 Let me introduce myself briefly. I am Hiroaki Yastake, so please call me Hiro. I am the director of the Japan CTO Association and I used to be the CTO of Rakuten until 2016 January. And now I am running a small startup called Junify in the United States. And also an advisor of several Japanese companies from small to enterprise. And I am watching many challenges and how to utilize and manage technologies in the organization. So I'd like to discuss with you about this topic and about you. Yes, I introduce myself or should you? Yeah, yeah, yeah. Yeah, I don't think I need to ask you to introduce your room in detail because they found many, many information about you because thanks to your radical transparency policy. So many, many information is on the internet. But I think it would be very helpful for audience to ask you to introduce yourself briefly and also topics which you are paying attention recently. Certainly. I'm Audrey Tang, Taiwan's digital minister in charge of social innovation, open governments and youth engagement. I will read you my job description, which I wrote in 2016 as a prayer to highlight the topics that I care deeply about is very short goes like this. When we see the internet of things, let's make it an internet of beings. When we see virtual reality, let's make it a shared reality. When we see machine learning, let's make it collaborative learning. When we see user experience, let's make it about human experience. And whenever we hear that the singularity is Nia, let's always remember the plurality is here. I checked your GitHub account today, and I saw that you are still writing a code and uploading it to the GitHub. It's very, very interesting. I've never seen or heard that the Japanese, the politicians is actually writing a code now. So what kind of project are you working on? What kind of the projects do you have interested in right now? I believe in automating away the chores. This is the virtue of laziness that I learned from Larry Wa when I was a very young Pearl hacker. And so I tend to just look at my workflow, identify the part of workflow that could be automated. And I talk to myself saying, you know, even if it's just five minutes, well, I write code pretty quickly. So it takes me maybe 10 minutes to automate away a five minute task. So by the second time I do this, I already save time. So if you see my commits recently, it will be about maintaining my radical transparency records. I'm currently integrating many different input forms, including this conversation in a semi automated way, so that everything can be captured in a way that could be my map and shared later. Wow, which computing language you are using? And what is most favorite one? The thing is a dream in Pearl. So I can write Pearl without thinking. So for very quick scripting tasks, of course, I still write Pearl. But of course, to share code with other people, nowadays the lingua franca JavaScript, of course, is what I go to nowadays. I'm a avid reader of code. So although I'm not a professional, for example, rust programmer, or Python programmer, Ruby programmer, I can read such a code without much difficulty. Yeah, I also a big fan of the power and the when I used to work for the Latin, I wrote a lot of the power code for the back end kind of the batch systems. But it was really a problem for the other people because my power code was not good. Well, it creates an incentive for our staff to replace the code that we wrote. So in a sense, its specification delivered as prototypical code. I want to start the first topic about the big changes we are watching right now. The core theme of this event is change. So I'd like to open the conversation from this keyword as a phrase change, bring people kind of mixed feelings. It sounds positive if people believe the bright future after the change, but the people get very nervous if they want to stay as they are. So whether people like it or not, technologies has been evolving and will be everything from now on and it has created a lot of changes over society. So I see many hope and fear at the same time among the people, especially about technology. So I'd like to start from asking you changes and key technologies behind the change that you've seen and you have interested in this kind of past 5 or 10 years. Definitely. So I believe technology and technologists like us should change to adapt to an evolving societal demand. So it's about appropriate technology, meaning that technology that could be appropriated by people on the ground, that is in contrast to disruptive technology, which means the technologies don't change and we expect people to adapt themselves to the disruptive technology because they got disrupted. So it's two very different views on change making and I'm firmly on the camp of pluralist, meaning that whatever change the technology makes is to adapt to the societal needs without harming existing societal norms. Now to further this kind of co-creation in the past decade, one of the most important technologies that we have seen is real-time collaborative tools. Indeed, we are using one right now, right? Otherwise we will have to physically travel. Yes, so what I'm trying to get at is that previously people have to be in the same room, sharing a whiteboard, maybe listening to each other, but as each individual person comes to the room it gets progressively harder and harder for them to catch up on the context and build meaningful relationships. Once it hits Dunba's number, 150 people, then the organization become hierarchical. It became impossible to be flat or to peer to peer. But in the past 10 years, time and again we have seen community innovations in distributed ledger communities, in the open-source, open innovation communities. We've seen crowdsourcing and crowdfunding building upon the asynchronous Wikipedia model into the more synchronous model. Indeed, we have seen that people can co-create with not just 150 people but tens of thousands of people at the same time through collaborative tools. So I believe modern-day co-creation collaborative tools is the most important societal innovation in the past decade and indeed that's how Taiwan countered the pandemic without a single day of lockdown and countered that this information crisis was no take-downs from the administration. I read a lot of the news about your amazing achievement. It was actually amazing and thank you for sharing your views. It's the keyword co-creation and collaboration. I think it's very, very important. And so this the conversation won't be happened if we don't have any technologies. And thank you for the online collaboration tools now so we can talk and we can share the information simultaneously to the many, many people. But at the same time, I'm wondering this might have a kind of both of the positive and negative side, especially the social media has a huge, kind of impact, making an impact on the society. So how do you see the big impact of the social media right now? When it becomes easy to connect with many, many people at the same time, what we have discovered is that the societal norms around gatherings differ from one social media place to the other. I've often liked Facebook as a nightclub in the digital realm, in the entertainment sector. People go there to be entertained. But because its business model is selling you well, not addictive drinks, but addictive advertisement, but something is very similar, right? So they want, at least initially, to get people into a mood of impulse, impulsive buying, impulsive sharing and things like that. And the emotion outrage is very viral, meaning that it motivates more clicking of the button share without thinking twice about it. So it's like saying, you know, when we try to hold a civilized conversation, maybe with our mayor, maybe a town hall, but when we hold it in the nightlife district in a nightclub, we found it's very difficult because smoke fill the room. You can't see each other very well. You have to shout to get heard. There's private bouncers. There's addictive drinks, as I mentioned. All in all, maybe some gambling going on. So all in all, very difficult to sustain a civilized conversation. But social media is not just that sort of nightlife district. There's also the digital equivalent of university campuses. Taiwan's equivalent of Reddit, the PTT, is a student pet project from a university subsidized entirely by the academic network for the past 25 years. So people concentrated on the common good on getting the message out that pertains to the common good without wasting their time because there's no advertisers at all or any profit seeking motifs. So that's civic infrastructure. In Taiwan, we also have the digital public infrastructure like the join platform where people can participate in budget making and reviewing in starting petitions and meeting in a local town hall literally about their allocation of budget or regulatory pre-announcements and so on. And again, the 3 million different visitors in more than 30 million visits in a year, they enjoy themselves because they know that there will be no room for trolls and the join platform is not trying to push any advertisement or any commercial addiction to them. So while the underlying technology may be similar, recommendation engines and so on, it's designed around different societal norms. And just for the record, I'm not against the entertainment sector. I just want to say that the city should be, there's some public parks, some campuses, some town halls, which is also important. We can't only have societal gatherings in the nightlife district. Yeah, thank you for pointing in both of the positive and negative sides. And we're going to talk about the positive side right now. But so they I want to ask you a little bit more about the negative side. So the U sector kind of the key words and nightcraft and addiction, those kinds of things as a kind of government or the kind of the position of the kind of should kind of the platformers or the tech giants, I'm not sure what is the right word, should they control the information or the do you believe the kind of the perfect freedom will be the future among the kind of on the social media network. So I see this as a mental health issue. And of course, just like we protect against the negative externalities on say smoking or drinking of heart liquor in nightlife district. So too, should we emphasize on the digital competence education, not just in basic education as Taiwan does, but also in lifelong education, because if a child is exposed to addictive drinks and smoking as the socially cool thing to do before they can form their own opinions about such substances, then of course, the society pays a very large externality negatively about this situation. And so if we phrase it as a mental health thing, one of the most important thing is to understand, I think is a red part experiment that showed us that addiction is a symptom, but it's not a cause. It's not a root cause. It is mostly societal disconnection, loneliness, the feeling of disempowerment and many other things that cause the addictive behavior. So if today it's not social media, if you banned social media, something else that maybe was will get people addicted if they feel disempowered and disconnected to their communities. So I believe two things. First, that we should foster the civil society organizations such as PTT to build compelling alternatives of social gathering places for people to build meaningful connections that can actually affect in policy change. That's the first thing. And the second thing is that we should be as transparent as possible in our own behaviors on the digital realm from the governments and ask the private sector to do the same. When we do campaign donation and financing, for example, we publish as open data in Taiwan so that journalists can analyze all the different connections of election campaigns and the lobbyists, for example. But if the lobbyists turn around and buy some sponsored advertisements on Facebook and bypass the entire societal norm around transparency, then of course it creates a very bad rippling effect, which is why the Taiwanese people in 2019 threatened social sectioning Facebook if they do not conform to the radical transparency standards that the government is already doing around campaign donation. And so Facebook basically said, okay, we will do that in your jurisdiction. And for all the social and political advertisements, they also disclose as open data so that such influences do not bypass the societal and journalistic oversight. So just like public health experts is the most important profession encountering the pandemic, I firmly believe journalism and civic journalists is the most important profession when fighting against this mental health hazard. Thank you. So now I got your point. So now people tend to see a kind of new social network as kind of the evil technology. So tend to focus on the technology because it's new. But as you mentioned, the social media, even though if it's very, very addictive, it might be similar with the smoking or the alcohol, just alcohol. So we have to take some control on kind of the human behavior side. But the technology helps. But people tend to see the technology is itself as a kind of the evil or the bad things. But that is different. That is just the activity of the people. That's your point, right? And to extend the metaphor a little bit, of course, we have seen jurisdictions such as the US at one point did prohibition, which means outlawing alcohol drinking like completely, right? But prohibition is now generally seen as kind of a very drastic last resort. It is a little bit like locking down everyone when the pandemic gets really bad. It may be necessary or perceived as necessary, but prevention and public health education is the most important because lockdowns have its consequences and people suffer fatigue. And maybe people make a habit of breaking the law if you lock them down too long, right? And so while, of course, some conversations around the kind of sanctions that we impose on the more anti social corner of social media, maybe like heart drugs, that's worth having a conversation. However, if we classify all social media as bad and ban them all, that will has its own negative externalities because the civil society groups will not then have the time and expertise to build what I call vaccines of the mind, the kind of good habits like washing your hands and wearing a mask that can actually help defend against further mutations of the virus of the mind. Thank you so much. I want to move on the second topic. Second topic is about how to manage the technologies in the organization. As we discussed, that technology makes a huge impact on a society like social media. So the technology is a very important tool for everyone right now, but I see some difficulties to manage technologies, especially in a traditional organization like a government. The agility is the another key important keyword to provide the good services for students or the customers. And it is a very, very famous story that Taiwan made a great success to kind of distribute masks to the people by making the clear stock of the mask in each pharmacy when the COVID-19 started. It was amazing, amazing, kind of the quick and strong actions. And I heard that your story, so when you visit the pharmacy and the pharmacy owner was struggled because the oil must all sold out, but it's available sign on the web. And you ordered or asked someone to change it and it was fixed very quickly. That's great agility and it is totally different from kind of the stereotype of the government services and public sector services. So I want to ask you, did you achieve that and what is the key items to make any of the public services or everything's better with agility? Thank you. I think there are two keys, swift and safe. So when I was a child, I visited Germany's data for a year. And I remember that my mother drove on Autobahn, the German highway. And it's very famous because it has no speed limits. And that was news to me because in Taiwan, we always have speed limits in our highways. But my mother explained to me that the Germans, they think, if you design the road right, if you design your cars right, if people have the right expectations going into the driveway, that actually the faster you are, the safer you become. And this is a very counter intuitive thing for me. So I remember it very clearly. But agility is about actually reducing risk as you move quicker because we can actually pay off technical debts much more easy if we see the discrepancies, the diet biases and so on earlier in the game. If we have an onsite customer pointing out the difficulty that our design will cause, then we can actually adjust it very quickly as opposed to like waiting to read the newspapers, which may be a week later into the game, right? So faster is actually also safer. And the key to co-creation within a bureaucracy is to make sure that we publish as soon as we collect data. Of course, privacy and trade secret and many other things need to be respected. But for example, the Musk inventory has no privacy impact. It's zero privacy impact. And so because of that, if we publish every 30 seconds, it enable everyone to see the data bias. And when they point out the issues as you mentioned, we can then say, yeah, no, there's bias in the data. Please help us correct it because you have the same broad data as we do. But in the higher latency way, if we publish it every week, then nobody can help. Everybody can just criticize or protest or whatever, because they do not have the operational data, the minute to minute data that can lead to new ways of distribution, pre-registration and things like that. And counter-intuitively, if you hold data on your hands for a week before publishing it and the data was wrong, nevertheless, everybody blames you. But if you do not hold the data and publish soon as it's collected every 30 seconds, well, everybody knows you have no time to review the data anyway. So you do not get a blame. You get poor requests. You get things that are very constructive and co-creative simply because people see that the government is really trusting the citizens. That's amazing story. Yeah, I totally agree with you that all data should be disclosed if there is a data. But at the same time, so I want to go into a little bit deeper, but the data requires the system. And system, sometimes it's very old-fashioned like a hostile system, it's the dinosaur and it is very hard to maintain, hard to retrieve the data from the database. And there are a bunch of the reasons we cannot do that. And I guess, even in Taiwan, the situation might be something like that. There are many similar situations. I saw the many similar situations all over the world, especially in a traditional organization. The system is very old-fashioned and it's not capable for keeping the agility good. So I'll ask you, what is the situation in Taiwan and how you manage it? Yeah, I will use one example. In 2020, when we did our payment stipend, really, to people who are of middle or low income, who are adversely affected by the pandemic, many of them do not have a smartphone or even if they do, they do not want and have no experience of installing additional apps or navigating a progressive web app. So because of that, many people took to the counters to write their bank account or if they don't have a bank account, they want to receive a check, then they write their physical address. And they, of course, have their personal details, some proofs, how they were adversely affected in their incomes by the pandemic and so on. And it created such a huge backlog that the local municipalities simply could not review those applications in time. The new type of city even put boxes and boxes of such forms and shipped it, carried it to the central government, saying, you have designed this system, now you help us to digitize it. And it took a very long time before we can actually process all those forms. And I see you nodding. And so maybe Japan is no stranger to that sort of situation. But in 2021, we are prepared. So in 2021, when we run exactly the same project again, we simply said, there is no counter. We're not setting up any counter to receive applications. There will be no way to submit things through those counter. Now, of course, maybe you're thinking, are we forcing people to use smartphones? We're not. What we're doing is that we're printing out those forms in a simplified way, kind of like a postcard, a large A4 paper, that you can fold twice into an envelope with the postage already paid. And people can print it themselves. The PDF is available online. The local community offices and so on, can just photocopy as many forms as possible. So we switched from a centralized kind of hub and spoke model into a plural model where everyone can serve as distributor of those forms. And once they fill in the forms, which is simplified and have a photocopy of the envelope of their bank account, for example, they just push it into a local postbox. And then the postpeople will deliver it into the social entrepreneurs that specialize in working with people who may be handicapped. They can't move very easily, but they still type very well, professionals. So to find them the job of digitizing very quickly all the incoming postcards. So the people who can use the website, of course, use the website, but even for people who prefer to send a postcard, their request become a website request very quickly, thanks to the very efficient mail delivery and the typing people. And so by introducing assistive intelligence, meaning instead of asking people to change their habits, we assist all the public servants along the way to reduce their burden and risk. We very quickly reimbursed pay the stipend to everyone who are eligible to such payments. So the point I'm making is that, of course, it is very difficult to change a technological stack, but it is very easy actually to introduce some plug-ins to introduce some assistive tools that do not replace anyone on the processing line, but rather reconfigure the processing line so it becomes massively parallel. And that is mostly the work we're doing in digital transformation here. That is a great idea. So replacing the kind of center database or the system architecture is always hard. So you don't focus on the scrap and build from everything. So you focus on plug-in. And assistive technology and attaching to the many plug-ins to the kind of the old-fashioned technologies. Yes, that's how the internet was built. The DNS, the email and so on were all built on such principles of polycentralism. Wow, that's a great idea. Yeah, I have the same idea, but sometimes there's no API of the center system and it's very hard to connect with the old-fashioned system sometimes. So do you see some difficulties in Taiwan too? In 2016, we changed our procurement contract template. Previously, if you build a people-facing system or website and you say it's only for people who can see, but for people who cannot see very well, well, they're doomed. If you say that as an IT vendor, you may be disqualified from government purchases. Accessibility is very important and everything needs to adapt to screen readers and many assistive tools that people with different abilities use. So we piggybacked on that existing flaws in the template and say machines are a kind of people needing accessibility help. So Json OpenAPI is a kind of screen reader and if any IT vendor built a system and say, oh, this is good only for human beings, but if you start to speak OpenAPI standard then we cannot provide service, they can also be disqualified or discriminating against robots. We don't quite say that but that's the effect. So basically by putting an API first way of designing things, this solves the dilemma of wanting the stability of the bedrock of the systems, which may be running, I don't know, DB2, hopefully not DBase 3, but very old technology, but they need to speak, Json, they need to speak OpenAPI standard. We made the OAS 3 a national standard even before OAS 3 gets released. So even when it's released candidate, we already made it a national standard. So when we fight the pandemic, we're then blessed with a lot of Lego blocks that may be repurposed very quickly. The Lego blocks of authentication of mobile IT pay us very well with the Lego block of printing the QR code for contact tracing, the SMS-based contact tracing. The system that we use to file our personal tax can be repurposed in just three days into rationing out the mask pre-registration and that system, after changing for another couple months, become a vaccine reservation system, plugging into many other APIs as well. So when you have an API first procurement contract, the IT vendors learn that they can work with startups and keep their job security because the startups specialize on the front and innovation and they can still maintain their bedrock code bases. Wow, it's beautiful story. That's great. And I totally agree with the direction, but in most of the organization, especially in the public sector, for me, it looks very, very difficult or the most it's almost impossible because the vendor controls everything. And the organization side, there is no person who are familiar with the tech to change the programming process or sends a clear requirement to the vendors. I see some kind of the structure problem in a kind of traditional organization. Taiwan is totally different. It's amazing. Yeah. And so what about outsourcing and in-house development team in the government sector? So do you have in-house tech team inside of the organization or the outsourcing everything to the IT vendors? The designers are in-house. The coders are often contracted, but there is, of course, a tendency of designers who can also code. Well, I'm a designer who code as a way to express my design. So it creates a pressure on the IT vendor because if they do not meet the deadline, for example, personally, I go in and write some code to fill in that particular part that didn't fill the deadline. And of course, this code is not meant to be maintained. So the code quality is not properly reviewed and so on. But at least it conveys the design concept across. So designers who can code not especially well and not in a maintainable way, but they can code to express their ideas. That is very, very important. And then the IT vendors are then left with no choice because the minister's code must be scrapped in order to be maintained. So they have to rewrite that part of code. But the API is already there. So they have to conform to my design. So a designer who cannot code, of course, face pushback from the IT, from the ops, and so on. But a digital designer who can code always have the upper hand. I learned that from my time in Apple, by the way. I've never heard the minister step in the project and writing a code. To push them forward. That's amazing story. Thank you. Now technology can make a big change of the traditional, indirect democracy system. I totally agree with that. But at the same time, everyone knows that technology can make a big change. But it is also not easy to change the traditional system at the same time because the people don't believe the power of the technology or the people are not familiar with the technology enough. So there is a huge gap between the technology can do and the people exactly do that or not. So what's your idea to fill the gap of the technology can do and people want to do? I think democracy itself is a social technology. When we say democracy, we actually refer to many specific forms of social collaboration. Maybe you're thinking about voting for mayors and voting for presidents. Maybe I'm thinking about participatory budgeting. Some other people may think about referendums, yet others may think of petitions and so on. And all these are democracy. They are forms of democracy. There's people working on new technologies in the democratic space, for example, citizens assembling, which like a jury, but not for court cases, but for administrative cases. There are people who experiment with sortition, random generated panels of people who deliberate and bring things back to their communities and many, many others. So when we say democracy, I think it's important to understand that it means a tendency of technologists to work on things that enable people to make decisions together. And as long as a technology can enable, make decisions together in a way that is more accepted than the technologies before, then they're contributing to democracy. I would say also that it has no direct link to digital. Digital is assistive, meaning we can help speed up or reach more people in those democratic innovations. But some of the most innovative democratic innovations, such as open space technology, although it says technology, it's really just about a full camp or bar camp or a conference where people walk from one room or another corner of the room and set agenda together and maybe use some thoughts for voting and so on. And none of this is digital. I mean, I can't think of digital ways to make it easier, but it's not inherently digital. So I think we need to make the distinction that IT's potential is large. It connects machine to machines. But when we say digital, it means connecting people with people. And that's a different class of technology, social, plural technologies. And that technology is still yet to be invested fully by people, because previously investments into the space suffer from the tragedy of the commons. Almost by nature, it has to be open source free software. So you cannot directly derive monopolistic profit from investment into such spaces. But nowadays, of course, we're seeing governments as well as venture capitalists are saying, oh, this is actually something like the early ARPA net. It's not just for military or the academia. It's also useful for ordinary people to run their communities together. And so something like a prototypical internet is now forming around such social technologies to make decisions together. So Taiwan is one of the early labs, I think, in this collaboration. But it's not about particular IT technologies. It's about particular forms of democracy that we can improve together. I see. So you intentionally use the kind of digital as a phrase to connect people, human beings. And technology is a connect machines. It is different. Wow. That's very new concept for me. In English, digitization connects machines. But digitalization connects people with an awe in it. So that's a difference from the internet of things and internet of beings. Thank you so much. That's very inspiring. And so in your kind of team is that executive team in a Taiwanese government. So how much people understand that kind of latest technology trends and the essential of the technologies? Well, as we know, the best way to predict the trend of technology is to create it yourselves. So we believe in lowering the cost of experimenting with new forms of technologies. For example, when people care about the air pollution PM 2.5, instead of waiting for the government to expand on the network of PM 2.5 sensing stations, which in 2014, there were less than 100 people just built their own based on Arduino on Raspberry Pi on many other open hardware designs and very simple sensors that individually may be inaccurate. But when tens of thousands of people participate together, it paints a very accurate picture of PM 2.5 and other air pollution metrics. And so this is what I call a people-public-private partnership, meaning that it starts with the social sector, with people experimenting, the maker community experimenting with new ways of sensing the weather and pollution together. And once they gather the data, they gain legitimacy vis-a-vis the government, because when students, parents want to decide whether they want to run jog in the morning, they of course trust their own balcony or their child's school instead of many kilometers away at the government's weather station on the air pollution metrics. And once they gain legitimacy, they then gain political capital. And the government, because we're a liberal democracy after all, we say, yeah, we can't beat them. We must join them. So then we take the specification as created by the society and ask the hard to reach places such as industrial parks because we own the lamps there to adopt exactly the same PM 2.5 air boxes as the design of the community. And of course, we also help on lowering the cost, calibrating the precision, hardening against cybersecurity attacks, and so on. That's what the government can contribute. And then the private sector, far from capturing the regulation or far from monopolizing the manufacturing, they can then build a impact economy based on the amelioration of those pollutions based on measuring accurately the polluters and then sell green and upcycling and circular economy industry instead of selling turkeys to evade the governmental inspection. So in a more pro-social way, we build the economy for the better, starting from the social sector norms. So we emphasize the importance of accessibility and the importance of co-creation, especially in the basic education. In the next topic, I'm going to focus on the people mindset, especially about the new technologies. Let me give you the one example. In Japan, we still see kind of many digitized information posted on the government website with PDA format. And it's really hard for the machines to read. And it is not familiar with the human beings because it says very complicated Japanese phrases, old-fashioned Japanese phrases. For the most of people, it is really hard to understand. It's just long PDA format. In 2020, now 2022, in the internet era, I don't think it makes sense for the most of people. And I think the root cause of the issue comes from the people mindset in the organization. The announcement from the government have done on the paper for a long time. And it is what people are familiar with. And there are some rules and regulations. So it is really hard to break and change the rules or the mindset. And we are behind against the speed of the evolving technologies. We can provide better services with latest technologies, but mindset is still far behind. And I see the gap yet. So do you see similar gap in Taiwan too? Well, I'm not against PDF. When you get a vaccine shot in Taiwan, of course, the entire record is kept in the NIIS, the NIS system, which is entirely structured. You can very easily download it with the personal app of the National Health Insurance Administration's NHI Express app and so on. But at the end of the day, if you want to travel abroad and you go to DVC for digital vaccination certificate, dvc.mohw.gov.tw, authenticate using FIDO or using your national health card number, and then click make a certificate. That's still a PDF. So we're not against PDF because it looks very pretty. It looks official. It has this mark, this seal, this air of official NIS legitimacy on it. But of course, equally important is that prominent in that PDF is a QR code corresponding to the EU DCC, so that you can actually cut down everything else and just keep that QR code. It carries the same legitimacy anyway. We make sure that our verifier is a progressive web application, so you don't have to download it. It's agnostic on your web browser and so on. It's open source, MIT licensed. So you can actually fork our vaccine credential checker and to integrate it with your own workflow and so on. And of course, there's already integrations of the Google Pay and Apple Pay wallets and many more. So while the form looks like the PDF, just to make people feel safer so that they can print it as a fallback. If they don't have a phone, if their phone runs out of battery, at least they can take out that printed PDF and show the same QR code and they feel much safer for it. But it does not exclude newer applications based on those QR codes. So I say why not have both, right? Let's have the PDF, but have the PDF carrying structural data with electronic signature verified on open source technologies and so people can bring whatever workflow they want into it. Thank you. The PDF carrying the structure of data and this will signify totally different than what I told you. And so last week, I had to go to the San Francisco to get the resident certification and I downloaded the PDF, but I can write down my personal information on the digitalized PDF, but it's just for printing out. So it's a PDF, but just digitalized copy of the old fashioned paper format. Yeah, maybe we call it PDF 1.0 and the PDF I'm talking about PDF 3.0 or something. Yep. So the latest technology will help to reduce the cost of the operation and provide a better service, a user experience to the customers. But people's mindset still stays on all the fashions. I'm not sure, but I still don't find a good way to break this loop of the chain. It's not easy to change. Yeah, I never break people's mindset. I always do incremental contributions. So it's about harmless coexistence. The people who are used to paper would not mind if the paper suddenly have some QR code on it. I mean, they just skip that, right? But for us, of course, the QR code is the only important thing in that paper. So by piggybacking on existing vehicles, we make sure that people feel comfortable, and that's the most important thing. When we rationing out the mask on convenience stores, my grandma said that my plan, initial plan of using ATM and debit card is a bad plan. She's almost 90 years old now, and her young friends, 77 years old, feel that the ATM is a dangerous place. They only use ATM to withdraw cash, but they never use ATM to wire money. They always go to the post office or the bank and write on a piece of paper because they were afraid if they type just one digit wrong, their entire saving will be gone. So when we initially designed the mask rationing, preregistration, and ordering to be on the ATM machine and just wiring a few dollars to get a receipt, and you can redeem that for a mask the next week, they said they will never use it. They will rather go back to pharmacy to queue in line. And that's when we change the kiosks, the workload, so that they can use exactly the same national health card. No pass were required, and no money wired in the kiosk. So they just insert their national health card and get a receipt, and they can pay in cash, counting the coins on the counter in the convenience store. And then they're happy to go to the convenience store for mask preregistration in 2020. That was April. So the point is that it may seem less effective. It's probably less efficient, but it's actually better because then the people who have co-created together the 77-year-old grandma Yang, she's a community key opinion leader. So she will then teach the 66-year-olds and 55-year-olds and so on and rally everyone into this new way because she participated in the co-creation and she is happy and she doesn't feel that her expectation of the ATM is broken and so on. So I think social innovation begins by empowering people closest to the pain, regardless of what we think as effective or efficient. Thank you. So my mistake was I was trying to make a kind of big jump. Instead of that, the incremental approach, incremental improvement step by step, it's a good way to navigate the people for the new technologies. Thank you so much for your advice. That's a great, great story. You established a research company as an entrepreneur and now you are leading the country. That's amazing career for us. Could you share your view about the career and advice for the audiences? I think I'm just a person who can code. As I mentioned, I code as a way to express my design ideas and brief and sketches and so on. And I think identifying with particular experiences is fine. I said I started programming when I was eight. That was fine. But I would not say when I was eight, I become a programmer. I would not say that because defining oneself in one's profession may be great career-wise, but when new situation comes and your basically forced to adapt your line of work because you want to adapt to the actual societal needs, then you will then have to take different sides. You will have to take the sides that you were less familiar with. You may actually have to understand the MBA's language or the designer's language or the quality assurance, customer success, many other languages. But it's important to see them as what they are like languages. It's just running like the laws and regulations, running on a different virtual machine. So keep your computational thinking mindset, keep your design thinking mindset, but do not define yourself into being too tightly coupled to particular instruction sets. And once you become portable, I think that's the word. You become portable in your experiences. You will find that far more than we imagined, whatever we learned in the software engineering profession, the key about refactoring, about forking, about merging and things like that, about collaboration, it can actually port very well into politics, into commerce, into many other areas. So keep agile and keep portable. Thank you so much. Yeah, we are using the CTO as a kind of the key phrase of our community. But as the advice, so we can put our technology knowledge at the center of our skill, but we have to open up our eyes to the outside of the technologies and to connect the people and the world. Yeah, thank you for a great advice. Finally, could you give us some key message about the how to adapt the changes or the how to make impact on the team's organizational society? I would like to invite you to think of ourselves as good enough ancestors. Most of the work that are going to be done are going to be done by next generations. If we are humble enough, we must be good enough instead of perfect, because we can actually not be perfect. And even if we are, it leaves less room for the next generation to innovate. So to quote my favorite poet, Lena Cohen, ring the bells that still can ring. Forget your perfect offering. For there is a crack, a crack in everything. And that is how the light gets in. Thank you for listening. Live long and prosper. Thank you so much. Yeah, we really appreciate you to take your precious time for us. And thank you so much for today. Thank you. Arigato gozaimashita. Arigato gozaimashita. Thank you so much.