet been possible based upon some of these emergent properties if we can define the rules that's appropriately and if we can define the knowledge distribution for those rules that's appropriately. I think one of the interesting things to still dig into though, and I think what Jesse's interested in is whatever language you use, what specifically is it about the security context of that piece that is radically different in some of these use cases that would enable things of whatever I spell, if you might, is that a fair question? I'm not sure, well Jesse should speak for some of it, but maybe tell me if this is closer, but I thought I heard you saying Jesse was, first of all, let's talk to one another and de-lingoize as much as we can, but in terms of the underlying point he was sort of, the spirit I felt was what is the best method to solve for communities to cohere and to organize and to the extent that you're writing code and using systems to collect and like for example, collect and transmit the body of knowledge of the past, like what's the methods and mechanisms that we must suit it. And I checked out GitHub and you checked out object capabilities and I think it was more in inquiry about how shall we, what shall we do and how shall we go? Yeah, actually my choir was genuinely being torn because I think these are basically all tools and I think the domain specific references that we bring to the conversation are like they're these like sparks of inspiration that we bring to thinking about things in a new way. So I don't want to, I think on the one hand it's not useful to dismiss kind of esoteric references like having a kayak or you know, Eleanor Ostrom or objects capability models or whatever that you know, like, and these are all references where we have to learn how to like share that content and that context. And I had, yeah. So I guess I posit that your hierarchies in your power dynamic still exists within a holocracy, no matter what you do. So if you have a holocracy but you have no clarity or consent in terms of what those actually are if they do exist then you're not really getting what you're asking for, which is a hoax. So holocracy is doctrine and it wasn't really functional. Take it. Thank you. Well, if there was a collective like embassy network that you could flavor as X or as, where's that one up the street? Did you want to last night? You wanted to, yeah. And you had sort of like a vanilla version in a Docker container that you could spin up and just get the basics and then play for it. You know, it was sort of like, I don't know. There's a roster, there's people for sure. So we have name directory, you know what I'm saying? And then we've got like something, no, there's a few things you have like a ledger probably there's all the money. You've got a few things going on there. You have some decision-making and some, you know, and maybe most of the stuff maybe be out of the band of like the base space. Like what would be the fundamental components? Things were the walls. And then just how would one encapsulate that in a way that works reliably and repeatedly? Yeah. It's a great question. I love it. What's the answer? Go. Okay. Should we hack it? Like some of you can go. No, no, like I'm thinking about that. Oh, you mean the game go? It's a party. That's actually a game go? Yes, it's a game. It's all a game. And I would actually debate your point of holocracy but my holocracy was becoming into a situation where I was managing a team of only anarchists. So I think that's why I've worked. Before thing. As big as that's the only system. It's like, how do you manage 40 anarchists? You don't. As much as you could. So holocracy, holocracy works because people are so independent I just designed economic incentives. And so that's the answer to your question. Is I think you answered it in your own response which is it's a game. Oh, I just understood the phrase go but I'm glad I answered it. And how, what would be the game design of someone you could check in a Docker file that would work? Well, I mean, I think there's so many different I think it depends on you have to have I think certain data points which is why the system that we're designing starts with the idea of like owning on yourself sovereignty and then getting data points about someone's identity based on the social norms of trust. Because then it's like you design your personal ice game and whenever you're able to design a personalized game you're able to understand why drive someone and then you can structure incentives around certain drivers, but not incentives that are geared toward like corporate profits. Incentives that are actually geared toward goals the individual would set for themselves and that they would set for their collective. So this is it, there's no two last comments. I want to just dig in on because I think they're really, they're here in a sense. It's not the incentives or the rules that someone else has designed for you. It's the ones that you would design for yourself or that you were designed for your collective or is that you're designing for the benefits of in a sense your own interests or the interests of your collective or those collectives that you define as yours and whether or not you should have that notion of belonging. It's another separate discussion that I think the aspect of putting the alignment around your own interests is part of what is kind of between manipulation and agency because there's part of the argument around a lot of the systems that we're in right now whether they're government systems where we notionally have a say with the votes that we take but it's becoming clearer that the ways in which we're seen of as operating within that complex system is one of a manipulable individual because you can never know the full nature of the whole thing that's operating. You're just being in a sense or at least there's a game that's being played where you are a manipulable individual and you're being sort of making a decision in a certain way. So it's incentives, incentives, incentives. Versus one, it versus a system probably works. People are, you know, the game is designed to try and be aligned with your own interests and where you're empowered to make decisions in your own interests. And yeah, I'm repeating what you're saying. That's what I feel is one of those key parts and the fact that you mentioned not just obviously the interest of the individual but also of the collective is kind of part of this shared social sense-making that is kind of part of the, again, not necessarily formalistically applied rules when you are an individual operating within a community or a virtual nation state but they're kind of, they're applied in a sense. And this is, again, I think what Eleanor Ostrom picks out and builds on the hierarchy and sort of markets, you know, markets operate through these mechanisms with people on the side. She builds in there, well actually, you know, there's this whole separate area other than sort of pure markets where we're talking about, you know, this notion of the commons and the governance of the commons and government and the ways in which we operate that apply, you know, in that arena. And they are this notion of, well, I'm also interested in my agency with respect to the collective because there are some of these unwritten social contracts that apply between people that may be applied more at the local level in terms of trust and reputation and not fully articulated but apply somewhat, we are within network theory in the way in which we have this transit of trust. And so, again, I'm just kind of saying yes. So how about this? I have some ideas about your question. Yeah. You repeat the question. Your question was, what is the doctor, what is the minimum viable install doctor image for autonomous groups that with my hair? I would like to confirm in general interpretation of my question and also give you mad extra points for making it concise. Oh, sweet. Thanks. And I imagine other thoughts on it. Okay, I can, these are my initial thoughts. One, three things. One is identifying subjective values or commitments that you care about. And an example of this was, and subjective is important, like part of the definition of community is that it's not everything to everybody and everyone everywhere. So it's not that what you're doing is objectively right. It is something that unites you as a group subjectively. One thing that was true for us for being in this house was we wanted to have a guest program. We wanted guests to come stay with us. And that was just, it wasn't better or worse than some other community. It was just a thing we wanted to be able to find and character single at this house. And people would move in and then like three weeks in, they'd be like, wait, you're serious about this? And we'd be like, yeah, kind of. You know, like, can we stop? And we're like, no. That's the thing that people are interested in on what to find and what to care about. It's a plenty of time to say. Is there a helpful interjection hand signal? Like clarification is one? A clarification, yeah. I would tax on the ones that within personal preference model. And then like then aggregating preference model. And then it's a personal preference for people in the house? Yeah, and then like that's shared between. Right, so I've been in that language, maybe I would say something like, if I'm not showing correctly, there should be a some set of preferences that are personal preferences that are shared amongst the people that are in and we'll get to what getting in is in a second. And that would be one thing if I dug into the Docker file to like personal preferences file or shared values file. Yeah, shared values file. And I want to actually rebut the notion that it's all about personal preferences. Got to think shared values arrived can not be reduced to just the individual to the same personal preferences. That's interesting. That's interesting. I think it's something emergent that is separate at the end. So my example wasn't perfect in that one. So you were just gathering your description. Yeah, but that's one thing. There's no aggregations algorithm. Yeah, but some of them can be some of them are the qualities we can only achieve by working together. That's the point I want to make. Yes. Yeah. Second point. Second one is what do you want to make decisions over together? Like what is the scope of your decision? So like, okay, we can start defining there's some backbone of values. But then it's like, what is the scope of those values? Right? Like is it our house? Is it, I don't know that the park nearby? Is it? Is it all the decisions in our entire life? Yeah. Is it environmental policies? Obviously, when that's your starting point, there's all the decisions in your life was the starting point. You read back into journal to the beginning. But you have to sort of like roll it back from there if you want to make the point again. We don't take these values. I actually think the value model is the underlying layer under the preference model. Generally. And these experiences condition of preference model out of the model. Interestingly, by the way, looking to both triangle for a time, and there was a collective looking house that were part of the scope of their decisions or at the scope of their, I don't know, what they felt was within their domain of COVID-19 was to both park. And like parts of it that they would do, it's stuff that they would do make it nice. At least they'd have picnic, that they'd be in the community. And then both triangle neighborhood association, which is terrific. Scope, let's say the second one. The second is deciding what scope of that is. Right, basically what do you want to make decisions about it together? Yeah. And then the third was basically, and these are sort of irreducible impossibilities and anyway, it's very good. The third is what initial structure do you want to give authority to to make decisions? Decision model! You've got the whole stack, oh my God! There's more I can feel with you there. There's sort of a sort of, yeah. So I didn't say the asterisk on that is even regarding how to evolve the system, because of course you're gonna start with some events and perfect, and you need to have some reference point, however imperfect, and however unobjective to refer to. And I had done it with three others that are like kind of more, you know, but they're like, how do new people join? How do they get out? And how is that possible? When people are like, fuck all y'all, I don't care about all the things you just told me, I'm gonna like set fire over there. I would like to, let's all say that's an excellent list that includes many things that are vastly superior than I thought when I started this evening, and that I'd like to break on forward, so thank you. And then the last three things you said are mechanical, like mainstays of community roles where they write them, or like either government stuff for a lot of companies or non-profits who can get their diesel in common, dispute resolution, how do people get in, how voluntary to involuntary like termination are like killers that have never reached. So I'm glad you told us the last three because of nature. Yeah, I don't have the two lists that's very relate to each other. I can, I can, I can, I can, I can, I can. I mean, that was awesome. What a great start. Did you, did you even matter what? Did you, did you, did you, did you? There was a moment of like, share, joy, and excitement that just don't manifest it. That's great. And sorry, what were you going to say? I would just love it if you could send that to me. Oh yeah. And then I think there are some other- You can see it on the YouTube that's going to our comment. There are, I think there are some other, but we're scrolling through a whole video and having it for you to see some of that. But I think that- Oh, so it's not missing, right? And how would you- Yeah. Well, I think it's just that it works in layers. So I think that what you're saying is right and inherently in the principle of what we think about shared interaction, but I think my personal life, but when I hang out, it's not like when I hang out with different people and with a different person, but when I'm in different communities, I realize that there are different rules. Like when I'm hanging out with some of the world's most influential, like when I'm hanging out with a bunch of prime ministers or something, it's a bit different. I don't sit like this. Wankers. Because I can literally just like, I'm like, my ankles are crossed, I'm sitting like this, I'm like wearing a certain kind of garment that's speaking in a very certain way, very fluid hand motions, as to not be intimidating or overly aggressive or whatever. So there's a whole other way that you even like, that there's a whole other way that you communicate with body language that shifts things like this. So I think that it's not only about, and the reason why I say this is also that like, when I'm hanging out in my house alone, it's like I'm different than when I'm going out to a bar and I don't think for our going out of date. So the other thing is this not only a relation to my subjective experience, but let's also take this a relation to my subjective experience in terms of my dynamic relationship with space. I haven't been home in three and a half months. This is like the first time I've been back in San Francisco three and a half months. They travel all of the time. And when I'm traveling, I'm like speaking, I'm in all of these other different communities, I'm in all of these other different places, I'm doing a ton of other different things. And so my values are not something that are necessarily, I think that that's like, negating the idea that we're gonna have people that may not have one explicit community. But the idea of many, like there are some people that are really more, it's the idea of what I would call introverted or extroverted. And I think we have to account for these different personality types when we think about creating cultures and different kinds of solverities because there are certain people that are gonna say like, I'm not going to have one community, but I'm not a contributor. And hopefully to like all of these others, like the idea of I might go, I might not have one like solid burning man camp, but I've stayed in like three of them. And I think it's the difference between these two. I think I've never found that we've backed the same way. Oh, for sure, exactly, exactly. And I think that's kind of a point in life, right? And so it's the idea that if you have someone that has a super nomadic experience, that the way in which they're interacting with a lot of these, like the relationship between our sovereignty and our interdependency is a really, I think that you've got to write in terms of certain level of structure. But I think the relationship between our sovereignty and our interdependency is extremely important, at least for what I'm doing. I mean, what I'm doing is taking all this population that we're gonna have a whole population of refugees from climate change, and people who are nomadic and all these other people who don't have host stations, things like this. And so there may be many people who may never have, they, there may be a generation of citizens who never have like one nation or one community. And so it's, I think that these kind of, understanding the interdependency between the idea of the new athlete that we move, like the idea of, the idea of I and the area of union is so inherently important to prevent both the pitfalls and the failures of centralized systems and the tribalism. Tribalism is a huge failure because if you have a really successful operating tribe, let's say you have another super successful operating tribe and let's say they like want your resources or your house or your community members or whatever. And so I think that the only way that we distance and bias violence is by upholding that balance. And so I think there has to be, there has to be a level of not only interdependency between the community, but interdependency between the relationship we structure with the subjective objective and transcendental nature of our own identity within these worlds to actually create something that's gonna be meaningful for the next generation of our human race in the planet that's gonna look totally different. The world is gonna be totally different. Yeah. I love the like, maybe this is a really simple, well, I don't know, it's like complex, but I'm delighting it back to your, your ideas of the like complexity and complex systems. I think they're a really important addition that I see in that, or like one important addition, I see in that to have like a general model is something like the, they're like fractal iterative nature of all this. So it's like, when you're, when you are not just fractal it's like fractal, but also plural, like overlapping and kind of like multi-periods or something like that, I don't know. Where like, we are participants in many communities at many levels and whether you're in a community with like your blood family at home or like in a city that you're traveling in, like we move in and out of these different communities and those communities have different rules, but also the way that each of these sort of like structural elements of how we relate to a community, each of those applies differently in these different worlds. So like how do we, how do we translate between the others? We sort of have that right now, but not in as complex a way as I think we're moving towards in the sense that we have these different kinds of relationships already that we have to try and merge together into our identity. So, you know, we might be an employee and there's an employer. We might be a resident and there's a community. We might be a son and a father. You know, there's a whole notion of, and they may or may not be sort of nested in the sense of, you know, hierarchical in some sense, but they certainly act in relation to each other. So there's different rule sets that apply in relation to each other. So there's already some baseline that we can work from. Now, the question is that moving towards a situation where some of these, you know, formerly monolithic relationships, like I have a job and it is with my employer and I am a employee and that's the only... I'm a Canadian. Exactly. And I... Exactly. Like, I think these are the sorts of things that now we get to play more games with, but also recognize that these are frameworks and rule sets that we need to be more open about for the sake of the one in a hundred people on this for our currently, you know, displaced person, right? And they may or may not have the ability to rely upon a single nation state for their protection or for their rights or responsibilities or obligations or just the freedom to have a job and be able to save money and own property and interact with people is fundamentally under threat when these sort of basic things are not provided under the circumstances. And we're sort of... We're going to see this evolution and I think we're going from a place which isn't entirely foreign to this notion of multivariate or sort of like, you know, multi-nodal, you know, various things, but they're different. Whoa. I'm flaccid in that part. I'm actually super youthful. And I'm multivariate, maybe. We're all actors within many different contexts and those contexts have varying degrees of consent and clarity, I can say. Some of which we have decision-making power, we have agency, and some of which we're actors that just play whatever game that we're being told to play. I actually really think that a lot of times games are a communication of ethics because you can kind of proxy your agency to the game and not like, oh, the game rules are this, so it's okay if I play the game. Yeah, prisoners still run on. But there's no one set of rules. That's the point of the game is fine. It doesn't matter if you're in and out of the game. It's an infinite game. You are in the choice. There's nine necessary Labyrinthian games. Yeah, the Labyrinthian games and infinite games are different. Labyrinthian games have a solution. And infinite, and this is the basic principle of game theory. The minute you have, if you have, the incentives change, right? If you have two infinite players in an infinite game or if you have two finite players in a finite game, what they do to each other is different. You have a finite game of the prisoner's dilemma because it's zero stop. I win, I lose, you lose. I win. It's like there's only one set of, do you want to come in? There's only one set of interactions, play with us of interactions and responses of any of these things, and at the end of the day, there's always going to be a winner and a loser. And so the only way it works, is if you have one person playing the finite game and one person playing an infinite game, it's a completely different theory, a completely different set of structures. So you have to have infinite players in an infinite game if you want any of this to work. And then there's something else that was said about refugees and host nations and economic diversity. Oh, the other interesting thing is that what we're building also provides former host nations would be a good way to have more meaningful information about people that they would have never otherwise known. And you know, when you say former host nations. So when you're a refugee, you may never have a host nation, but maybe you want to get a job in a certain country. So maybe you can prove to your good person through the people in the refugee camps, verifying their identity and saying to this, the kind of person that you've been, it's simultaneously, you can also have, you can also take, you can do some education programs and you can say, well, I may not have my high school or college diploma, but I've proven that I have a level of competence and it will allow me to successfully have gained employment in your country before I come in. And I'm sure you need to do that. Is a former host nation like a national traditional refugee stated? No, a host nation would be a nation who is hosting a refugee, whether for the extent of a lifetime or whether for a very short period of time. What were they made on since then? It may be a situation where you have a citizenship that's like a form of a visa where some people may be able to stay there, and like a host nation because I haven't been there. Yeah, you're in a host nation if you have a great card. If you have, I had a passport. So I have an American citizen. The difference between citizenship and hosting is the difference between being a guest in someone's home and owning a house. It's like when you're a guest in someone's home, you have a situation where you're saying, like I need to take care of your house and be super good to this place, and again, I got scared here, and like insured you and all these other things because thank you for hosting me. When you own a house, should you work as a citizen of my house or this is my property out of different set of rights? And so I think that's- I'm a host nation, actually. And yeah. In some ways, there's more options. And there should be at least, there should be. But is that the right analogy then? Because if you are- No, it's not. If you're in a host country, yeah. The incentives are wrong. That's why I think nation states are broken, but I'm just trying to communicate it in terms that you can understand. But I guess if you're in a host country and you're there for a significant period of time, then you can stay and become a citizen in most instances. Well, that's not in my situation here at the embassy where you can come and stay as a guest. And if you stay long enough and we don't ask you to leave, then you don't need the advice to become a citizen. Yeah. Yeah. The president, yeah, absolutely. I mean, I don't know. I mean, the doctors aren't crying around here, right? The new deputy mayor for London, they're looking at this question and I think it's happening within the UK. Well, then the citizenship. Yeah. Yeah, as opposed to citizenship of Britain, as opposed to citizenship of the EU. No, well, some people are talking about it. And there might be a parallel. They might apply to both, right? You might be about the citizenship of London and the Britain and the EU. Yeah, right about now. But people who are not citizens of London can only be citizens of Britain. Yeah. I mean, everything's up in the air now. I hope it is still. That's a little bit. The one thing that is going on, the one thing that is going on is that, you know, people like, you know, people who are coming to the UK, they're trying to encourage them to go through citizenship. Good. Which is a process. Yeah. So they can like induct you, you know, into the country. There's a whole test. Yeah. Well, that's some silly tests that go on at the minute. I'll ask you several questions to let you in. But there's also a whole process to try and induct people to, you know, understand what it means to basically be British with the EU. Okay. So, yeah, I did it. I mean, yeah. So what does it mean then? Did you work on the Brixton Pound, did you say? No, no. I don't know about it. Somebody did. It was in Brixton. It was in Brixton. It's working on a co-project in Hackney. Yeah. Hackney, best-named place, by the way. So did you? So what would you? Imagine that. People who are citizens of the ground. The ground with subjects, by the way. Subjects, my bad. I just can't really ever go back for my revolution. I'm sorry. Like, it's so ingrained in me how it is now. But in any rate, let us say that there is a person who was born and bred in Brixton, and still goes there. Yeah. Now, let us say that they also would like to form an autonomous organization with 2,000 of their closest friends in the neighborhood. That's massive. And they would like to. The autonomous in what sense? Like a business organization or autonomous from? Let's unpack that right now. In the sense of this word, so something's been coming up that I asked Tony to talk about. And it's one of the things that has threatened this invitation tonight, which is this idea of sovereign organizations, not sovereign states, but sovereign other entities. And so I'm chucking one out from your own people in a place that you would never like Brixton, just to show I have some place in time and space that I can refer to and understand and extrapolate from. And there's people in the room that can say yes or no to clear definite questions. And then so I'm wondering, like, let us say that those people wanted to form an organization, I'll take the word autonomous, that had the properties of a sovereign entity, let's say, had its own currency. So the properties of sovereign entities that I usually relate are, well, an ability to defend itself, like maybe the right to exercise some kind of defense of its boundaries and roles and obligations where people can make decisions within it or that can be material decisions for its existence, like whether it will go out of existence or whether it will emerge with another entity or change its nature. These are things that ordinarily might be considered vested within the city council or the town council or within the parliament. But let's say that they wanted to take back some of those rights or take them to the first time and exercise them through an entity of their own, a neighborhood association. And then where we're heading after that is an association of people who love Brixton, many of whom are in Brixton, but some of whom are in Cambridge, Bass, or some of whom are in Uganda, some of whom are in Canada. Is the question about how they would exercise that autonomy? Yeah, my question is like, well, I love a good how. But I was wondering also, what? So is there some way in which a sovereign, sovereignty, or any of the indenture sovereignty, could be associated with a computer? Part of an organization, people just decided to make one day. But there wasn't, say, a state with a navy. What do you reckon, Tony? A doubt. What was the word? A doubt? A doubt. A decentralized autonomous organization. So they're organizations that are incorporated on the blockchain. Essentially, what we think about is the future of sovereign territory is incorporated as a series of doubts. So they're all organizations that have no locality other than the blockchain. And they're aggregated based on values, principle and purpose. And so instead of the idea of saying you're living in it, it's decentralized, borderless, voluntary governance. And it's the idea that you can create any one of the world, can create their own nation and what you need. Like, you need a code of law, you need citizens, you need to be recognized by other nations. And the way we're starting to accomplish this is we're creating, yes. Education, a few things. I was going to add, there's a whole train of things that we could go down on what we need. Which I think some, it's interesting. Because some, I think, are fundamentally essential, well, in my sense, is some semantic notion of sovereignty versus just a more variable notion of autonomy. I mean, if we're saying sovereignty is some black and white thing, you want to have it, we don't. There's sort of maybe a set of things that we say we can define as essential. And some things are more essential to just greater levels of autonomy. Yeah, good point. Because certainly, once you start going beyond notions of sovereignty being attached to geographic land or geography, maybe the notion of defense of physical is less important than the defense of digital. That's why I said common defense. Right. The common defense of the outer perimeter of our network. Exactly. There we go. So this is the end. Or the inner perimeter. And there could be any. I'm sorry. I thought you should emphasize that they're just sorry. I am. And incidentally, Tony, I did kind of posh liberally a place, something that started with people that were together in space. And then one that was distributed geographically as well. But I'd love to know what you're thinking. Well, so I really love the Dow version. And I think at the moment, it is held in this sort of abstract space that doesn't quite yet connect. And this is the whole point of living in the times we lived in is to build these bridges. But I think the opposite part of sovereignty, which is the world we live in now, which I think is some of the objections that you were bringing to the conversation earlier, are that sort of by definition, the state, whether you like it or not, claims to have a monopoly on your security and the provision of certain rights and freedoms and resources. And that results in obligation that you may owe to the state, for example. Yeah, citizenship is a quick pull on some of the work. Military duty and so forth. Which is not to say that I disagree with the Dow concept I don't at all. I really love that. And I think even as we get really sort of decentralized and networked in a way where your value neighbor and your collaboration neighbor isn't your physical neighbor or isn't necessarily your physical neighbor, we are still embodied beings for now. So the idea that somebody could come and shoot you or stab you or rob your house is a very difficult way. Can I get some options? Yes, but there is an interesting property of physical space which is that. And some authors, some science fiction authors, have treated this really beautifully with like the lightning, a bunch of us read last year. Can I get a message shout out right now to Ada Palmer, who's this amazing Enlightenment historian that wrote a book two years ago that Jesse Kate put us onto that is very, very... It wasn't me. Yeah, that Craig Ambrose, that it's called Two Light the Lightning and it's one of the best science fiction books out there right now. It's written by a historian, their next female historian in the style of Voltaire, the 24th century Voltaire, right, with a 25th century audience. And Coridaptoros, walk away. Yes, sweetness. Most compared with the work of Gene Wolff, who's my thing, I don't want to hear more. But Coridaptoros wrote the other two light bulbs. Like that's been compared to Gene Wolff's work, which I would highly recommend having to read it. Multiple human hair, just like an amazing, amazing kind of... Almost a mix of magical... So we're talking about here, some of the best sci-fi that speaks about post-geographic sovereignty. Yeah, those notions have really... And then back to like... So there are these nice treatments of that, like in Two Light the Lightning, there's examples of people from different strats. Strats being kind of like states, in a sense. Kind of like states, you know, crimes being committed in different sort of sovereign areas. So like the notion of physicality and like geographic manifestation in physical space, you know, that doesn't go away, like we are until it changes. We're instantiated beings in like a meat space, right? Yeah. And then meat space cushion too. Good. So we may still have these, like, we may have smaller bubbles in different ways of defining boundaries or more fluid ways of defining boundaries in physical space. But the need for, on some level, physical security doesn't go away. And that, I think, is this like interesting kind of tie-in with the traditional notions of nation-state or traditional notions of sovereignty, even before the nation-state, right? Like feudalism or whatever, like there were more fluid boundaries and borders, but the idea of physical security was not normal. Yeah, I just, yeah. The other piece of, this is slightly tangential, but the other piece about physical instantiation, which I think is important, is when you look at the notion of urban municipalities and like urban physical sharing of space that is happening now and, you know, in spite of all of the, you know, what might say, virtualization and the information economy, and there has been an increasing urbanization and something about sharing physical space and maybe in some respects, the scarcity of physical space, but also the potential for commons within a scarcity of physical space and the increased value of the commons within a scarce environment creates some notion of filter bubble popping to the extent that we exist within space. And otherwise we might have more targeted, tailored, manipulative algorithms just keeping us within a certain sort of very sort of specific context and physicality actually can take us out of our bubble in a sense just by going out on the streets and seeing a protest that you might not otherwise see if you're only on Facebook. So, correct? Sorry. Yeah, I mean, I think that this is what the recent talk of metro states has really come out of this, like that we're in this completely different state, I think in every way. Just the, if you think of like social interactions as temperature and then you think of what it's like to be in a city as opposed to being in a country and the amount of people that you're interacting with in the everyday basis and the amount of different ideas, the amount of different value systems and frameworks and preferences and perspectives and understandings and activity that are happening all at the same time, it's really, you can't escape from the fact that we're like on fire socially and in every sense in terms of reception or in the city and it's a completely different state of being than it is to be somewhere else. And the divisions, but probably and like the world parts of this country are actually there, I think because there's a huge cultural difference and there's a huge experiential difference. And then if you think of if people unify around the culture and if that's like the way that they align themselves and then informed decision-making systems and they form the cultural systems and the behaviors emerge from those forms, then I think that the perspective of like, what if cities to see from states what happens then and why is that something that people would be thinking about? We think about things for a reason. And that was a meaningful thing. It's not a practical one. And since we think of municipalities historically, it was like being subservient to underneath state and federal. Which wasn't always the case then. And like, so it sort of is like, that's not just as such as seceding, but it's actually like restructuring the governance hierarchy as we understand it. That's right. Localizing, it brought that home, right? So there was something that happened in the 90s when I started work as a lawyer in the government. And it was on the web was pretty, and we moved from Daniel Vines Network, which is a great network, but finally we saw a light and it was TCPIP. And we felt the blood move through our veins and it moved through HTTP. And we started a slow literary factor on the way that we collected and processed information to the way of the web. Did it affect the way that you yourself organized as well? Deeply. And so one of the things I was going to say is the first time I was ever in the media lab was for what we would now call a meetup, but it was Boston Computer Society group. And we did a panel on virtual reality and policy in the CIO from Massachusetts and some of my key professors and technologists and lawyer people had a good dialogue. One of the things the CIO from Mass said, Luz Gutierrez at the time, who had been CIO or something like that in Florida before, was that the web is moving us toward a status quo or toward a status quo where state governments are more of forms that you can shop around for. So you can have your business incorporated, your operations, you can structure transactions, your life increasingly to exist within any, whatever state is convenient for you. And so we're trying to do their portal and some other stuff to reflect that. Reflect network for both. Yeah, it sounds like the delimitization from tax purposes to so many other factors. Now as I'm looking into the future some 20 years or more, I'm thinking, you know, it looks like we're flipping the pyramid more because of the nature of the web and the modern open internet so that individuals can finally take their seat again as sovereign, sovereign, in a sense like sovereign individuals that together consent to be governed and together to form tribes. And so we actually there aren't these, but now you can see a way where you flip the pyramid and individuals have a great deal of choice. So for what, if you say governmentally, what precinct they're in, what city they're in and then what state and then what federal government, it may be that in the future, it's the municipalities that carry the most power, the ones that touch your body and that can help you at least while you're there with physical security and basic infrastructure and that of the most important and the biggest tax base, the biggest bang for the buck, the most strategically important unit of governance could be the city-state again, like it was some two plus thousand years ago and then some thin layers of states and federal governments that exists more like, I don't know, platform and infrastructure level to support the city-state. So that's what I'm thinking. I like where you're going with this and it's... Exactly, exactly, exactly. I think there's a lot of nodding of heads around here and I want to maybe take it one step further and say there's a... Oh my. If you think you want the middle question. If you take that to the extreme, what we're talking about here is like, when we started with, I just wanted to bookmark this notion of a marketplace of regulation, a marketplace of governance that you were referencing, applied to the city level, we're seeing that as a potential... It seems not one. Yeah, what are the more beneficial regulations from and to attract individuals who have potentially choice or creative choice in this greater market for regulation of regulatory environments? But then, how do we also recognize that there are these cultural communities that we're also becoming a part of and that there's the formal and informal rules that they apply and that potentially are, again, multi-ferrient. Yeah, multi-ferrient. Well, I was just playing with... Multi-ferrient. Multi-ferrient. And magical hours. Exactly, but there's a... Hopefully, we here have been able to experiment with some of the sort of more, even more local governance frameworks that people could opt into or out of. Can I have a perspective on that? Yes. And then perhaps you might want to move to the outro. The outro. So basically, the perspective is, it seems to me like what I learned tonight from Jesse and your postulation of some of the components and kind of topical coverage that could be in a Dockerfile, you could spin out. How was your idea? Well, but what I learned about your... What you would check in the Dockerfile from your experience and judgment. And then what I learned from what Tony said about the dream or the promise of sovereignty and reposing our nations so that they're more like Red Sox nation. It's a nation of mine. You know? And also like what Timothy was saying, what you were talking about capabilities. And pretty much what he was talking about in terms of the way you are working with localities to optimize outcomes is it made me feel... It made me think about, I'm sorry, and not least of which, when I was thinking about, let's say I had fucked up on a space station and the thing exploded, that would suck. I know, it's terrible. I didn't even take the trash out. But you know, you never know. And so it made me think about the possibility of computational law, computational governance and being able to put enough of the relevant factors in a way that is discoverable and computable such that we could maybe be in the future looking at not so much like 13th century rules and pros for like you were saying, Tony, like the rules that we are almost like suppressed or oppressively governed by. But maybe it's more like when we looked at these communities, we're setting parameters and optimization vectors and we're identifying goals that we're moving toward so that as the data is coming in and as we're monitoring things, we can measure how close we're getting and we can sort of navigate adaptively and accordingly based upon the judgments of what the goals are or the Greek goals for any given system, whether it's a space system or a municipal system so that we can get now the, something more like the triumph of the promise. Optimizing for happiness, optimizing for jobs or youth education outcomes, optimizing for it. It's efficiency elegance in my mind for three years. That was it. Thank you for bringing it home. Thank you, friends. Thank you all, if any of you are listening. This has been an experiment here at the MSc network where we love experimenting with nurturing the commons and with a beautiful tie-in to the MIT legal forum. Thank you, Dazza. Thank you. And if you're interested, there will be more discussion around virtual nation-states, government commons, digital governors generally, smart contracts. That's what a sub-train organization looks like for the MIT online forums. Online course in January, IAP, you can sign up down below this recording, MIT legal forum.org, for the class in January, the IAP class, and then we'll be looking forward to doing a follow-on to that at Stanford products, so it's now for an emotional note as well. And my name's Tanya, this has been Dazza Greenwood, and you're here at the MSc network with some variables on people. Thank you very much. Thank you. Thank you, friends. That was great. Bye. Bye. I didn't want to break that up for everybody else.