 Well, that's that's another layer. I like I would like that personally. But, you know, that might not fly. I mean, you know, I'm not so much in favor of this is I think it's a it's a worthy topic that challenges our both our intelligence and our judgment. Thank you. Thanks. This this is the OGM weekly call for Thursday, March 14th, 2024. We are It's a topic week. Last week was a check in week. This is a topic week. We don't have an agreed on topic. So floor is open for topics and John Kelly was just proposing a presidential competency test of some sort as a topic. And I'm Eager to hear other things that people would like to talk about. We could also The last of the governance calls is after this call a half hour after we're done here at 10am Pacific today. Same zoom and Gil had asked in the last one, how do we prevent the train wreck of a second Trump administration, which we could make a topic for this call if we wanted to. So that's a second proposal. Floor is open for others. Mike. I always have 17 different topics, but Do can you boil them down. Well, let me throw out to I love the topic of how do we prevent autocracy and specifically Donald Trump, but I would suggest that we should push that off by two or three months until we have a better sense of the landscape because Although maybe it does require we start right now to change everything, but it really things are changing so fast that Whatever plans we come up with now probably will be overcome by events by by May. But the topic I'd like to throw out is incredibly timely because yesterday the House of Representatives voted almost unanimously. I think there were 66 people who decided they didn't want to ban TikTok. But I'd love to know what people think about this question about whether we're going to be able to live in a world where apps Built in one country can be used in all countries because the trend right now is Put up the motes put up the the barriers, you know, we don't want our data being used elsewhere. We're paranoid about even buying Chinese subway cars. So I love love thoughts on this and I'm up with my biases up front. I I I pour the idea of data localization and I really get upset when I can't use apps in one country that I'm used to using. But I'd love to have thoughts on how do we change this conversation because otherwise the splinter net will be a reality by next year. Love that thought and and And so this is a silly question because I sort of scanned the articles and wasn't really paying attention to the tick tock thing is the bill actually to ban TikTok in the US or is the bill to force tick tock to sell tick tock us or get Both. Okay, they will be banned if they do not divest in a hundred and eighty days. Right. So if they did well impossible. Right. So if they divest then tick tock could stay alive in the country kind of thing. Okay, but but China won't let them down. Divest. Yeah. Well, it's a it's a it's a showdown with the OK Corral. Jill is talking one of one of many yet to come one of many such showdowns. You mean showdown. We're in a showdown time. Yeah. Don't be a lot of showdown happening. On the tick tock thing as I am. Yeah. I also have for Michael was the term used for data data localization localization. I have for that also. And the concern here is surveillance capitalism on Chinese Communist Party steroids. The best of both worlds. There you go. So there's so it's an interesting question. Let's come back to that on the on the election thing. I agree, Mike, basically I agree with your suggestion to push it off for a couple of two, three months. But it's not like there's nothing to do now. People are already cranking up the voter registration machines. They get that vote activity. The Oregon. You know, there's a lot of really fascinating grassroots organizing happening. And including enormous activation of young voters. So there are things happening now for our purposes. It may make sense to wait. I don't know. And the whole tick tock thing really does present a dilemma, a very interesting dilemma, because on the one hand, do you let you let the Chinese government keep having its nose under the tent? Or on the other hand, do you start banning social media apps and start the splinter net? And I don't think either. I don't think either side is that fun and outcome. Maybe the larger problem is not who owns tick tock and so on, but the the interference into our elections through manipulation. That's that's going through the algorithms that are directing networks like tick tock and Facebook. And so when you have a foreign government, which is not friendly to to our government, maybe have an influence over directing these algorithms. That's a real national security risk. I mean, that's for real. And so potentially messing with our elections. So somehow there has to be an assurance of some sort, whichever way that takes place that the algorithms are clean and transparent and not direct directed towards re-electing Donald Trump as an example. Well, whichever direction. Other suggestions for topics we would like to talk about. So we want we want these hot topics, these hot present topics. We don't have anything more casual or relaxed. We don't want to talk about the difference between ambic pentameter and haiku or We know the difference Jerry, but we can argue about which one's better. Jerry, we had we just had an unusual moment of silence of a sort that I can't remember ever having an OGM where you asked a question and nobody had an answer and Maybe you were uncomfortable with that, but maybe just let that sit for a while. Oh, I wasn't uncomfortable. I was just like, it was present for me that all of our topics are these these sort of hot political, whatever kind of topics and I'm like, does anybody want to go a different direction. That's all. I'd like to go a different direction, but the reason for not speaking up was a sense that everybody's sort of feeling this energy to to talk about these these hot topics. I'm not I'm not ready to take talk. I'm interested, but I'm not ready. The issues going away. So if you've got something else. And if nothing else, we'll all bring it up next time. So. Yeah, I just I keep with each and every one of our conversations I keep thinking how. How do we address long term transformation in our society when what we're always excited about and wanting to deal with is today's news. What what's the thing is that the politics is that the what's happening in the courts is what's happening in at the in Congress. So for me, kind of thinking about big picture transformation is the only way that we're going to get out of this mess rather than dealing with the hot potato of the day. But that that's me. Well, I as a futurist and a person who's been thinking about these issues for 35 years, I have a real fondness for long term thinking and I think I've mentioned I'm on the board of the Arthur C. Clark Foundation and our mission is to spur future thinking. You know, 2040, you know, I answered your question with my proposed topic because the way that we get people to focus on the big issues and how we could fix things in the long term is to look at the thorny questions right now that have to be addressed if we're going to get to the long term. So the the tic-tac thing is is controversial emotional. It's getting lots of coverage. But the core issue, which is do we have an open global mind? That's a 25 year old issue. That does sound very core. I think it's about as core as it gets. And before I pass the mic to Doug, I want to propose a different kind of issue and I need to find actually let me pass it to Doug and then I'll put a different topic on the table as well. Go ahead, Doug. So, the topic I put on the table, which is the tip of a larger iceberg is the concept of neuro diversity. And the expansion on that is my shifting orientation into neuro diversity is the all inclusive of all human wiring representing the larger bell curve, as it were. And the tyranny of a very small slice of that bell curve, also known as normative, over everybody. And that being a key ingredient in the, how do we transform, or how do we catalyze an awakening, a reawakening reconnecting of 8 billion plus human beings in a relatively spontaneous time frame to their own humanity, sort of reconnecting themselves as living beings as a step toward changing what we then are doing in relation to each other. Thanks Doug, neuro diversity and its sequel a and its implications. And I'm just as a short, I'm wondering if neuro diversity is being diluted. Just as organic and natural and open and other sorts of terms seem to have been diluted over time. I'm wondering that would be an interesting conversation as well. The thing I was going to propose was Jonathan hate has a new book coming out. And I'm actually not finding the title right away but he wrote an Atlantic article, which I'll post in the chat about the mental effect the terrible costs of a phone based childhood is basically the title of the piece. And he's I, and I've not read the piece or the book, but I think he's proposing that we just not let kids have phones because the phones are tearing a hole in our youth's mental health, etc, etc, and I'm uncomfortable with that proposal as well. I think there are other ways of solving that problem perhaps but that's another dilemma that I think is in front of us and if the next generations have been abducted from society by algorithmic culture, etc, etc. That's probably a problem. Yeah, Stacy please. Yes, I'm glad you brought that up because I'm going back to the tick tock thing. I wanted to share that there are a number of people that you know like regularly people that are having the conversations that are focused on something totally different and arguing about it. And I thought that that discussion having that discussion would move into what Jose wants to do how do we do us because that could be an example where we're taking all these. Divergent opinions. And I mean everything that was mentioned today. I think it all fit in within the confines of all the different topics that were thrown out with the exception of maybe the competency test that john brought up. But talking about tick tock and talking about what different people are thinking and how to pull all the pieces out. For example, like, they were saying how like, in China, the kids can't even use tick tock or they can use it, but it's only like if they put on tick tock they will learn about science or something like that. And what's important to me is not so much who can make that decision, but why aren't we even holding our United States companies to higher standards and maybe have the conversation in that way. Because in each of the camps, there's going to be different people in each on each side for different reasons. And sometimes as we talk about it and separate the different issues will notice different groupings of people, and we could start by doing that in our own circle as the practice of how do we do ourselves differently. So, thank you. Thanks Stacy. And I think there is this. There is this problem within the problem behind the problem under the problem kind of problem that we often face in our conversations it's like what where do you start digging. Where do you put the spade in. And I think we differ in interesting ways on that question. And in some sense, us always by sort of winding up back at that question has us chasing our tail of it and making less progress than we might otherwise. So, a thought. It seems like we had a rough consensus on topic. We want to head back toward the tick talk dilemma or rich one. I have a quick comment, which I mean to be constructive. I am biased to be spending my time towards. Well, maybe anti bias to spend time towards confabulating about big things which we won't change. And I'm much more interested in understanding how we might scale our effectiveness. So, you know, it seems really for me at least it seems really abstract to talk about the presidency and not be talking about how people like us might affect the course of the government or the presidency. Kind of a similar thing with, you know, it's interesting to, it's interesting to Kovac about tick tock or Facebook I love to go back to about Facebook. But without actually doing something to make a change. You know, that I believe in. I, you know the convention is just convention. I have a topic which I can't support which is yet which is personal bravery. I came to this in a weird way. One of them was Jordan, he and I were talking about the difference between a safe space where and no one gets hurt in a brave space where people take, take agency over, you know, they're, they're being in the space. And, and thinking I'm teaching people how to use AI in different ways. And one of the things that I find really amazing about working with an assistant is that it lets me be more brave personally to do something that I wouldn't do otherwise because I have a neutral helper, which is giving me a little bit of platform to be able to stand on in a place where I couldn't otherwise. And conversely, a lot of the people who start with AI. It takes a lot of bravery to go I'm going to jump into kind of an unknown thing and start doing stuff without really understanding what's going on or things like that. So for me, the, there's a scale thing, you know, I, I, I like talking about big things but I don't like talking about big things if we're not going to just make a change somehow changes. Thanks. Thanks, Pete. I appreciate that a lot. And I think how might we scale our effectiveness is a really interesting topic. Doug C. Our frame here is often to fix things that fix means putting it kind of back where it was. If the situation is just too complicated, fixing is not a plausible path. Some form of collapse is probably inevitable. And new things unimagined will merge out of that. Thanks, Doug. And I, for one, I'm a fan of thinking through and beyond problems as much as possible. Yeah, agree with Doug on fixing things but on the matter of big things that we keep talking about. Do we have any idea about how big changes actually happen. There's a bunch of theories about them. Yes, we keep talking about wanting to make big changes but I'd like to explore how big things actually happen. It's mysterious and emergent process to my mind and so. Yeah, so this I vary on this but this morning at least the notion of going after big things without asking that question feels foolish. Thanks. Go ahead, Mike. Just to provide a little more focus to the question on how to tick tock bill. First off, show of hands how many people would have voted for the bill that passed yesterday. So show your hand if you're. Okay Stacy's got the right expression class yes. How many people would have voted against it. Mike, Mike, I'm really all fashioned I kind of think that people shouldn't vote on bills without reading them. That's another good instinct. It seems like we have a consensus that they could have done better I think that we close would probably agree that they could have done better. But the thought I had, and it ties into what Gil just said about how do big changes happen. I argue that quite often the big change process happens by embedding a new phrase tied to a new concept into the brains of millions, perhaps hundreds of millions of people. I think that's what we're really, really desperately in need of when it comes to this question of data sovereignty digital sovereignty data localization, keep out the bad apps. I mean, there has to be a better way of thinking about what's going on. And it's, it's not the word globalization didn't work very well and digital globalization would be even worse. So before we start with this, we're not going to rewrite the legislation. But if we were to unleash even two sentences in a tweet that kind of got people to say, there's another way, rather than thinking of this as a trade issue and you know the need to keep things out open global mind is actually not bad. When it comes to this because you know that that is this idea that we're all sharing information and we're collaborating but I would I would benefit hugely from that discussion and I think the question would as well and particularly the senators who are now going to have to come up with an explanation as to why 80, you know they're not going to vote 85% in favor of the tick tock bill once. The struggle that is expressed with this tick tock band really is that the, the, the understanding how powerful these media really are and influencing and shaping public opinion. So shaping, shaping mindsets and no one really has an answer for it and you would hope that Zuckerberg and Elon Musk and others come to their senses and understand that collectively, we have to pull together and respond to the challenges that we're facing from a changing environment that we need to create adaptations and mitigations that can only be accomplished in a collective form because everyone has to be on board and participate and to understand the, the, the dangers in our future in our collective future not in ways that can be generalized or create, create the trauma or whatever but to really understand our personal individual role in it and these networks absolutely have the capacity to do that and I can do it in a way that is positive and encouraging and in a can do kind of mode, right, but we don't, we, we, we do completely idiotic things on, on these networks and focus on, on, on things that are, that are just a waste of mental energy. I mean, in my mind, I'm sorry, but it's, it's, I mean, it's just like Stacy mentioned, you know, in China, they're using TikTok to encourage children to learn to, to engage with topics that are, that are would be considered beneficial in nature and still individualized and so on, but it's like learn something. And here we are just, I mean, these kids are getting into the most extreme topics that are just at the end destructive but they consume them, you know, their minds. So that's really the challenge and I think that's what deep down everyone is struggling with, you know, is to, is to bang on these networks to do something different but just don't know how to really do it. And so that's, I think, how do we and our for our personal influence, how can you reach out to as many people as possible to bring to bring attention to this future that is unfolding right around us and has some very inevitable consequences that are not that far into our future in our distance. And so I think that's, that's sort of the bigger question. How do you, how do you touch people who direct and own these networks in ways that, that has to accept the responsibility that comes with what they have created here, which is fantastic in some sense, amazing potentials but then misused in ways that is just shocking really. Thanks class. John then can then me, then Mike then Doug, see Doug B. So go ahead John. Okay, so there was a made for TV movie. Oh, just this really old maybe 20 years ago. It had a title, a big title something like earth to. And there was a, it was a community in orbit. And it was discovered that you know that in the community and the satellite had been put together with international cooperation and somehow there was it turned out that there was a bomb, no nuclear bomb on either near or adjacent to the satellite. And so there was a big, you know, controversy about well how that this should not be allowed this can't happen blah blah blah blah blah you know, and so on and so forth. As they were having the debate on video, there was this little ticker at the bottom. And it would say things like the use of the word bomb might be to, you know, is impossible and basically like it was a real time. John, you're breaking up. I saw that I said, okay. When I saw, did you get that the real time critical analysis? No, why don't you turn off your video and go back to sentences if you can in your head and because you would just get you were just getting rolling there but we lot with your audio got garbled. Let me turn off the video hold on. Thanks. The word bomb was coming across. Yeah, you talked about the ticker and the word bomb. So the so the person in the debate the person on the screen was was getting, you know, agitated and was saying using the word bomb to get people to object. And this ticker across the bottom so the use of the word bomb, you know, maybe to is emotional and, you know, may, you know, play your opinion. And I thought, immediately, wow, do I want to tick I mean it's bad it is it's not accurate. It would be very hard to do in real time. But wow, what a tool. So if we just roll that forward to the present, what comes to mind as a possibility is an overlay. And it's an overlay it would be really, really hard to do and we would need really good AI to do this, but you can imagine a voluntary overlay and it a parent could decide to do this for their children. Anybody else could decide to do the people could decide, oh, this is a, this is like, in large type this is a digital literacy enhancer. And what it would do is it would, it would seek to detect and filter what's going on with the algorithm that's presenting you whatever it's presenting you. You know, it's an ambitious idea. I can, I can see all kinds of challenges in getting it to work. But I think it's what's interesting about the idea is that the people could voluntarily adopt it and it wouldn't require the content of the algorithm that was sending you the edges, other than that I'm sure there'd be a battle in the courts to say, Oh, wait a minute, you're, you're editing my work in real time. Well, yes, and you're doing the same thing. So, you know, here we go. Let's work it out. This is a very fragmentary idea, but I think you got enough pieces up there to to work with it. I kind of paraphrase a piece of your idea as training wheels for better discourse like how might we get systems to help steer us back toward reasonableness with each other or whatever else but yeah. Thanks, John. Ken. Thank you. So, a couple things come to mind. One is, I was on a call with the focus for democracy people that maybe no focus for democracy here. Okay, you'll, you'll hear about them soon I'm going to send you all an invitation for an upcoming call they really, it's another group that that looks at specific races, and how can we target dollars so that it will make the biggest difference. And they had two people on there one from accelerate change and another from camera, but turns out that the large who knows what the largest source of news is for people today. Maybe I want to take a guess. What age. Everyone but specifically younger people, tick tock, tick tock, tick tock. And they own a company that has like eight different platforms. They're the largest news supplier. And they happen to be progressive. Which we can see me believe that maybe one reason that the bill for tick tock for being banned is that the right realizes, these people are way ahead of us on social media. Now the right is way ahead of us on old school media. So, you know, we have a lot of AM dial to a little part of the AM dial and you know, one news, one American news network and all that stuff. So, how does big change happen through advertising is one enormous way of making big change happen people who spend billions of dollars to fund incredible campaigns that are very persuasive to people whether they're based on factor fiction doesn't seem to matter. So my question is, what constitutes a viable source of good credible information. And what are those sources for you. Because I think it'd be really worth knowing that and exploring that you know there's, there's so many sources of information I get all kinds of stuff emailed to me every day and I see stuff that is absolute bullshit and that looks really credible to me and how do you decide. At the heart of all this seems to be, where are you getting your source? Where's your source of information? How credible are they? Why do you trust them? What would make you want to switch? And how can we amplify people who are sources who are really worthy and start to turn down increase the signal with noise ratio against all the bullshit that's out there. Thank you. Thanks, Ken. I'm going to be quiet for a moment and then I want to come back and maybe synthesize a little bit from what Pete said but also what other people have said so let's go into silence for a second. We could have a call where we perform John Cage's piece four minutes 33 seconds. That'd be kind of fun. At least we'd know how long the pause is. So Pete was asking about brave spaces and how might we be braver and he also said how might we be more effective and I kind of want to riff on that. And in part I want to do that by reading a poem into the space title, an invitation to a brave space, which is written by Mickey Scott Bay Jones. And it goes like this. Together we will create brave space because there is no such thing as a safe space. We exist in the real world. We all carry scars and we all have caused wounds. In this space, we seek to turn down the volume of the outside world. We amplify voices that fight to be heard elsewhere. We call each other to more truth and love. We have the right to start somewhere and continue to grow. We have the responsibility to examine what we think we know. We will not be perfect. It will not always be what we wish it to be, but it will be our brave space together and we will work on it side by side. And the link where I had this poem before was gone so I found it in a PDF file that somebody had saved and put up. That's the best I've got. And I'm very intrigued by the question of how might we be braver? Because we're cozy in our conversations here. When we talk about big things, it's not that we're organizing to go approach somebody about the big thing. And in our private personal ambits, Mike is at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. He's got lots of people working on these things in very public spaces. Gil has been consulting about how do we fix the world with lots of orders of people for a really long time. Clauses involved in Sierra Club and a whole series of other things. So in our personal ambits, I think there's a lot of this going on. But how do we collectively marshal ourselves to do more? And I will say that I think I've not been very brave in the last five years in ways that I used to be. And I'm wondering like, what's up with that? And I'll go back to the queue and we can see where we are after Doug B and Gil. I'd like to pick up the thread class that you alluded to about the people that are driving these massive platforms with massive influence and effect. And just this morning, there was a news piece, Don Lemon, kind of deal with X with Elon Musk for his podcast. And at the front end of that was an interview of Elon Musk. And he sort of called out Musk on just about everything. But one of the key pieces of the puzzle was him asking him about the complete absence of moderation and violation of X's current terms of news related to hate speech. And didn't Musk feel some measure of responsibility for moderating that? And Musk's response to him was no, just no. And the reason it was a no is because Elon Musk is neurodivergent as fuck. All that's happening right now is he is emerging and revealing himself as somewhat sociopathic. But he's always been without empathy. His first wife testified to it if the employees ever had his testified to it after they've left his employee. So the projection that, and by the way, you know, Zuckerberg a little more civilized in masking, but no different. Same deal. That blank stare is a telltale. This is not like it's not complicated. So the answer lies in the human beings part of this. It's like who's doing all this stuff? Who's making the decisions they're making? And how are they wired? Where did the power control authority residing in, you know, the sociopathic get concentrated in hell? And how did the vast majority of human beings become subjects and victims? So it's in the way we human. And I do everything in my power to avoid invoking a week, but it is that it is, you know, how to affect and catalyze awakening on that in that field of play. And, and ultimately the masses win if they wake up. Thanks, Doug. Mr. Brennan, when you wish. Doug listening to your reminds me of a film that came out and 10 years ago, 12 years ago called the corporation. Really interesting doc about about that Ray Anderson from interface was one of the people who featured in it. And one of the. Conclusions it true or claims that it made. Was that if you analyze the modern corporation as though it was a person. You'd conclude that it was psychopathic by any of the traditional measures. And there are those who would say that people who aspire to power in this society or psychopathic by any measure, maybe not everybody, but there's a tendency to that. Frank Herbert that came across this quote yesterday said absolute power does not corrupt absolutely. Absolute power attracts the corruptible. So there's that. Yeah, thanks, Jerry. Where was I going to go with this? Oh, yeah, so must be neurodiverse as fuck. So there's a new hashtag for us there, you know, and the hashtag. Nerd diversity is a funny thing in the popular culture. I guess the popular culture of the left ish folks neurodiversity is seen as a good thing. Not necessarily right. I'm neurodiverse neurodiverse is fucking must maybe not such a good thing. It, it takes me back to John Kelly suggestion at the top of the call about a competency test for the president. So like, you know, by what standards decided by whom. The way we do that now is that it's decided by the voters. Imperfect system, but that's what you guys that's how we that's how we do trials with trial by jury of your peers. Gamed in all sorts of ways, but you know, what's the alternative. And for me, the main reason I'm a fan of democracy rather than a talk or see is Ross Ashby's law of requisite variety. You know, none of us is as smart as all of us. So we're, and that was not what I raised my hand for at some point. But I guess I'll throw in if we're if we're going to be talking about tick tock. Information wanted to be free and all of that. I'm an old William O Douglas kind of guy, you know, Congress shall make no law restricting freedom of speech. That's where I start. I also note that not only does the Chinese Communist Party use tick tock in a very different way in China than it does in the US. But so do jobs in Zuckerberg and the other masters, the universe, who reportedly don't let their kids use the stuff that they sell to other people's kids. That should be telling. But maybe eating your own dog food should be a requirement. Such an unfortunate expression. It's an unfortunate expression, but it's like it's like, you know, kings used to have tasters to eat their meals before they did to make sure there was no poison in them. Maybe these maybe folks who sell shit should be required to use it themselves. In China, they make the lead engineer for a railroad bridge being on the first train to go across. There you go. Basic cyberatics. What I'd heard what I'd heard about Roman construction is sometimes the last. Yeah, exactly. You know, you make the news that way. In the good old days of ancient Rome, they would build something like an arch structure like an aqueduct or whatever else and the engineer in charge of that span had to stand under the span when they removed the scaffolding. Same thing with load load masters in the US Air Force, they have to pack a plane and then they turn the plane upside down with the load master sitting in the middle of the cargo. Go ahead. Real quick, tangent on Roman engineering. I recently discovered that the aqueducts that the Romans built were designed to drop 1 inch in elevation for every 100 yards. And they did that without slide rules and, you know, all the fancy stuff we have. So it's just fascinating to be to find that out. I'm gill. Are you done? Yes, I'm sorry. Thanks. I'll say please. Maybe I have a different perspective, but the. I don't think the Chinese make us do what we do on tiktok. We do what we do on tiktok because that's who we are. What they're doing is trying to keep their kids from doing what we do. And we've kind of sold to the world our view of what it means to be free, which means doing a lot of what we do. And, and I think a lot of the world is afraid of that. We're afraid. That allowing their kids to simply do a lot of what we are, you know, giving our phones to the kids at such a young age, getting a dem addicted to, to these pipes of. I don't even know what to call them posts that are just rhythmic and just keep your system going. That that's addictive as hell. And, and that works. Because we've gotten really good at doing things that are addictive to people and we've built systems to support that addiction. So, I don't think that what we're seeing on tiktok as far as what China is doing is any different than what we've already done. But we've kept people dumb rather than trying to help people become smarter. And, and that's been okay with us because having dumb voters doesn't really hurt us too much. We can manipulate them more. And when I say we, I mean, the, the, our electoral system doesn't necessarily need a whole bunch of smart people. They just need a whole bunch of people that watch TV so we can manipulate them. I'm being pretty critical here. So I apologize for that. It's hopefully a slightly brave space. So don't worry about that. On the other hand, I think when we are afraid of their government having control of a system that so many of our youth are using, you know, back when I was in media, when our data center became big enough, the government asked us to put some servers in the data center. When I asked what the hell is all that about and they go, well, once you get to a certain size data center, the government wants to put servers into the data center. Every data center of any scale has government servers at it. Our government service. And so, meaning that everything that comes in and out of our data centers is has the government has access to. We're, we're not afraid of our own government having access to our data, but we're afraid of somebody else's government having access to our data. My sense is that when we look at it from a US centric view, we're not seeing the big picture and the big picture. I think something has to do with what a government is doing to another population, but what governments are doing to populations, our own and others. And I think the idea of tick tock is not actually a good example of us finding freedom from another government, but more of another government finding freedom for their own people from other tools. That are being run by us run by the US mindset globally. So, I think that's probably a little enough for me. That's fine. I'll say thank you. So I just want to, I might you caused a whole bunch of neurons to fire in my head so I might have misunderstood some of what you were intending I just want to maybe clarify a little bit piece of piece of how I see these issues is that capitalism is kind of the problem. The reason we have these addictive platforms and all this other crap going on is capitalism. And when you say other other countries fear our freedoms. Are you being ironic or are you being completely sincere because I think we're less free than we think we are I think we're captive to the the sociopathic corporate mentality that the population showed up pretty well, which is sort of stereotypically what your average capitalist is trying to do, like capitalism gives people license and shields them from punishment for doing things that are in many ways deeply antisocial. And we're seeing here the effects in the superconducting social medium, the effects of that on our culture on our elections on everything else and we're busy whining about well, how do we protect ourselves and Jonathan hate is like well take away the kids smartphones I'm thinking, yeah, that's not that's not that's not the right answer. The answer is to actually subvert or somehow throw a subpo into the the mechanism that is causing all of this that the forcing function that drives all of this behavior toward these outcomes. I don't know exactly how to do that but I'd love to figure out how to do that I would be happy to spend the rest of my days, figuring out how to break us out of that model, and I think that our remedies. The way we think we want to fix all these different kinds of things often go wrong because we're trying to put a bandaid when we need like a tourniquet or an amputation. That was a bad analogy. Anyway, maybe, maybe not a wrong analogy, maybe, maybe not, or maybe it's a lobotomy. No, not a little something else, but, but we're not dealing with the mechanism that's driving all of these problems we're busy patching the problems that come up. And then those problems are nested recursive, multiply reinforcing and cause such a big ruckus that we can be distracted for the rest of our lives, just patching the problems and trying to fix things as Doug C said a little while ago. Thank you for being clear with what my message was. So does that resonate for you. Thank you very much. And thanks for putting that in the conversation. No need to apologize for it. That's what we're all about here. Mike, then Stacy, then Gil, then Doug B. I'm going to be short, but I'm also going to try to be Robert Reich. That's the title of his biography. I'll be short. I'm going to try to be as critical and cynical and provocative as Jose actually I'll probably be three times more. And he said, half of what I want to say, which is that in many cases these platforms are not being controlled by some evil genius psychopath. They're being controlled by us. And he said it really well. The disinformation that was spouting all over the internet on social and particularly on social platforms in 2016. When Hillary Clinton was running was partly generated by a whole bunch of very hardworking creative Macedonian teenagers. And they found out that when they did the Hillary anti Hillary stuff it got five or 10 times the traction it was reposted everywhere by the the Trumpsters. And so they just stopped doing the anti Trump stuff, because they got a lot more clicks with the anti Hillary stuff. And, you know, they were happy to make money whichever way. I think the Chinese probably mean they obviously have some things in their algorithms try to try to do an anti China. TikTok video and see how far that gets you. But even the argument that they're showing us a lot of Gaza footage and a lot of, you know, bloody children and trying to skew that debate is a little suspect because Americans have seen a lot about the challenges the Israelis have suffered for 20 or 30 years. There hasn't been as much coverage in the United States about this, the state of infrastructure and, and life in in Gaza so you know, even people who are looking for both sides are probably clicking on the side that they don't know much about. That's partly what we have to do is we have to change the thinking in these parliaments, so that they do understand it's not just about some evil CEO or evil Chinese government it's there it's also about training people to look broadly look beyond, you know what's popping up on their screen. The other thing. I just wanted to throw in the debate. Stacy said very well one of the key points that is shaping the debate here which is all about, you know, in the children being influenced. That that is a driver. The other driver is the idea that these platforms are sucking up our data. And the fear is that you've got the totalitarian government with the ability to micro target. And that's the most scary thing of all that's the Venn diagram that that I'm particularly upset about. And the thing that hasn't been mentioned very much that the statistic or the factoid that needs to get out there is that last year Facebook sold data and targeting services to over 2000 entities in China. And this wasn't $20 or $200 contracts. So it's not just about tick tock being used by the Chinese to target us. And yet that that doesn't get into the debate very much. Thank you. Thanks, Mike. I put my hand up specifically to ask the question. Why is it that we trust corporate or corporations less than enemy governments. I mean, to me, they're both risks. You know, yeah, no, I don't that's it. I'm going to say it. They are both risks. And I think it would be helpful if we didn't just apply standards to one and not the other, because that's where the masses crisscross and what they believe and wind up fighting each other. For the sake of not us. Kill one everyone. Well, I think we wound up with topic today. Whatever, whatever it is that we would call this I'm unclear what the topic ended up crystallizing as, but I like the way we've been talking about it. But it's very juicy. And I think this one is going to be worth going back and harvesting a lot of stuff out of. Let me try to harvest a couple of things. The micro target is important because this is not just a matter of social influence on how American teenagers behave, but this is an intelligence gathering apparatus of enormous potential with Facebook sale of data being just 1 example. Close to home trust corporations rather than foreign governments. Recent press about automobile companies selling driving data. To insurance companies and others you never signed a consent form on that when you bought your car, but obviously you did. It's in there somewhere. So the surveillance capitalism book that somebody mentioned in the chat is really worth re looking at Zuboff went deep. I'm very smart about that. It's scary and really important. Macedonian teenagers thing is fascinating because it's both an artifact of the system that we have and you know, like a bunch of smart kids discover they could do this thing and all of a sudden elections are changed. Yeah. On the other hand, they're the Russian bot shops and so forth and there's an article. I hope maybe somebody here can find it, but I think it was from 2015 or 2016. Quoting Putin extensively talking about shredding the social fabric of America as part of his geopolitical strategy. And I don't know if that's a fabrication of my fever dreams, but I really think I saw something about that that have not been able to find. So it points to the challenge that we have, which I've been sorely aware of lately of dealing with multi valence situations. There's, you know, everybody's trying to figure out it's either this or it's that. But it could be both. And other things to and being able to make wise decisions in the face of complexity seems to be a very challenging skill. We see it with the Israel Israel Gaza stuff. It's like, you know, either. Israel is evil or Hamas is evil. Well, maybe Hania and Netanyahu are both maniacs. What do you do to different kind of question. And so, and I, and I feel we have that here. It's it's a complex mess. Doug be a Doug see I guess it's gone but you know, it's not the kind of thing you can fix. It doesn't stay fixed at least but you know, maybe we can improve a little bit. You know, beneficial direction. I'm not going to catwalk happening in the next room. I'm going to stop that. So I just wanted to turn the telescope around for a minute on tick tock. Tick tock is the home of a whole new market that I would call the persona economy. And what nobody seems to be thinking about is literally, I suspect if not a million hundreds of thousands of micro entrepreneurs who are in their living. On tick tock. And you pull the plug on that. What happens to unemployment and by the way, they're not organized in companies paying themselves payroll. They don't qualify for unemployment insurance. Staggering numbers of them are making really significant livings and exponentially more are making enough to live on and provide for their families. And you pull the plug on their means of earning. And it's a complete wild card off the map of the economists and the standard indicators for the economy at large and its state and potential for changes and instability. But nobody knows the scale of the impact of pulling the plug on all those people there incomes their lives with them having literally no safety matter anything to fall back on. Mostly because we have no national health care. We have no all sorts of things but I mean, we just nobody's looking at that or measuring that or projecting like what if. And if this legislation actually went through. And if the parent company didn't divest and they were trying to turn it off. It's a pretty staggering thing. And not, you know, not for nothing but independent of judgment. It's a really powerful economic innovation that's generated that potential for all of those people to create and to leverage their persona and leverage their talents and leverage their cooking skills and leverage their fashion sense and my. My niece who's you know I want to be influencer makeup artist. Like, I don't know what she would do without that. So, you know, up half full cup half empty. I'm complete. Thank you for making that point which we kind of slide slid past a class. No one thought that comes to mind is the very nature of how corporations really function inside the corporation. So I spent some over 30 years working in very large companies. It's sort of a senior director level mid level kind of role. And what happens is that every year sort of in April you get a five year plan. Your business unit is a line item and it says you need to increase your profit by 8% and it says so five years in a row. Since you arrived in this in this business unit and you have to squeeze out everything that you can think of squeezing and you have no else nowhere else to go. So now you have to think, okay, so what else can I do and then some some crazy things come to mind. And then you would translate that into areas. I mean, for example, I had to do socially responsible merchandising for children for worldwide theme parks and partner with Coca Cola and Nestle guess where nutrition ended up on that discussion. Right. So that's just like a harmless thing. But think about people who manage credit cards and how the overcharges are applied or you have all heard the stories about bank accounts being forced on unsuspecting consumers and so on. So all of these things really don't originate in senior management. They originate with senior management saying you need to you shall increase your profit for next year by 8% and you get paid to figure out how to do this. And then there is like no moral guideline, no compares. Nothing is off limits. Right. So you end up coming up with some crazy stuff, which you couldn't. I mean, but why are you even thinking about this? It's not improving your product. It's not improving your service. It's just scoring your customer basically. But that's what you end up doing. So then now you extrapolate this across the entire company, you know, and you have the top guys squeezing this thing down and demanding that much more profit and you have the essence of capitalism. There's no bad intention here. Right. It's not like there's some evil genius who is thinking about running this ship into strange directions. No, it's just money increase your profit line. And I've done some weird stuff in the food business, you know, if I think back about on it and anybody else, my partner, same thing. He's in the biotech industry. I mean, everyone has horror stories about, oh my God, I can't believe what I did. And Jerry, you're right. That should be triggering something on Zoom. This should totally be a Zoom thing. Yeah, yeah, like like a little space laser should show up from the side or something, or a Bob's big boy, whatever. Judy, great to see you. And you're muted. You need to unmute. I automatically mute because my house phone is loud. I'm kind of coming from where Klaus is. I mean, I was fortunate to work for 3M, which was innovation driven, but it needed to be profitable. The priority was be innovative enough that it's something new that people want to buy. And then you can price it in an effective way and maintain reasonable margins for a long time, even in divisions like tape, which are 75 years old. If you have good tape, and people know it's better than other tape, they'll buy yours instead of someone else's. But I think what bothers me is this sort of, I don't know, the selective interference aspect of what's being discussed, because one organization like TikTok is stifled because of legislative action, and it's a collection of individuals. It feels to me like it's eroding the sense of independence and freedom that has been a part of our culture for a long, long time, and changing the playing field. It's not illegal. It's not the sort of thing where you're protecting because of crime or other things from my perspective, but maybe I'm looking at it wrong, but it just, it feels like it's coming out of left field, and it makes me very uncomfortable. Thanks, Judy. Anybody feel strongly about that or want to shed light on the subject? Perhaps not. So what do we do about this thorny bramble? I have a topic which seems like it's related to the whatever topic we're talking about, but it comes from a different tangent. Awesome. Because I have an interest in military hardware, even though I don't like that it gets used. One of the things on my drip feed of news is the drone wars, drone and other wars front lines in between the Ukraine and Russia. And it's hard not to root for the Ukrainian underdogs. But pretty regularly, you know, it'll say, well, you know, they're starting Russians have figured out a new tactic. They figured out how to uninstall their information lines, getting sensor data back to commanders that will allow strikes. So, you know, today I read about two helicopters getting destroyed, which wouldn't have happened in the olden days because of the way the Russians, you know, prosecute war. So the Russians have gotten a little bit more like the Ukrainians and are able to make decisions faster to destroy things that should get destroyed in their view. Another one is, you know, the US sent over a bunch of M1 tanks and Russia is starting to destroy those more frequently. So the places I read this is military hardware blogs, I guess. And it comes down to the end and it's like, well, get used to seeing more of these kinds of losses because the, you know, the Republican Congress has decided to starve Ukrainian from artillery and arms. And I'm like, is that why did the US decide that? Why is it consistently deciding to like look the other way as Russia, you know, does things like pound our social media or pound Ukraine, you know, it's like I didn't vote that way, you know, I wouldn't vote that way. So it's just interesting that it feels like we have a, you know, pro-Russia contingent in Congress and that's kind of letting us decide what we do to support an ally, potential ally. And there's a great mystery of foot, which is maybe not that mysterious why one party in this country seems to have gone from the anti-Kami Party, including McCarthyism, etc. And, you know, Goldwater, there's this long and I'm not sure the word honorable fits your tradition of, you know, fighting against communism to being the pro-communist party. And they are doing everything they can to throw. I watched yesterday morning, my first call was a webinar about the Ukraine situation two years in. And the guy who was the expert, the Russia expert said, stepping on the, stepping on the hose is going to really help Russia. And I thought the stepping on the hose metaphor was really good. It was just right on. You're muted. You're muted. Sorry about that. It seems to me that we've got too many people. And each person has access to being known. And every node is a lever into the information space. And any attempt to push down on one place is going to make things rise up. And until we deal with a large number of problems, we're not going to get very far, except into more trouble. Until we deal with which problem. Too many people, too many nodes, too many lives in the information space. But that's just how the world, how the way the world is. Yeah, let's name it. And so we're not obscured by it is the way the world is. All right. I would love in the interest of smaller things we can't affect probably in the near term, I would love to know Pete, how to convinced the far right in the US to let go and start helping Ukraine and save itself. Like, the guy yesterday morning made a really convincing argument that and he didn't need to convince me but a really convincing argument that if Ukraine falls there's a whole bunch of other things that Putin would like to attack next, that that he's not going to, he really isn't going to stop And this from a person who firmly believes that the Vietnam War, for which one of the pretext was the domino theory that if Vietnam fell then the next thing would be the Philippines and the next thing would be Hawaii. That the domino theory was entirely wrong headed and stupid and that the Vietnam War was entirely avoidable. And I've got longer stories I can tell about that so I believe that firmly, but I also believe that if Ukraine is even even some kind of truce arrangement that doesn't defang Putin is not a workable truce will not will not actually function. And Putin can be trusted in no way at any point, or anything. Anyway, Good to not see you, but good to have you here. There you are. Shebang. Go for it. Let's just acknowledge. So, Doug got my brain working as he often does. Thank you Doug. So my response to that whole too many nodes thing, which seemed to kind of throw us off guard a little bit because what do you do about that. So many nodes in the information space, I agree. I also agree with your assertion that that's reality. So the question to me, based on my new understanding of systems thinking and systems being only four things from the DSRP mindset. Art hole into groups. So in order to deal with too many nodes in a space you have to aggregate. But, you know, there's lots of different ways to aggregate nodes, because that's what we do. We don't go one on one because it's too many. You can't do 9 billion. Right. You have to, you have to chunk. And every aggregation is a part whole grouping from a perspective. There's lots of reasons why that's true, but that's. So, so what you have is that how do you, how do you group, and all those parts can be parts of multiple groups, but at some point it's rolling up to either us them right or left. It seems to be rolling up to two groups at the top, which feels like it's, we have all these wonderful distinctions that are way too many to possibly process as an individual person. And then they get grouped up into things that might be useful and relevant to us locally, various interests, various concerns, and then they get grouped up again into two factions that are going like that. And it's, it's just an interesting thing to consider. I think the response to too many nodes is, well, how do you choose to aggregate them in a meaningful way where you don't lose too much of the nuance. But you also don't turn it into binary. A thought. Thank you. And I think a piece of what I see happening a lot is a knife fight in an elevator over what the frameworks are by which we roll up and generalize about the world. And I just put in, you know, red states, blue states, capitalism, socialism, there's a whole bunch of these kind of binaries that that we get marketed, and that become a given or a part of the conversation and that often undermine the conversation. And there's very interesting conversation, like Isabelle Wilkerson's book cast and the movie origin. She's making this argument that hey cast is the actual problem racism is a special instance of cast issues. And cast generalizes to other things and I'm like that that was really helpful for my reframing how I look at some of those issues. Right. And that was I think in the DSRP model, an intelligent offer for how to group things or or cluster things. So I really appreciated the movie for for making the point as well as a movie might make an academic point. And then Judy then Jose, then Doug C. I have no idea what I was going to talk about. Awesome. I've been distracted by a data center energy rat hole. Yeah, I saw you've been you've been fencing in the in the chat. And thank you for doing that, Gil. I got snagged. Sorry. Cool. Judy. I just like to follow up on what you said Jerry. I mean, I find that the world is not binary, but people want to simplify it all the time to make it binary for the purposes of contrast. And the only way that I've found to deal with it is to not respond to the binary, but ask how something that isn't binary fits in that continuum. And sometimes that conversation goes in a slightly different direction. But I think that we're all suffering nationally at particularly here from a binary mentality that sort of an either or and both extremes are unacceptable. And that just immobilizes people in their course of action. And when they're big issues like socio political ones. It's not satisfying to tackle them on the local level, but it's not effective to tackle them on anything else. And it's a source of frustration that I have a concern causes people to disengage to just say well I'm just going to kind of tough it out because I can't do anything about it. And that's not how progress gets made. So this balance between simplicity and tension, and the challenges of change is something worthy of deeper thought. And I haven't studied it I confess. But I'm concerned, as are most of you. That is all because there are two kinds of people. Just kidding. When I hear arguments that the world is getting more and more complex, I kind of grimace because the world has always been really complex. But never before have we been able to like witness so much of the complexity all at once pouring into our senses, like that's true that's new. But I would not have stayed I would not have been able to stay alive had I been born in, you know, 900 AD. Unless I'd been born into a family that knew what was up and how to take care of business and you know everything. Life has been really complicated from the get go the world the universe is complicated. We just have visibility into so much more of it now that that we're overwhelmed the way Doug see brought into the conversation there's too many nodes, or too many notes if I can quote from Amadeus. And we don't know how to cope with that so we oversimplify. Scott, go ahead just a quick extension of something I was going to say about the. We don't know how to simplify and one of the things one of the problems with our whole thinking when we group things together is that we get locked into the group that we've made. And we forget that it's Lego pieces that we've put together. And then we can make them apart and put together in a different way or this this piece is part of multiple groups and. Or it's natural. It's essential to simplify and group things together. It's the only way we can deal with anything around us, you know, you don't drive 12,000 parts you drive a car. You know that that's how it works, but we forget that. When I have made a group, that's a group from a perspective, if you change the perspective, you change what that group is or what it could be or the parts this assemble and reassemble. And that's where I think we've lost it is that we get locked in on the group that that we know or have or presented with. And that's got an apropos the membership thing that we get we go into groups, one of my favorite thoughts in my brain is emotion and membership Trump reason most of the time, and stories are the vessel. And we do not want to be excluded from our tribe, we don't want to be shunned by our neighbors we do not. And when all of your neighbors are flying Trump flags and, and doing whatever. It looks like everybody in the world is doing that and why would you go against that. I mean, did you want to jump back in the conversation or is your hand just. I'm sorry, I forgot to take it down. That's okay. Thanks just checking kill. Yeah, Scott appreciating what you said. I don't drive 12,000 parts I drive a car, but somebody makes 12,000 parts. Each and every one of them with great detail and precision and this echoes for me McGill chris phenomenal book the master and his emissary, which is a deep dive into the science of the divided brain and humans and other critters and to highly recommended read he's going to be doing a 3 day thing in San Francisco later this month, but the basic gist is that to oversimplify it. Is that most of most of what you heard about left brain, right brain stuff in the 90s was wrong. It's not masculine feminine. It's not, you know, linguistic versus not. What he argues is that is that left brain is oriented to discrete things that we can understand in a particular context and right brain tends to be integrative associate of broader awareness and you need both. Revolutionary survival and we're in a society where left is very dominant to the loss of some of the integrative functions of right brain. And that's, you know, it's this is like, you know, there's a many hundred page book followed by the matter with things which is 1500 page book. Deep fascinating science eloquent and I think informs the conversation that we're having here in a very important way. I would, I would recommend that as something for us to dive into more in the future conversation. Thank you. Thank you. Did you throw that in the chat. Guys, I can't write fast enough. You're muted yourself, y'all. I've thrown, I've thrown the title in the chat and I'll try to find the link to the event. Thanks. Thank you. Stacy than Jose, and then we're getting close to the end of our call. Following the thread from Scott to Judy to you, Jerry, I think this goes back to last week, the notion of finding the difference within the same. And not so much with our neighbors and their trump flags, but right in this conversation right here. So like, and that also touches on brave spaces. And it also touches on too many nodes. So in the chat. For this is as an example, can, can said something or asked a question. I don't remember. And Mike was able to respond to it, which was very interesting information that could really be flushed out to me. That's its own node. That should be a separate thing. It's, it's so much hard the closer you are to people. The harder, the more brave, the more courage is needed to be able to find the differences within the same. It's really hard. Trust me, it's so scary and hard. I can't even, I mean, I could rate every call I go into and tell you how brave do I feel I have to be in that space. It's a different level of braveness for every space. So just wanted to say that. Thank you. Okay. Thank you. I tried to get in and the queue a couple of times and somehow I got lost, but the, and so now it's like, what I wanted to say has, has maybe faded. But you talked about why is it that certain sectors of our society have been against communism and now they're pro communism. I don't think they're pro communism. They're pro a leader who thinks that the Russians are no longer our enemy. And, and they're pro a leader who thinks that the, the Bidens were involved with with Ukraine. And so, you know, poof, we now have a story and a narrative that that changes that. And I think that that's part of what we have continued to miss as a way to engage with these topics. It's not the thing that is reality but the story that it is pervasive about that thing, or those things. And so the stories about tick tock the stories about communism the stories about not communism. They're all held by people who trust other people. And none of us actually have a real true sense for ourselves of what any of this means. We just simply adopt other people's stories. We've done the experiments, none of us have lived in those environments or very few of us have. And so everything that I believe, and that we probably closely believe has come from our community. And everything that they, that they have experienced and believed has come from their community. I think that we're that we can look at this from an objective perspective. I think we need to look at this from stories and what is the story that everybody's talking about. And how do we talk about stories that are different that help rather than objective ways of viewing this and judging on that basis. Thank you. Yeah. Mr. Homer. Master Homer, have you a poem for us? Well, Mike just said stories and poems so Mike speaking of poems. Here we go. A little more Vistava Zimborska. Yay. Life while you wait. Life while you wait. Performance without rehearsal. Body without alterations. Head without premeditation. I know nothing of the role I play. I only know it's mine. I can't exchange it. I have to guess on the spot just what this play is all about. Though prepared for the privilege of living, I can barely keep up with the pace that the action demands. I improvise although I loathe improvisation. I trip at every step over my own ignorance. I can't conceal my AC manners. My instincts are for hammy histrionics. Stage fright makes excuses for me which humiliate me more. Extenuating circumstances strike me as cool. Words and impulses you can't take back. Stars you'll never get counted. Your character like a raincoat that you button on the run. The pitiful results of all of this unexpectedness. If I could just rehearse one Wednesday in advance or repeat a single Thursday that has passed. But here comes Friday with a script I haven't seen. Is it fair? I asked my voice a little hoarse since I couldn't even clear my throat offstage. You'd be wrong to think it's just a slapdash quiz taken at makeshift accommodations. Oh no. I'm standing on the set. I see how strong it is. The props are surprisingly precise. The machine rotating the stage is going around even longer. The furthest galaxies have been turned on. Oh no. There's no question. This must be the premiere. And whatever I do will be forever. But I have done. Nice. Thank you. Thanks, Kim. On a personal note. I was an actor in school from fourth grade through college and I haven't acted in years. So this is a little chance for me to buff up my acting chops. I love doing this reading a lot and I'm so grateful that people appreciate it. Thank you. Really warms my heart. Yeah. We need a little zoom animation that gives you like curtains and a procedure. Yeah, that'd be great. Lights, lime lights coming up from below. Yeah. Get my good side, will you? Yeah. Thanks all. That's great call. Thanks everyone. Appreciate it. Get a topic. No, no. Next time I think we should try and answer the question. The drunken sale works. We got a very good topic. You know, this is then. We had a topic. We just haven't. Thank you, Mike. Yes. I don't know what to call the topic, but we had a topic. I have a quick question on a topic. Yeah, it might be interesting to pick something. That's a bit elusive and ephemeral. And then ask everyone to bring something resource wise to a discussion about that topic. Because I find that I struggle to take notes on a bunch of stuff when I'm doing things to try to remember that I should go read X or Y. But if we want to actually make change happen. We need to understand it from the complex dimensions that the people on this call would represent from a different viewpoint and a different set of life experiences. And that might be a very rich opportunity. You have just caused two people to want to answer what you're saying. So let's go Guild and Mike. Yes, thank you. We tend to go very fast here. I think that's a good question. I think that's a good question. I encourage you to save the chat. Before Jerry takes it away because there's a lot in there. So I post the video, the chat and my brain notes all to the Mattermost channel. So they're all there for all of our calls. I also have them. Because I'm not as good with the computer as you guys. Yeah. I like to grab the chat. So I have it right now as opposed to finding that. I don't have a full chat. If you update to the latest version of zoom, it automatically saves it for you. Every time I get off, I open some window in my finders that's here's where the chat is. So I don't even have the three dots to save it. So. Okay. There's three dots in the chat somewhere either. Actually it is. It's very top now. Judy, what kind of, what kind of device are you on zoom? I'm actually on a tablet. So it might be different. That's what I thought. It's probably different on a tablet. Is it an iPad or somebody else's tablet? There's a three. Three dots somewhere in your chat. Okay. Let me back to it again. And Mike, you were going to go next, I think. I had a process question too. Yes. I've got about three people I'd like to. Coerce entice to join this call either for once or for. On going. Is there anybody I shouldn't invite. Or do I have to kind of check with you first or. No, no, no, no, no. Just a forward the invite all people free to come. We've only had trouble with participants a couple of times. And those were interesting and thorny, but, but yeah, please. And I will, I will sort of imply that this is, you know, a special event that you should really come to. And if they then come back and say, could I join? Then we have that question, but are we going to have to dress nicer? Oh, no, no, no, no. Okay. So it's kind of people. You might have to shower though. Or is that you're finishing that up now? Right? That mean I have to get your done or something. New coffee. You'll notice I keep going back to my, my, my glamour shot every so often that that's probably because I'm having some connectivity problems, but it's also because I do want to be presentable and remind people I can wear a suit. I sort of delight in the fact that I hardly ever need to now, so. I don't think I own a suit that fits anymore I think they're all. Well thank you Jerry and it's glad I'm glad that open global mind is truly open and we'll go with that. Thank you very much. And so the last of the four democracy calls happens in at the top of the hour. Thanks. Just a second afterwards. Yes. Thank you.