Magnifica Humanitas, Abundance of Relations, Limits of Claude & Kimi, Bus Ticket Theory

Burn Roberts, Mr. RR. Yeah, it's Abadison. How's it growing over there? Very good. I realize as I say that you're more pirate-like than I previously imagined. RR. But is that because you're getting to know me better as well? That there's some, perhaps some dreaded Pirate Roberts inheritance that I've picked up somewhere? I think so, maybe. But it's, you know, yeah, I would say you're not very pirate-like in that you're going and commandeering ships, but you are pirate-like in the Dread Pirate Roberts stepping into various characters. Yeah, you know, like I've often kind of maybe romanticized the idea of pirates, like a lot of people, obviously, in our recent era. However, you know, that does seem to have been quite a forward-thinking approach to how they organized their community. And that kind of openness to, like actually explore the idea of meritocracy at a time when it was very much feudal rule in Europe. So there's definitely something to that. And I think there's some core fundamental beliefs that kind of run through, yeah, how I approach things. And particularly that rebellious nature of things. Like if something isn't working in the current system, how can you kind of work around to get to it? But no, I have not accommodated any actual boats. Love your ability to take a seemingly random thing and say, hmm, I really love their approach to like find a particular group's approach to society really interesting and intriguing. Yeah. So like their ability to, for ships to operate, it wasn't just top down because, you know, a lot of these pirates actually came from operating within the, you know, Spanish and British armadas. And, you know, that was very top hierarchy approach. And so when these pirates broke out, they broke out of that model as well. So the way in which they ran their ships was very much one of kind of meritocracy in many ways, rather than orthocratic. Autocratic. That's not quite right. Autocratic. Autocratic. Autocratic. Autocratic. Autocratic. And then, and then like their ability to understand experience almost, I mean, this, this sounds ridiculous, but pirates experience design, their ability to go into conflict and create this sense of scariness so that they actually wouldn't have to fight as much, which in a way is kind of like a samurai. Actually, you know, the whole samurai tradition was, you know, the fighting is, is the last bit. So the ability to kind of look scary and menacing and kind of, you know, very, very different than what people are used to let them kind of lower their weapons before that fight even started. And did you know, I don't know why this is, this is a great tangent to kick off with, but do you like speaking of tools actually do know the story of the eye patch? Actually do, but I would love it if you would. It's funny that we both know this. But maybe we know different stories. Hit me. Well, in addition to an eye patch being one of those kind of medicine aspects that kind of automatically goes, oh man, these guys must be serious. He must have lost an eye or something. They actually used the eye patch to do battle as soon as they switched from above deck to below deck. So they basically had one eye that was ready for the darkness and one eye that was ready for above the lightness, essentially. So what a fascinating, simple tool in many ways. And I often wonder about that. And I have to say, I have spent an entire day wearing an eye patch just to see what that was like. It's a really interesting point to talk about this, like being scary. It's in, I don't want to take the conversation here specifically, but like it's terrorism tactics to create fear. And it's also what happens in the animal kingdom. Most animals will roar or do something because life is precious, right? You want to conserve the precious resource. And so you escalate slowly, right? Two lions don't go at it straight away. They roar at each other. And a lot of the time, the louder one wins or the other one backs down without it happening. And it happens across cultures. Like you talk about samurai. I know that in New Zealand as well, a lot of the tradition is like the haka is a show of strength and appreciation and respect. And it also meant that people didn't have to, like a lot of the time, I think before British arrived, my understanding is that most battles were not like there weren't that many casualties. It was mostly not performative, but like a display of this is what is possible, but maybe one or two people would die in an encounter. But people were not wanting to go and slaughter the other side. They wanted to live peacefully and they wanted to like dispute things in a way that was not catastrophic. And now we have so much less like nuanced argument, I think, or just more ability to cause destruction. Uplifting note to get us hicked up front. Yeah. Whoops. All right. Let's get stuck into the news. Into the news. The news for the week. Check in time. So. Would you, would you like to kick us off with a piece of news? Yeah, sure. I would love to actually. So there's two pieces of news that really jumped out to me this week. One of which seems to have been blowing up on the socials a bit more this week, which is the Pope's quite extensive kind of, I believe they call it. I'm going to, I'm going to muck this up. So sorry for any, any, anyone listening that is of this order, but an, an encyclical. So the, the Pope has published an encyclical called the Magnifica Humanitas. And it's basically a 45 page document outlining the church's position on human relationships within an age of AI. And there's a few really interesting kind of aspects of it. I haven't had a chance to pour through it personally myself, but I have kind of pulled out some of the top notes that, that seem to be emerging. So I'm happy to get kind of stuck into this in a little bit more detail. Actually, let me, let me, let me bring up a few talking points and then maybe we can save a few more till later in the, in the podcast. Okay. But one of the main talking points he talks about is these kind of different approaches to building society. And the language that he uses is the difference between Babel and versus Jerusalem. And so this, the kind of story of the history of Babel was very much around this idea of one language, one metric efficiency for all humans reduced to data, which obviously sounds quite similar to the age that we're in right now versus Jerusalem, which was rebuilt piece by piece by families, artisans and priests. So, um, the whole Jerusalem piece was very much around diversity is the resource, not the noise part of it. Um, and I think you can obviously see the, the, the similarities in the position that we're in today. Um, and our ability to take both approaches, um, seems to be quite, quite clear. So I think he's, he's done quite well at pointing at stories in the past that really pronounce this, this walk in the road that we're at. Um, one of the, uh, I'd say, all right, there's two, there's two other points that he kind of calls, he, he points to in the kind of interconnected. And one is this idea that, um, it's, it's just the tool. And he kind of denounces the fact that AI is never neutral or a tool is never neutral. Uh, it really takes on the characteristics of who finances it, who designs it, and then who deploys it. And, um, so I think he uses it. Yeah. And then how it's used. So he's really kind of highlighting, um, that there is responsibility, um, for, for people with this, not to say it's just a tool, but actually, um, holding people to accountability in a sense. And, and then like as a bit of an extension of this, he talks about this idea of, uh, data colonialism. And so the new, the new oil is data and it's been harvested, um, you know, people's health data, genetic profiles, demographic intelligence. Um, uh, uh, and a lot of these, um, data pieces, uh, aggregating to a very small few. And so he's kind of looking at that as the new version of colonialism in a sense. And how can we, um, how can we, uh, you know, open, open this up? Um, so it's, it's, it's not a, it's not a similar story from what we've been through. Yeah. But yeah, there's several other points, but I think it'll actually tie in quite nicely with the deep dive later today. A couple of things that jump out at me, um, when we talk about this is like, um, we're talking about AI. AI as this super tool and people are debating it's, um, whether or not it's, uh, got its own soul, whether or not it's, um, sentient, that kind of thing. Right now it's, it's a transformer architecture. It's, um, condensing a bunch of knowledge. It's condensing a bunch of letters and numbers. And when you give it letters and numbers, it gives you back probabilistically letters and numbers based on all of this information. So it's literally a tool. Imagine if it didn't go past this point and we are like idolizing and eventually evangelizing this thing that is essentially a hammer, you know? Like imagine if we did this with other tools in history, I think this is a very different tool than the nature of it is very different. And we're projecting our own, um, uh, desire to, to be efficient and, uh, like gods to create things. Um, but also it's, it's showing right now to be a very useful thing. And especially in a world where this is the other thing that kind of jumps out at me is that we, um, as humans have all of these parts of us, we're very nuanced, we're very complicated. And, um, it's this difference between Babel and Jerusalem is like Jerusalem is the nuanced artesian leaning into what it is to be human and all of the aspects of that. And Babel is a very authoritarian, uh, um, not authoritarian, sorry, utilitarian, um, way of looking at the world. It's, it's binary, it's black and white. It's, oh, we need to, um, move a brick from here to here. Cool. There is an efficient way to do that. There's no, there doesn't need to be nuance in that. And I think we often lean too heavily into, or we'd lean very heavily into, um, how we can get things done really quickly. And I think potentially that is a passing wave that that will be realized, uh, that we as a society will realize that the utility of something is just one aspect. And maybe that's not where all the value will accrue, especially when that is abundant, when you can do any of these things. Um, yeah. Yeah. It's like, I mean, also in this, I think it's, it's quite incredible that, um, you know, one person, and of course, as, as someone that kind of is the figurehead for an entire, um, religious order, but, you know, can put something like this out. And, um, and, and, and, you know, hopefully people kind of heed some of the insights in here. I'm, I'm, you know, after reading this, I was actually curious. I haven't looked it up, but if the Dalai Lama has posted anything, um, and I've, I've often thought over the years, like there's not too many people on this planet. Um, that really hold a global perspective and one that is, you know, largely for, for the, the, the, the, the, the betterment of everyone and everything. Um, there's a very few figureheads around that. There's, there's a lot that are very much focused on the nation level or organizational or personal, but, um, yeah, very few on that kind of global, um, cultural side of things. Uh, which, yeah, I think is a really fascinating, uh, position to be in. And it's, it's, it's, it's, yeah, it's great to see that they're actually starting to put some things out there. Yeah. Um, what, what news, what news, uh, what news are you bringing to the table today? What's a good signal that you picked up on? Um, it's been, uh, I think this is just the start of a lot of news of this nature, but there's, um, a piece of news come out last week about open AI, one of opening eyes models, um, solving a longstanding math problem. Um, it's called a dos, uh, or a dos is proof. Um, and I might be mispronouncing that. Um, but the interesting thing here for me was that this is a math problem that mathematicians themselves, uh, like career mathematicians are coming and, uh, commenting on this and saying that the proof that the model wrote is nuanced and interesting and elegant. Um, and what the critique from mathematicians has been in the past is, oh yeah, if you can work at a rate that is a billion times faster than a human, of course, eventually you're going to find a solution to something. Um, this math problem has been, uh, has not been improved upon for like 80 years. Um, and now this AI model has come and applied a lot of different, uh, combinations and, um, it introduced, um, algebraic number theory and basically just tried a lot of different ways to solve this math problem and came up with something that is novel and interesting. Um, and I think as we, yeah, as we get deeper into this technology, there are lots of these problems that, uh, um, that humans have come up with a, as good as we can solution to. Um, and now we're seeing that tools can outperform humans at the edges, um, which I thought was really interesting. Yeah, it's incredible. And I like, I did a little bit of research on this Erdos, uh, character and, um, this problem that was solved was number 1196 of the problems that this guy has kind of identified. And I think he was at his prime in the 1940s. Um, so, you know, he, he, there's a lot of these longstanding problems that he kind of under, which are like classic mathematical problems that it hasn't been much breakthrough. So, I mean, I want to study this guy who even was able to find these, these, these problems that need needed to be solved at such a deep level that, you know, even with the advancements in calculation, we've only just been able to, uh, bridge. Um, but there's, there seems to be a handful of breakthroughs just this year on the mathematical side. And, uh, yeah, this is a fascinating era of solving everything from mathematics to physics to, um, to, you know, genetics and health and yeah, there's, yeah, we're just at the start of it. Um, yeah. I think that there's a really interesting space in the intersection between theoretical problems and the real world. Like you have applied math, applied physics. Um, there are a lot of people working on or who have been working on theoretical, uh, things and getting into the academic nature of say math. But I think there's a massive open space for, all right, now we can solve problems like that with a tool. How do you apply that? Where in the world does that apply? What are the different, um, parts of the world that we can apply this kind of solution to? And how do we do it in a way that is simple and effective and like, yeah, it might be better than what the other solution was, but what is the kind of friction between applying this new version of a solution and what we've already got? Cause, um, yeah, I think there's a wide open space there for a lot of people to, to come in and implement these solutions, like really stand on the shoulders of giants, so to speak. Totally. Yeah. And, you know, even, even one of the mathematical breakthroughs, uh, last year, late last year, for instance, was, was done by a 17 year old. So, you know, in addition to these actually being solved that like, I think we're going to find them being solved by a younger generation that is able to think more, uh, divergently and broadly from the outset using these new tools rather than if I'm a career mathematician or if I'm a career or anything and I've spent 30, 40, 50 years practicing a certain way and these new tools come in, you're like, what? And there's a huge kind of learning curve and rewiring of that. And, um, yeah, I'm just so excited to see what, what more of, of, you know, the, the, the, I mean, calling them AI natives, but, um, yeah, when you're working with these tools in good balance, um, they can, uh, what, what, what, what can be achieved? Yeah. Any more news stories from you this week? Yes. Otherwise, so the other one that jumped out for me this week is a Chinese company who has reportedly come up with a collar for dogs and cats that can translate the, uh, from pets to humans and from humans to pets with 95% accuracy. They're in pre-sales and apparently they've sold over 10,000 pre-sale units so far. Uh, and from what I can see from their website and, um, their videos, their translations are basically, I want food. I want to play and I want to cuddle, which pretty much sounds like, um, a lot of pets, but I'd be really curious to get under the hood and, and see like, you know, how they're actually, uh, making these translations. And, you know, even I think maybe the more interesting part is what, what if we were to translate a bit of very sophisticated or like some poetry from human to pet, how might that be translated? Um, rather than just like a basic, basic command. So I'm already looking at, you know, how can we, how can we help with this a bit? But for me that, that, that, that was, that's, this is like pretty groundbreaking news. And we're going to be starting to see a lot more of this, even if it is, um, not necessarily accurate. The fact that they've got 10,000 pre-orders for something like this means that there is a demand for this. And, um, the, the, the larger the user base, the quicker they're going to get to a point where they actually can translate 95% accuracy in a way. Cause, um, we're, we're seeing that once you have enough training data, you can really start to recognize the buttons and the nuances. And, um, we, we know that, that animals are vocalizing, um, in certain instances. So yeah, I think, you know, this, this, this prediction I made, um, a couple of weeks ago about being able to communicate with the birds that just arrived at my place and welcoming them. Yeah. I think we might not actually be too far away from it. And, uh, I'd love to see how maybe we could get involved in this in some capacity as well with animates. Interesting. Yeah. Okay. Um, yeah. Yeah. It also makes me think like, yes, for animates and, uh, how do we see other opportunities that have been introduced in movies across the last hundred years? Um, you know, we got the Jetsons, we got the Star Trek, we got Dr. Doolittle, like what other interesting concepts that are fictional would be really cool? Yeah. Well, there is a, there is a saying in the industry right now where we're speed running all sci-fi scenarios all at once, everything, everywhere, all at once. Um, well that, that movie as well, but also like we're speed running all of these sci-fi scenarios that, um, you know, have been imagined over the last, let's say 150 years. Um, because they're out there in the cultural zeitgeist, there's, there's people working towards them. So, um, yeah, I think it's going to be a super fascinating decade. I mean, it already is, but it will continue to be so, um, which, which then begs the question like, all right, where does, where does sci-fi emerge from here as well? Like what, where does it go directionally? Um, yeah. Yeah. Ooh. Okay. Um, to be continued. All right. Another piece of news. Another piece of news for you? Another piece of news for me. Um, and I just want to touch on this one quickly, cause I think it's interesting. So we've got workforce layoffs, uh, that've been happening for a long time. Um, especially in the tech space, there are often companies from COVID, um, all the way through to now doing big workforce layoffs. Intuit recently, uh, announced that they were laying off about 3000 people, 17% of the workforce, um, which is big. Uh, although there's some nuance here and why companies do this. And a lot of the time, um, tech companies will use say COVID as a reason to just clean house to say, all right, we would like some turnover in our workforce. And it's not uncommon to have turnover anyway, just to put this in perspective. Um, but it is showing that continually companies are, uh, doing more with less people and just changing the makeup of their workforce. Um, and it's an accelerated, uh, version of what might've happened anyway. Um, when you have more efficient tools and it's also the first time that a, uh, Western leader of sorts has stepped in and done something. So Gavin Newsom, um, who I believe is the governor, governor of California. Um, but I'm not, uh, up to speed with us politics. So, um, forgive me if this is incorrect, but, uh, has come in and signed an executive order for, um, looking at, uh, how we can expand or they can expand worker protections. Um, and this is finally following in the footsteps of, uh, Chinese national policy, uh, that we talked about last week of the week before, um, which was about that you can't replace a worker with AI. Um, you can only enhance them. Uh, so I think it'll be interesting to see how this plays out in the U S. Yeah. Yeah. Again, how does it meet the, how does it, yeah. How does it come into play in, in, in the actual market? And, um, you know, I'd say the, the big difference between maybe the Chinese and the U S markets is the legal system. So, um, you know, I, I guess we can probably presume a lot more legal cases being drawn through the, uh, the system in the U S before this really gets adoption. Um, yeah. And even that, like, you know, how, how, how many of the AI tools are now being adopted by their legal system in the U S to improve access and efficiency and, um, you know, just actually better, better outcomes. But yeah, yeah, this, this, this, this whole thing, um, is, is going to be a great to watch from afar, I would say. Yeah. Yeah. And it's also, it, it begs the question, like you say, better outcomes, maybe they're better outcomes, but maybe in some industries, this tool is a speed bump is, uh, like, I think tool adoption is, is an interesting one to, um, be aware of and specifically in legal. Like, uh, you, if you want to draft, say an agreement, an AI might hallucinate a paragraph in an agreement and then in the next iteration of it, it will drop it. And then in the next, next iteration, it'll have a back there. So I see that, um, adopting a new tool into a profession. Yeah. It might speed up a bunch of legal work and research. Also that might create, um, some, some more friction in places where professions aren't used to having friction. Um, and so it's just like, there's all of these real world, um, kind of frictions that we sometimes overlook when we think about things theoretically, um, just because our brains aren't capable of holding that much information at the same time. Yeah. Well, there's actually been a study that was recently released, um, highlighting how much AI output people are considering their own work. They're like, wow, cause I wrote the prompt, the output is kind of, you know, my, my thoughts and therefore actually not needing to go through it in fine detail and really be critically analyzing it. And as a result, like obviously neglecting large parts of it. And, uh, yeah, it's, it's, it's, it's clearly, you know, part of the, the, the t-themed process, part of this, uh, tool adoption. Um, but, um, yeah, I think we'll, we'll, we'll find the, we'll find the right balance. Um, any more news from you? No, I, I mean, there's a bunch of other things that kind of jumped out, but I'm, I'm actually happy to move on to tools and, and, uh, uh, rather than new model releases and yeah, I got, I got one more, uh, funny one, um, please kind of a meta piece of news. So there's something called bench bench, bench bench bench bench is, uh, so we've got all these, these benchmarks for testing AI models for doing different tasks. Bench bench tests how good AI models are at creating benchmarks. So it looks at the model's ability to be self-aware and it tests creativity and not just problem solving ability. Um, so I thought that was pretty funny that, uh, it's like, it's the story of recursive self-improvement and then, um, kind of also the decoupling of, uh, the AI economy from the real world economy and like how good do these tools need to be before they can test themselves and create ways of testing themselves and, uh, benchmark that against human made benchmarks. Um, I definitely want to play around with bench bench. Yes. All right. Uh, I'm just, I'm just picturing all of these. It's, it's funny. You've got these tech bros that are all about bench pressing, and then you've got these other version of the tech bros that are all about benchmarks. And then somewhere these two will meet, uh, and maybe it's at a calisthenic gym outside rather than a inside gym with barbells. It's like a, yeah, we start creating videos for these things. I'm sure. I quite like climbing and the overlap between, uh, software engineers and climbers is like a crazy large Venn diagram. Um, something about problem solving. Mm. Yeah. So yeah, it's really interesting to see. And then you have other, other characters coming in as well, but yeah, there's this, there's this, um, funny affinity. All right. Tools. Tools, tools, tools, tools. Tools, tools, tools. Um, ties, tool time. Um, so. All right. I think it's time we actually make up a proper soundboard for some of these sections. Bloop. Um, I quite like the idea of keeping it human though. So like we come up with a sound and then, uh, we get the variation. All right. Well, for tool time, you need to come up with a more convincing sound. Um, and I'll, I'll work on, uh, rabbit holes. Please, please do. You've got, uh, two sections. Yeah, exactly. I've got two sections that are like in, in the back process, some random sound that could represent rabbits and holes. Okay. Uh, ties, tool time. So, um, I want to kick off by talking about, uh, no, by doubling down on that. Mostly I've been using the same tools, um, using, uh, Opus, uh, Claude Opus 4.7, which is, um, continuing to impress me. I've noticed that I'm getting used to using the tool and I kind of know its limitations now. And if it's doing something that I don't, uh, if we're going down a rabbit hole, I'm much better now at slowing it down and saying, actually, no, I don't want to do that. Um, I'm also often pleasantly surprised at its ability to, um, to be autonomous, to do things, to, to not necessarily make decisions, but help me explore the problem space. Um, I like to explore all sorts of things, tools, places, ideas. Um, and I think AI's ability to, to help that exploration is really interesting. Um, so to dive in here a little bit, we have been for a project that we're working on, uh, land library and land book, um, been digging into different historical data sets. Um, and some of those data sets, uh, um, in Portugal looking at, um, uh, like government websites that are really, or like national websites that are really old and use like, um, PHP as the, um, kind of underlying structure of it. Just like old ways of communicating and accessing data, um, and working with Claude to say, Hey, there's this information that I'd like to work with. How do I best go about that? And actually letting it say, do all of the research and say, ah, these are the pieces of information that are available. This is kind of what's missing. These are the parts where we might run into problems. And then, um, working with it to kind of brainstorm an approach and letting it, uh, come up with some ways to kind of probe or test things. Um, and so I've been running like, uh, smoke tests on things like saying, all right, we're going to run this script that will hit these endpoints. And when we hit the endpoints, we're going to need to ask for data in this format, but we don't actually know what format we need to ask for it. And so let's, um, create kind of five to 10 different, um, messages that would ask this endpoint for data, um, and see what we get back. And in that way, I've been testing and probing and being able to, um, find and surface this data that otherwise, uh, I spent, I mean, we both spent a couple of hours each. Um, yeah. Is this something you want to chime in here or? No, I mean, we got frustrated at spending a couple of hours on it, but there's people that have spent their entire careers using these, these, these information portals. And it's like, I mean, like looking at the design of them and it's pretty much every country around the world, every, you know, governmental organization, it's, it's almost as though they build the systems to not be user-friendly so that people don't access the information. Um, so yeah, that ability to kind of go in and play for a few hours, be like, this is not the way. And then, um, kind of figure out, uh, an effective side door. And then, you know, in a relatively short period of time, actually come up with something that is way more presentable and insightful and just like, oh, this is wow. This is. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Data. The value of data is its accessibility and your ability to query it and ask your questions. And that has been very concentrated to people who know the infrastructure, know how to use the tools, know how to use all of these, um, yeah, methods of working with data. And it was making me want to be like making me wish that I studied data science. I have a rooted, rudimentary understanding of data science and I know what I would like to get out of it. Um, but every single day I'm learning things and I'm, I'm going like, if I had, uh, studied this in more detail, I would probably already know, uh, a lot of the ways that I want to approach this. And then it's the ability to combine that knowledge with these tools of being able to extract the data and, and put it in a different place and work with it and, um, kind of surface it in a way that is useful. Well, I mean, I will say that studying it as you're actively working through it seems to be a, a, actually really great way of, of, of learning. Um, I, I did, I mean, this is back in high school, but I did a computer science degree, uh, or, uh, class, not a degree, computer science class in high school. And so I learned some of the basic aspects of it, but because it was so theoretical, um, this, when you're actually learning as you're going through the process, particularly in this age, I think it's, it's, it's almost worth like exploring it now, as opposed to having that, that deep understanding of it and kind of being locked into the, oh, this is the way it should be. And having this very pure perspective of, of computer science, um, and also how information is then presented similarly with, um, information architecture and, and data visualization. These, these are quite, um, old, uh, ways of doing things, um, and coming up with new ways to design, uh, dashboards and ways to interpret data and making, making it easily accessible. Um, I mean, with this land library project in particular, we're, we're taking this data and we're presenting it in a very public facing way. So it is more accessible and hopefully can start to inform a bunch of decisions as opposed to, um, putting it behind a paywall. So, um, yeah, definitely excited to see how we continue to explore that. Um, any other kind of specific tool based kind of insights this week for you? Specifically the, the tech tools. I'm going to say no. Um, something that did come up is, and we're talking about this just before we started recording is I, before starting to record podcasts, bought a microphone and it was a good quality microphone. And I thought that I needed the tool in order to do the thing. Um, and maybe this is just a me thing, but I think that it's quite universal or it's a good way of telling yourself that you can't do something because you don't have the right tools. And what I realized is that I bought the microphone and then I started recording podcasts without needing the microphone. Like, uh, if you're listening to this, you'll be able to hear that our voices, uh, maybe not as crystal clear as some or as they could be, but they're much, they're not crackly. They're much better than, uh, what I would have assumed. And again, there, there are now tools and technologies, um, specifically like AI, uh, audio cleaning and filtering that will get a recording through AirPods or through a computer microphone that almost sounds studio quality. Um, and so the insight for me there was you don't, you need the confidence to start doing the thing. And once you've started, then you can assess the, uh, the quality of it and whether or not you need to upgrade. Most fields don't require, uh, like the best piece of the best tool, the best piece of technology in order to just start. Um, but I thought that I needed to buy a microphone to start doing a podcast. And so I'm going to try and apply that to other things. Um, or I have been applying that to other things. Like I know when I, I got into climbing because someone gave me an old pair of climbing shoes, I wouldn't have got into it without some form of the tool. Um, but it also touches on this, like just not trying to make things perfect, just building something that is good enough to test and to use and to get a feeling of whether or not it's worth doubling down or reinvesting in something. Yeah. I think the word you're like, I think the, the, the piece is really investment, right? And the, the tool is such an easy, like such an easy early investment in something. Um, like I, I noticed this even with, um, different, like more physical tools, uh, if I want to learn like a different type of woodwork or, um, I've been starting to learn, uh, cement carving in, in stone carving in, in Bali. And my, my initial thing was, all right, I need to go and get the set of tools that all these guys use. And, you know, they're very simple, but my initial thing was rather than just going up and showing up with them, like I wanted to have a set of my own tools to start with. And it was, it's a little bit like I've invested this much in it and maybe the investment is a bit misguided in the sense of like, Oh, I'm going to buy the best microphone that everyone else is saying works really well versus maybe starting with like a small, like one tool or one very narrow piece and, and go from there. Um, I, I can definitely relate on the microphone piece. I've, I've kind of used, um, tool, tool buying and microphones as the ultimate procrastination form of not starting a podcast. Cause I don't feel like I quite have the right setup. And I, you know, I bought a set of, and I didn't buy top end, but I bought a set of, um, wireless microphones that you can kind of plug in. And then in order to even just do this, it requires a bunch of different wires and, you know, earphones to add to like, so I can probably hear the conversation. And then I needed an extra cable. And so I have all of these things just over there and you know, the idea of setting them up and having wires everywhere is like, and then I just invested in this new pair of, uh, earbud headphones. I think they're Huawei pro fives or something. And, uh, yeah, the audio quality is, is, is much better than the nothing earbuds that I was using for microphones yet. But I'm only using these, uh, earbuds for podcasts and I use my other ones just for, for listening. So I can enable these to, to stay charged and ready for things like this. Um, but yeah, I, I think we're also seeing the tools changing in front of us. I mean, you were just also talking about, actually, do you want to talk about the, um, the ring light tool that's emerging? Oh yeah. Okay. So this was another one. Um, and I think this is a perfect example of me learning this thing is I went, uh, in order to record a podcast, I would like to be like, have my face lit. Uh, I definitely need a ring light and it's the procrastination of, Oh, when I buy it, it's going to take another two weeks to get here. And so I can't start now. Uh, and so I was looking into ring lights and then I saw, it was like a little serendipity. I saw that in the last, uh, Apple update, they had, um, a feature where on the screen, you can turn on a ring light so that it lights up the edge of your screen with bright LED type, uh, lighting and you can change the temperature of it as well so that it lights up your face. Um, like this is a fantastic example of not needing a ring light because the tool that you already have is good enough. Um, yeah. And if you buy a ring light, you need to get the stand for the ring light and it comes with a whole bunch of other things. So, I mean, I think it's great that, uh, you know, Apple is kind of innovated on that front, but, uh, is that what are you using right now to light up that mug of yours? Like I think that a ring light is still probably a better, uh, when you, when you, when you say regular light, we're talking like Pixar style kind of desk lamp. It's a Pixar desk lamp. In fact, I, I actually can't see myself cause I get distracted. See this lamp here? It's one of those. I have, uh, yeah, it's, it's very much just a lamp. Um, but it works sort of. I'm not sure how the lamp would feel about you saying that. Uh, I think it's just a tool. It might have higher aspirations, you know, these, these, these tools to focus on enlightenment as a path. So perhaps, perhaps there's a very deep spiritual relevance to the lamps around us. Um, anyway, we, we digress. I, um, so I can't, uh, a few of the tools that kind of actually, something you touched on just before I've, I've been noticing some of the limitations of my tools this week. Um, and so for the first time I asked Kimmy K 2.6 something and it said, I can't do that. I was like, oh, interesting. And what I asked it was. Um, I would like some help in building a, uh, a full health stack in terms of, um, in terms of supplements, in terms of, um, uh, like inputs. So I had a conversation with my dad when I was visiting him a couple of weeks ago and he's gone quite deep into the whole health. He, I mean, he's looking great. He's in his, he's in his sixties and he's actually, he might even be in his seventies. Whoops. Um, and, but he's, he's looking great. He's working out every day. He's, I think he's got better abs than I do right now. Um, he cold plunges and he was telling me about, uh, he's, he's shifted the last couple of years from, uh, protein powders because as you get older as a man, it gets, as you get older for anyone, it's, it's harder to retain muscle. So he actually got onto, uh, a product called perfect amino, which is more about an amino acid, uh, supplementary, uh, regime as opposed to just a pure protein, whey protein, uh, plant protein piece. And he's saying the, he was saying the absorption rate of amino acids is much, much higher. So it's a much better form of, uh, uh, um, to, to build muscle. So I was like, all right, I want to explore a new full stack. And Kimmy said, I can't do it. You need to go talk to a clinician. I was like, wow, crazy. When did that come in? Cause for sure I've, I've asked similar questions like this in the past and it's been fine. And so, um, that's kind of start started me to, to reconsider like, all right, what, what are the limitations of some of these cloud systems? Um, and you know, how much of this should actually be brought, be brought on to local systems that can then kind of go up and, and grow the internet and crawl and stuff like that. Um, and, uh, yeah. And then my other limitation this week was specifically with, uh, one of my design tools, Google stitch, which has been making some incredible improvements in the way that it does design. But for me, at least the output, or maybe I'm, I'm not using prompts the right way. The, the, the, the output itself was, is just not that great. Um, and then when I compared that to the output that I was getting from Gemini and chat GBT, just on pure image generation for, and you know, this is quite complex, um, environmental dashboard design. So it's, it's not an easy, uh, kind of thing to start with the outputs were directly much better, even just with, with a one prompt type thing. But what Google stitch has done is, and I think it's a nice to have, I don't really see the function of it, but when you ask it a design now, you can watch the whole thing kind of map it out and design it in, in, in, in real time. So it almost looks like, um, a person's designing it for you as opposed to, you know, these other image generation things that use more of the, um, uh, diffusion model where it just kind of like emerges out of random pixels. So I'm not sure. Yeah. So I'm not sure if there's, there's maybe an underlying model shift that's been happening in stitch. I need to look into that. Um, yeah, it, it makes me think, um, that these tools are so addictive to use. And I use the word addictive intentionally because they make you feel really good. productive. And there is something about, um, like people like watching, uh, YouTube videos of other people doing work because you feel productive by watching someone do something. Right. So maybe the stitch, like the slight change in the animation of the thing makes you feel like you're being productive in the way that it is constructing the, you know? Yeah. Yeah. That's a, that's a, that's a really incredible insight actually. Yeah. Well, and it's, it's also like, I don't know about you, but you know, whether it's, whether you're in command line or, um, in one of the agent interfaces actually seen the text being produced in front of you feels like you're being productive. Like when you put a command in the command line and then it starts the process and download or whatever, you're like, ah, finally I'm being productive. Like this is. Oh yeah. Well, and, and that's why people are so addicted to these things. This is why the other week I brought up watching a Portuguese guy in a cafe, um, come to serve me. But before he served me, he, he like looked at his computer and then he looked away and then he looked back at his computer. So like they're addictive, but not a man, exactly. They're addictive in that they, um, produce a lot of dopamine. I get, I get a dopamine release when I go and work out every, every human does. And it's a slow, uh, sustained dopamine release because it takes me a lot of work to do that. I also get a dopamine release when I, um, solve a problem. This is why we like Sudokus. This is why we like any kind of puzzle. Um, but I also, I get a massive dopamine release when I'm being productive by spending tokens. And so what it feels like to be productive and actually being productive are two potentially very different things. Um, and that's why you can spend a whole day thinking about something and doing something really small, making one phone call that could be a sale might be actually more productive than, um, going in and vibe coding a whole website that details a huge ambitious plan to do something, but actually doesn't really have a real world impact. It might produce a lot of dopamine. It might create something that, uh, feels really groundbreaking to you because you've been productive, but I think we need to be aware, or at least I'm aware of myself, the, the difference between feeling productive and actually doing things that are really productive, even if they're a lot of the time they're super simple. Um, no, I think that's really beautiful nuance. And I'd be curious to see what other people are finding out about this and maybe the word productive is not, uh, the, the best, the best one, uh, the, the stage at this point. Um, yeah. All right. I'm going to pay more attention to that. Maybe we could do, I don't know. I'm feeling a deep dive coming up in this, the, the productivity deep dive. Yeah. Uh, all right. So any, any other tools on your end? Tools for me, um, one little point that I'd like to make is sometimes, and it connects to the microphone thing. So I've been thinking about cameras. I really love my camera. I love taking photos and the camera as a tool. It doesn't matter what the image quality is. It doesn't, uh, I'm, I'm currently living with a photographer as well. So we've been talking about photography. The act of taking a tool and having that frame, I think is really important. Going for a walk with a camera lets me see the world in a particular frame. And therefore I'm in the headspace of looking for things, um, to take photos of thing, thing, framing things in a particular way. And what I'm getting at is I think a camera is a really interesting tool to use to see the world in a particular way. What it makes me feel as well is having other tools like having a generative AI model as a tool that I know how to use to the point that I can crawl government websites and that I can, um, create beautiful UI and that I can, uh, you know, we can make designs. All of these like capabilities of the tool allow me to see the world and see problems in different frames. Um, and it's more about the skill or the, the mindset that it puts you in and that it puts, I think a lot of entrepreneurs or, or would be or soon to be entrepreneurs in is cultivating the skill of seeing the world from a, you mentioned AI native lens. Like what is possible now with the tools that we have? Um, yeah. Yeah. I mean, if, if, so Marshall McLuhan had a really good kind of position on this, which was, you know, these different tools are basically extensions of our senses. So the camera is an extension of our eyes. The, the, the, the car is an extension of our feet. Like it extends our senses out. So if we kind of extend that, that metaphor AI is kind of the extension of our, uh, intelligence or our cognitive ability, um, or one and, and might add one narrow aspect of that, right? We, we have many layers of intelligence within us. So there's, there's obviously intelligence that comes from cognitive thinking. There's kind of emotional intelligence. There's a social intelligence. There's, there's so many layers of, of, um, intelligences that I think we, we often take for granted and, and maybe we're starting to see the atrophy of the intelligences that we have been under investing in for a couple of decades now and generations now. So, um, yeah, it's how do you, how do you keep it in balance? And as you were talking, I was like, well, maybe some of the best tools are the tools that can actually just focus in on one of those extensions and do it really well, I suppose to, um, a tool that kind of tries to, tries to do many things. Um, the Swiss army knife approach, which. You know, is, is, is, is great as a tool, but I don't know, it's, it's, it doesn't, it doesn't move mountains, so to speak, or it doesn't move you through mountains, or it doesn't move you when you see an image of a mountain that someone else has taken a photo of, even though the Swiss army knife might be one of those things that you, you pack when you go and you hike the mountain. So, yeah, it gets a little bit philosophical, but, uh, it's like, do you want to move a mountain? You know, would you rather climb the mountain? Would you rather, you know, like it shifts us from, oh, I can do this to what is actually important and putting more effort into, um, understanding what's important. Hmm. Well, so on this, on this point of, of tools, I've been, um, like next week, I need to start ordering a bunch of tools for our physical land library installation. And at this point, um, I'm looking at, uh, designing it very much around a trunk or a couple of trunks that can travel to location and kind of pop up a library experience. And part of that is offering a bunch of different tools for people to go out into the landscape and, and kind of observe it in unique ways and potentially like capture insights and then bring them back as contributions to the library. So by way of example, having, uh, binoculars, having, um, audio listening devices, having, uh, digital microscopes where you can kind of zoom in and really see different layers of things that are out there in the landscape. Um, so I am starting to think of these kinds of, these kinds of tools. Um, and a lot of them can actually be really basic, you know, this idea of soil testing with a glass jar, um, can, can add visibility to, um, even just the, the, the, the layers of substrates that are in a piece of soil. And it's a very easy kind of tool in a way that it does add, uh, you know, quite unique visibility. So, um, yeah, I'm actively going into that mode, um, this week for this, this physical build. So I'd be curious if any, any tools jump out for you or any, any tools jump out for anyone that's listening that might bring people into the landscape a bit more. Interesting. And what comes up for me is, uh, um, the combination of tools having this, um, simple soil testing methodology, maybe combined with a computer vision, um, using, you know, Claude or Kimmy or Gemini, someone to take a photo and say, Hey, what do you think the makeup of this is? And what's your accuracy, accuracy reading on it? Um, and potentially, yeah, creating a methodology for, um, finding, yeah, different, different implementations of, uh, of tool combinations. Yeah. Well, I mean, that, that kind of also verifies the sample in a sense. So let's just take the soil sample example. You, you dig a hole, you take a photo of you digging the hole. So it gives you some sense of depth. It also can geolocate, um, and add the time of which it was taken. Um, and these, these data are kind of metadata within the image itself. And then, um, there'd be a basic set of instructions, which you can kind of actually see if they're done properly. And then you take a photo of the outcome. In this case, it would be a jar with water and the soil shaken up and it rested for, I don't know, half an hour or something. And then you can actually see the, the, the makeup of that soil, um, in a way that you can't do from satellites in a way that you can't do from, um, you know, even, even the, the latest LIDAR drone surveys, um, kind of even offer the insight of a simple glass jar and someone shaking the soil up for a little bit. Yeah. Interesting. Simple. Um, yeah, but it's, but it's simple, but again, like if it was just the glass jar and you took away the ability to take, to, to, to, to evidence it and to verify it, then its ability to connect to say a land library, which can then hold hundreds of thousands of these, um, samples and then provide it actual context, um, within a region or within your parcel of land or within, you know, something that, uh, is, is, would be very costly to do if you were in other ways. Um, and some of the ways that we're starting to think about this, and maybe this is a little bit too inside baseball, but you know, what are the, what are the indicators? What are the bio indicators from one, um, piece of, of, of data or, or like soil health that we can look at, um, other things, or we could reverse engineer it and be like, all right, we see these species of plants growing here. Um, what does that tell us about the soil health, uh, uh, based on, you know, everywhere else they grow and the conditions that they grow. So, um, yeah. All right. I think we've kind of merged into building anyway. We have. Yeah. I was about to say we, we've transitioned nicely into talking about, uh, land library, which is what we've been focused on building this week. Um, I think this is, uh, I think. Like what's interesting to talk about here is, um, both of us understanding the difference between, uh, doing things that are high level and then getting into the nitty gritty, um, and the ability to, to get into the weeds and to zoom out and to kind of have this, um, this interplay between, yeah, seeing the big vision and then getting in and like getting into the details. I had this, um, this really clear insight that yes, AI tools are amazing and, and, um, directionally correct often. And what we care about a lot of the time in, in commercial, um, ventures or in is the details is the nuance. Um, like there are certain fields where a rough cut, a rough draft, a rough thing is really useful, but it's often not the finished product. Um, and so I've been finding that, um, as we're building land library and like getting into the really fine details of, um, how are we calculating certain things or how is the data being processed? Um, where is it sitting? Is it loading fast enough? Like all of these tiny things that we don't really, uh, that you wouldn't consider doing like a, a broad discussion about something, but that there's so much value in, um, getting into details. And people often talk about this when they're hiring. They're like, Oh, I want someone that's detail oriented. Um, I think there's a lot more value than we give credit for in the finer details of, uh, building things like land library that there's like, yeah, there's outsized effort in, in putting in those details. But you think about like, if someone has really thoughtfully designed, uh, a cup, how much more, so I don't own very many things, but I own this cup. And this was handmade and given to me by a friend. And, um, the fact that it has like a little dent here where like when you're holding it, it's a, it's a nice place to like put your finger. It's those tiny details that actually make it really, uh, enjoyable to use. And there's so much, there are so many commodity things that nobody's focused on the detail. I just think the details that have an outsized value add. Yeah. I mean, it's like almost the entire industry has been moving towards just commodity products and commodity output. And I mean, look, look at car design and the vehicles that were being produced in the fifties and sixties and seventies are just incredible. Um, compared to the kind of largely gray, um, you know, very slick, uh, machines that, and you can still argue there's obviously a lot of detail that goes into them, but yeah, there's, there's, there's, there's, there's kind of an aspect that is missing. Um, actually I, I, I drove, um, a friend's, a friend's, uh, electric Porsche this week and I was really excited to drive it. And then I got in, I was like, all right, where's, where's the, where's the gearbox? And, um, there wasn't a gearbox. In fact, there was a little, there was like a little, uh, there's like a little tab next for the steering wheel up, that you use two fingers to go from drive to reverse. And I was like this, this like before that I came from driving like a, an opal, a manual opal and I was like the manual opal feels like a more real drive than this, this Porsche little tab thing, which, you know, it was crazy to think where we've gotten to in the whole scheme of things. But, um, yeah, I mean, my understanding of a Porsche is it's very connected to the road and it's loud and you're, you're connected with these different gears and very analog. So it's funny to see how, how far the, the industries come in that way. Um, I guess bringing it back to actual building and what we've been building this week. Um, yeah, it's, it's, it's been great to get stuck into the, the kind of fine tree of both, um, the land book and the land library. Um, and it's kind of really getting stuck into the weeds of individual pieces of, of data and then how they connect and how they can tell a compelling story. And then at the same time building the system so that it is consistent and accurate and understanding like what you talk about, which bits are persistent that don't need to be reloaded every time and which ones, um, might actually need to be a bit more dynamic in that sense. Um, and I'd say that we're, we're at the point of both, uh, land book and land library where we're about to find product market fit, but we haven't quite gotten there and it's like, we don't have, um, a huge amount of users yet. So there's not a, there's not a lot of noise and back and forth coming from our early users. So we're kind of inferring what, what is needed and, and refining it on that basis. And then, um, I think this next round where we really start to share these broadly with the, the market will start to really drive, um, the piece forward. And I'd love to see if how in this process we can, we can kind of build in a self iterating design aspect to it. So it kind of updates almost without too much input from us, obviously we'll have oversight, but it doesn't necessarily need to be something that we're, um, we're, we're, we're bottlenecking. So to speak, I keep thinking about this, like closing loops and, you know, how can, how can you or I not be the bottlenecks in this, um, in the, in the, the movement of, of things going forward, um, particularly through products or through ventures. Um, because yeah, there's, there's obviously a speed at which, um, we can operate at. And I think what I actually really like about our approach is we've been giving ourselves more time and spaciousness as well, as opposed to doing 10 day work weeks. Like we took a week off last week as, you know, we were traversing time zones. Um, and, uh, yeah, I think there's something really healthy about that. I also, I, I want to push back against this, uh, self improving design and specifically for design because, uh, and this is obviously an open discussion, but I think that we have, um, tool fatigue and design fatigue. And there's something about, yeah, having something that changes often that feels unstable to the user. Um, so there's a part of me that wants to explore what you're talking about in the like iterative design. And there's a part of me that thinks that actually we need to have some kind of really spaced cadence, even though we could change things constantly and improve them constantly. Maybe there's a, um, I guess it's something to be tested. Yeah. I think that's, that's a really good point. My, my, my, when I, when I mentioned that just before I was, what was in my mind was more of the AB testing framework. And so it's, it's maybe less about like major design overhauls, but, you know, changing the color of a button, changing, um, you know, some of the copy, um, maybe changing the, the, the structure of, of, um, how things are seen on a page, um, that kind of more nuanced refinement as opposed to like, oh, let's add in a whole new section. Yeah. I like the, um, I like the testing nature of this. I think this is something that we could lean into more and that we're already doing somewhat, but it's a very, um, scientific approach is come up with a, and a startup approach come up with a hypothesis, have, um, benchmarks or tests or, or metrics that we're tracking and revisit it and do it in, in a very, uh, use the scientific method basically. Um, yeah, I, I like that. Uh, do you think, so, um, I got a heat map working of, uh, so specifically in, in land library, we'd be talking about biodiversity and different species and a heat map of species. Do you want to talk for us? You got it working? So cool. I got it working and across time as well, but I don't know if it'd be an interesting thing to discuss how we want the heat map to be laid out. Like it could be a different heat map for each species where they, where they live, or it could be across time or like there are some variables here that we could discuss live, um, or it might be two in the weeds. No, no, no, no. Let's, let's, let's dig in. Um, I like there's, there's so many fascinating ways to present some of the information that we're working with and we're dealing with a lot of it. Right. Um, and then, um, part of it is, you know, what decisions do we make now that create something that is both visually appealing, but also insightful. So, um, you know, in this instance, we're talking about, um, a bunch of data that's been pulled in from iNaturalist. So iNaturalist is quite a well known app. It's been around for about 10 years, maybe 12 years. Um, and people take observations of, uh, different species, whether it's a plant, whether it's a insect, whether whatever it is, and then it's kind of logged in this thing. So by being able to access that, we can take anywhere in the world and be like, all right, this is kind of a rough estimate of the biodiversity that's there based on these observations. And now it sounds like we've actually been able to map those observations, uh, based on where they were taken, when they were taken and what species was there. Um, so you can start to get a real sense of, um, uh, what's where, but also what areas haven't been, um, documented at all. So we can actually start to focus some attention on maybe we can invite some people to take observations over here. Um, and there are these things called, uh, bio blitzes. And actually I think this is something that the physical library has, as these kind of pop-up installations could do quite well. So a bio blitz is where you invite maybe a couple hundred people, um, for a weekend or for a day or for a morning to go out and just document, uh, take photos or anything that's interesting in the landscape. And they just do it with their phone and then they upload it to iNaturalist and it all kind of goes through the system. So, um, yeah, really, really compelling possibilities here. Um, so then in terms of actually presenting it in a way in which maybe, um, landowners or governments or, um, different citizens can make informed decisions on that then becomes a very different, um, set of, of, of decisions. So my, my, my kind of initial thought is, you know, for land library, because the, the user is at this point, like quite a broad citizenry. Um, that would be very different than maybe the data that we would show an individual landowner or a farmer, for instance. Uh, yeah. The, so those, uh, those kind of, um, pieces of data that you mentioned is, is what we have. We have time, we have place, we have, uh, species. Um, and right now it's a cumulative count of all observations of all species and, uh, one map across time. But what I think we should be surfacing at least from what I think is interesting is, oh, uh, these are the species in the area. Cool. What, what, um, where have the observations of that type of lizard been and when have they been seen? And so you could, you could see exactly where people have seen a particular species. Um, and because this is the kind of information that, uh, conservationists and, um, people who are wanting to understand like the habitats of particular animals, uh, um, which is much more interesting than, uh, just an aggregate of all observations. Um, and then I think across time is really interesting, but there's a, an unspoken element of this that is, uh, the popularity of, um, iNaturalist or of, uh, observations or the ease at which people can log observations probably has an impact on this as well. Like across time, you can see that there's a species explosion in, in this app, but it's actually not that it's a observation explosion. Um, so kind of accounting for that or, uh, understanding what the value of this information is, um, is, um, is I think, yeah, an interesting thing to explore. Yeah. Well, I mean, I'd say the, the, the, the, the ideal outcome of this information is how can we as communities, as regions, as individual landowners be making better decisions to, uh, both preserve and create habitat for healthy biodiversity? Because the value of them in the ecosystem as pollinators, as, uh, contributors to, you know, healthy waterways and, um, healthy soils is, is far outweighed by, you know, just the ability to cut everything down and plant one field for, you know, one farmer's output for, you know, and at this point we're looking at soil health, um, that might last another 10 or 20 years to, to really be productive. So, you know, the kind of biodiversity, um, value that, um, I think we're going to start to be able to articulate and show the value over the next decade is going to be hugely important. Um, so yeah, I think the, like in my mind, if we can make this compelling enough to then, to then actually like inspire anyone that comes on the land library website and sees this map and goes, holy, wow, there's, there's all these species in this area. Well, oh, there's a big blank space over here. And we can actually say that, all right, this is not that there's no species here. It's just that there's no observations here. Um, for me, one of the big insights is how do we create this map? So it inspires, um, citizens to go out and make observations in this particular area. Um, and, you know, observations are only relevant as, as current as they are. Um, so, you know, we've even got, um, uh, a stat that shows the number of observations, um, per year. So you can kind of see there's been a spike and there's been a bit of a drop up in the last year even. Um, yeah. So, um, and then, and then as, as, as if we're measuring like the impact and, and the output of the library, if, if we can show that since we've introduced this information and these libraries to areas and observations have actually gone up and observations have gone up in areas where they previously haven't been observed. Um, and then the insight of these species exist here in these ecosystems and, and, all right, let's plant, you know, X number of this bush or, or X number of this thing to help cultivate, um, this one species, which actually ends up being a bio indicator for the health of everything, um, and everyone else, then, uh, that's a really good sign. So, um, I'd say what we're talking about right here for a particular use case, I don't think it's worthwhile showing every individual species, um, like even by category. So the difference between reptiles and spiders and insects. Um, but it might be worth identifying two or three, um, key indicator species. So I think I talked about the, the firefly as a bio indicator species because it's health and your ability to observe that will, will tell you the health of the water, the soil and, and light pollution. So maybe there's something to, to that. And then what that does is that it kind of, uh, focuses in anyone in the library to pay special attention to observing these species because the, the, the impact of them being observed means a lot more. There's also, um, there's a few plants. I was doing some research into this. There's a few plants that grow, um, in say nitrogen rich soil or nitrogen poor soil. And that is a really good indication. Like those plant species are good indications of, of the, um, different, uh, makeups of the soil. So maybe having a link between, uh, we also like look at nitrogen and water and we could, uh, find species that combining these pieces of information kind of give us a broader picture of where in the landscape different, um, like minerals, uh, are living. Um, yeah, well, I mean, we pulled yesterday, all of the heavy metals in a bunch of water station, um, public water stations. So, but at the moment, those heavy metals aren't mapped specifically to the stations. So the ability to look at like, all right, we can see that there's been a spike in the heavy metal of zinc in water sources, but like, where are they positioned on the map? And then how might that impact the relationship to sort of different species or to soil or, um, yeah. So, I mean, it'd be a nice thing to get to, but, um, yeah. I mean, we have that data. We can, we can show where the heavy metals are in relation to the map. Yeah. Yeah. And I'm just thinking through like design wise, how do you provide the layers of the map? So it's, it's easy for anyone to kind of start to chop and change, um, both the map layers and what's plotted on it. And then also our ability to show through time. Um, so, uh, the idea of, of, you know, in some instances we've got data sets that go back 80 years and other ones we've got data sets that go back 20 years. Um, so being able to kind of push play and then you've got, you know, these, these more citizen science observation pieces, which there's much more observations, but it's much more recent. So how those kind of lay overlay on top of each other. Um, and signal versus noise. This is, this is not quite where we're at yet, but I think we could probably get to a place where we could start to look at a predictive, a predictive, like what does the next, um, what does the next five years look like given, you know, these set of conditions. And this gets into the digital twins, um, territory, which is a much bigger fish than what we're, what we're biting off just yet, but something that we could get to within reason. Do you remember what you were just talking about? No idea. No, no, no. I think, I think we just finished, uh, getting in the grasses about things. Um, how was, how was your, how was it, how was your unannounced P break? It sounds a bit mysterious. My, my bio break, uh, really needed. I'm glad I paused. Um, so shall we, shall we shift gears into rabbit holes? Absolutely. Rivers, rabbit holes. I mean, that's, that's, that's, that's the best I could come up with on short notice. I think you've done amazing. Yeah. I mean, it's, it's, for me, it's, it's kind of the, it's, it's like what a rabbit might sound like if it's going through a black hole, you know, it's like a real quick kind of acceleration through the event horizon. Um, yeah, that's a good one as well, actually. Maybe a higher pitch. At some point, the, the event horizon just sucks everything into it. So yeah. Yeah. No sound. In fact, no sound anyway. Yeah. This is a rabbit hole. I'm going to stop us right here. Talking about event horizons is a rabbit hole. Yes. It can get a bit rubbery. Uh, all right. Uh, and one that we won't. Any rabbit holes you found yourself in this week? Um, what rabbit hole did I find myself in? Uh, personal ones, moving furniture, um, uh, managed to, yeah, just move too much furniture and decided to, um, the, sometimes it's better just to make the decision and do something with something or give it away or whatever. I've got a couch on my roof right now. The roof of my car. Um, so that was a bit of a rabbit hole that I pulled myself out of. Uh, what are the kinds of rabbit holes? Um, I've been finding myself in really nice rabbit holes, actually. Um, meditative rabbit holes, going and sitting by the ocean and spending a lot of time just sitting, being good with just like daydreaming about the past and about the future and just giving time and space for that. Um, I watched somebody operate a digger for probably about half an hour. And specifically it's because I don't know why, but they have like a 10 ton digger on the beach near my house. And this person is just digging a big hole in the sand at the beach with a 10 ton digger. And this is something that I've dreamed of. Like you'll bring a digger to the beach before and there is a digger at the beach. Um, I think there's probably a reason for it, but it just looks like an official digging. I love that we're digging everywhere. There's some, there's some tape, uh, around where they're digging. It does look kind of official. I think the reason is that there's some erosion and that the bank is sliding down, but that has a fence to stop the erosion, like to stop the rocks sliding into where the people are. And then there's a walkway and then there's the beach and the digger is on the beach and they're just digging a big hole. So I thought it might be to do with, uh, like a drainage pipe or I feel like there may be a reason for it. There should, it seems like it's an official thing and there should be a reason for it. Um, but it could just be another rabbit hole that someone else has actually like, and the rabbit, the rabbit hole that took me down, which is a rabbit hole I often find myself in is, I wonder if there's a business there. So I went and started chatting with Claude about, um, basically these large machinery operation businesses, which are like playgrounds for big children. Um, there's one in Vegas, there's one in the UK and the payback seems like it's about two or three years. And the assumptions that the model made is that you can charge the same in Portugal as you can in Vegas and in the UK, which is about 180 pounds for 90 minutes or $220 for 90 minutes or whatever it is. Um, and that assumption is not true. I, well, I don't think that you could charge that much in Portugal, but there I think would be a market for it. So, you know, I've kind of feel like the reason there's a market for it is because you can't do it. So as soon as you open up something where you can do it, it's like, so I mean, I've in my, in my younger days, I've broken into construction sites, um, particularly in, in Asia where these heavy machinery have been around and because they're a little lackluster and security, they leave keys and stuff in them. So I've actually laid some of these machinery and I would say a large part of it was the fact that, um, you're not supposed to be there and not supposed to be using them. Um, that's part of the thrill at least. Um, so actually having a place that's like set up and, you know, it's a little bit like going four wheel driving on a four wheel drive designed track, um, to test out the vehicle. It's like, see, but the difference is the people that want to do this because they want to do the thing and the people that want to do it because it makes them feel naughty. I think you want to do it because it makes you feel like you've been a bad boy. Yeah, there we go. Exactly. So I have, uh, it's a little bit illegal, so I won't name the person, but I know someone who owns a digger and, um, used to put people in the bucket and spin them around and then like bring them up high and pretend to tip them out and stuff. And that is a lot of fun. That's way too much fun. Uh, and definitely you couldn't run that as a business because basically because of insurance. Um, yeah, it needs to be a burning man with safety third, right? So well, and driving a digger is actually really fun. Like digging holes is really fun. So I think that there is a market for it. Uh, so I've actually, I've actually worked on diggers on sites before. Um, these are more like agricultural things. And I will say that digging is very fun for maybe the first half an hour. And then at like, you know, hour four, you're like, okay, I'm, I'm a little bit done. Um, but there is something about the hydraulic system and, and, you know, this, and it's, it's kind of like this extension of the body, right? You're, you're really kind of, yeah. So there is, there is something really incredible about the extendability of movement through this. I think there's a version of this that is a lot less CapEx heavy, which is remote control diggers and like a small version. But I genuinely think that is like an arcade version where you get to go and like push dirt around. I think that that would be a fun half hour activity. Yeah. Fair. Fair. Well, I mean, let's, let's explore it. In a city, in a city. Yeah. Yeah. All right. Thanks. Thanks. How about you? Rabbit holes. That rabbit hole. And actually, you know, it would, you're basically talking about digging, digging one big, massive rabbit hole and you dragged us into it. So thank you for that. I like meta. So my rabbit holes have been a little bit more, I mean, as rabbit holes tend to be, um, psychological and, um, one of the, one of the, I actually, um, came through the other side of a rabbit hole this week, which was, um, so I, I grew up. That's possible. Yeah. I came through the other side. So I, um, and I'm not talking about mushrooms in this instance, but I did, I did grow up as a, as a, as a youngster in the countryside of Australia around horses and dogs. And, um, for whatever reason I don't need to go into, but I've, I've actually become allergic to both dogs and horses. So I have, I haven't ridden a horse in over 20 years. I think the last time I rode a horse was I, I had a birthday party where I invited all my friends and we went horse riding, even though I was allergic to horses. So I was like covered and just, I was like swollen and, and like, you know, tears running everywhere, but having a great time. Um, and, um, my, my, my partners, she's, she's studying veterinary medicine and she, she loves horses. So, um, all right. I'm like, all right, it's time. Let's get back on the horse. So she lined up this, this beautiful horse ride, um, in, in, uh, on the countryside of Portugal, um, this, this, this last Friday. And so I got back on the horse after 20 years and the whole time I'm in this like rabbit hole of like, I'm going to be allergic. There's going to be a whole thing. And, um, yeah, she really kind of helped create the space for just not getting stuck in that. So I had 90 minutes on this horse and I didn't come out a big, swollen, itchy, scratchy mess. And, uh, it was able to, um, connect really well with the horse before jumping on. Um, it was, it was even able to gallop and it was incredible. Like coming through that rabbit hole on the other side and, and big grin on my face as this horse just gets into a full gallop and a part of my younger self would just emerge again. I was like, here you are, you know, there's a certain freedom comes from riding on a horse. Um, and, and when they start to gallop, the whole world starts to morph in a different way. Um, yeah, much different than, than, uh, motorbike, like a motorbike, you know, there's some similarity there. However, you know, the motorbike doesn't drive itself, at least not at the moment. The horse very much has its own mind so it can gallop, it can do whatever it wants. It really doesn't necessarily care about you staying on its back. So there's this kind of like, um, so yeah, that was, that was one rabbit hole I worked, I worked through. Um, but the other one, which I haven't successfully been able to work through, which I actually spoke about last week is setting up my new MacBook, which unfortunately is a rabbit hole. I haven't quite been able to get through, but, um, I'm getting there. And I'm, I think I'm being maybe overly, um, considered on this, but it's like the first time I'm actually taking deep consideration into like, how am I going to set up and how am I going to use this computer? So I don't get forever just kind of sucked into, you know, uh, like how can I design the computers? So I'm not sucked into continual rabbit holes. How can I set this machine up? So it's, it's about closing loops, not opening more tabs. Um, and so I'm being maybe overly, uh, cautious on this, but, um, yeah, I got, I got caught up in some onboarding rabbit holes that aren't worth boring you with the details. Can I pose a suggestion? That the, the, it's not in how you set up the computer. It's in how you establish your relationship with the computer. So instead of, I'm not going to have these apps on the computer, it's, I'm not going to put the computer in this location where I will need to use it, or I'm not going to plug it in. Uh, I bet the battery is quite long on it. You know, what are the positive constraints that you can put in place so that it feels like an easy, have you touched it? Have you opened it? Yeah, no, no, I've definitely opened it and I'm actually quite good at, um, the, the kind of spatial placing of things so that, you know, that kind of like designing a physical space, like a home, so that devices live in certain areas. So you kind of interact with them at appropriate times. Um, so yeah, I, I do really appreciate that, that insight. Um, and, uh, yeah, like one of the, one of the, actually based on something you said, one of the rabbit holes around security, like how do you secure the machine from, from day one, which is not something that I've ever actually considered with computers, um, before. So, uh, yeah, I don't know. It feels like a very different relationship, but I do appreciate the, uh, the comment on maybe being a little too over, um, uh, almost anxious at this point. I, I think what I've been tapping into is, um, the sheer amount of wasted time on a screen when I want this to be a really efficient, um, use of screen time, uh, rather than one that, uh, kind of, cause you know, I know the way these things work. It's like you get flooded with dopamine every time you open the screen and you work on these things. So, yeah, I, I have another solution, set it up. And the first thing that you install on it is the big fat lazy cat that sits on the screen. Make, make that your first step. All right, all right, done. I think that'd be the second thing after one of the security things, but, um, I will say the first thing I did once I kind of set it up is I took everything off the toolbar, um, everything that I could. So I've got a finder and terminal and trash. That's it. So, um, find a terminal and trash, everything else, everything else is up the toolbar at the bottom. And like, I don't have any folders on my homepage. So it's like when you open this thing, it's like clean slate every time as opposed to, I mean, I see some people's Mac books and desktops and it's like, you know, 500 things just crowded on the, on the desktop. I don't know how anyone works like that. Um, all right. So what about open questions? Open questions. You know, this is a section that we always come to and I never have open questions. I have a lot of questions. I usually get answers to them. No, um, Maybe we should call these open tabs then. Ooh. We should be something. That is a, Okay. Yeah. A bit more. Okay. That's a much easier question to answer. Um, and, and cause I can literally look, look on my computer and see what tabs I've got open. So, uh, open tabs right now. I have, um, uh, YouTube video from Y Combinator on vibe coding and where they see the future of vibe coding going. Um, I have a really awesome UI design, which is where you click a button and it goes from having a globe to having a flat map and then back to a globe with like a toggle. Um, so I'm looking for a, uh, project to implement that into cause I think it'd be really fun and interesting. Um, and then I have two Paul Graham essays. One of them is the bus ticket theory of genius. And the other one is how to get startup ideas. Um, and I think that Paul Graham is, uh, an interesting thinker and somebody who, um, breaks things down in a really, uh, clear way, which is something that, um, there's, there's a lot that you can pay attention to. And some of these like more timeless pieces of thinking is what I'm trying to tap into. So these are like the continual open tabs for me, um, of like, what's the timeless way of thinking about, uh, building tools and technology. And yeah. So it makes sense. Absolutely. Yeah. What about for you? Do you have any open, open tabs, open questions? One, one of my open tabs right now is actually based on an article a friend wrote. Uh, and he just, I think he just published it a couple of days ago on LinkedIn and he's, he's starting something called the coherence company. And, uh, you know, he's someone that spends a lot of time thinking about communities and, and more of like the, the, the commons space. And, um, yeah, I think that in line with some of the points that the, uh, the Pope was talking about, um, seem to tie in quite nicely in many ways. And, um, yeah, he's, he's, he's kind of exploring specifically, um, you know, with, with these new tools, how, how are we actually going to reorganize, um, societies and communities and each other and new ways of, of physically building in the, um, physical world. So, yeah, that's, that's, that's an open tab that, um, is, is, is, is, is quite present for me right now. Um, I would say the other one was, is actually based on a video I watched, um, the other day about a gentleman who went to a, um, a, uh, a meeting with a bunch of, uh, tech billionaires in Hong Kong. And he was talking about some of the, the, the insights from the conversations that emerged and how these guys are exploring, working with these tools versus, um, others. And particularly in, in relation to what we're doing, he talks about the, you know, these two distinct, but complimentary timelines. And one is, you know, how do you build something to validate it very quickly? So in this instance, rather than building something over three months and getting it to market and test it, how do you create something that you could test within a day? And get your, your first buyer or your first buy signal within one day. Um, and then how do you actually build something that, you know, you could see yourself, um, being a part of for 20, 30 years. And so holding both of these timelines, uh, in, in, um, parallel, I think is a really litmus test, um, both to keep, um, you moving forward and iterating, but then also focused on things that are, uh, important and significant, um, rather than just, kind of more noise and, oh yeah, I'm going to build this so I can make money over the next year. And then off you go. So those, those are the, the, the big tabs. Um, and then the third one is, is very much around, um, I've just got back to Europe, um, for the season. And yeah, just seriously considering where this is. So that's, that's a bit of an open tab. Yeah. The groundedness open tab. I'm also experiencing this one. Yeah, exactly. Like, um, a part of me has felt quite, um, stagnant Portugal these last couple of years. Um, actually I was reflecting on it this week. I've been feeling quite stagnant until, um, I was actually able to start building things with you. Like, I feel like I've got this real fire in the belly to build things. Um, I haven't found a lot of, a lot of people that actually want to show up and build as well. There's, there's quite a lot of talk, but then there isn't necessarily a, uh, uh, a commitment to keeping going up and actually like getting into the weeds and into the trenches and building things. Um, yeah. And I wonder like how much of that is connected to, uh, physical plates or a culture or a community. And, um, yeah, I don't think it's any surprise that, you know, the Europeans by and large aren't nearly as entrepreneurial as, you know, the Americans. I know we've both had experience on, on the American shores. However, you know, also the Americans, uh, aren't necessarily that balanced when it comes to lifestyle as well. So I think the fact that we've both had exposure on both sides, um, and, and looking for that balance is, is probably no coincidence. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. I, um, I find America to be an amazing place to, to feel inspired and to be around people that are just wanting to do things. I'm, uh, in a few weeks time going to the States to go to a music festival. And I know that by going to that environment and being surrounded by those people, uh, I'll be in that flow of energy of people just like having conversations and talking about things. And, and it's a really, um, it's a really inspiring environment to be in. It's very encouraging. You know, like that's the one I like of my chapter of living seven years in New York. I was, I was actually surprised that, you know, New York's quite a hard city in many regards, but it's ultimately a very encouraging place. Um, firstly, you kind of have to be crazy to live there. And then, uh, pretty much everyone has some sort of a dream. So everyone encourages this, this, this spirit. It's a very encouraging place. Um, compared to what I've noticed personally in Europe is that there's maybe like passing curiosity or intellectual interest, but there isn't much actual encouragement. Um, and in addition to lack of kind of an encouraging ecosystem, there, there aren't too many people that are actually openly share resources and networks. And, and you've got this whole kind of heavy kind of regulatory environment that tends to suck the fun out of a bunch of things, but maybe it's a story that I agree. And we should, should stay a little bit more as things emerge. So to, uh, move us along a little bit to the deep dive. Um, I think this is quite a good segue. And I also noticed that, um, I'm hearing a bunch of, uh, feedback almost. Can you hear that? I cannot hear that. It sounds like a microphone is going, um, um, um, but maybe it's fine. Maybe it's not coming through. No, actually. It's with you. Maybe let's try it. Hang up and read out. Would you just tap the, uh, no, you can't even do it from there. Uh, all right. I'm going to pause. TNS up on the deep dive. Oh, right. TNS up on the deep dive. Um, so this deep dive, we, and I thought this was a good transition because we've been talking about, um, the States and how encouraging people are. And, um, this deep dive is about abundance and specifically abundance of relationships. Um, and, uh, I'd like to frame this by looking at it and maybe you have a different way to frame it. So I'd be interested in your frame as well. But the frame that I was thinking of when we were talking about this abundance of relationships is, it's not necessarily about the quantity of relationships that you have, but about, um, abundance in relationships or abundance of support or, um, this very tangible, uh, feeling of abundance. In your relationships. You can, there's a big difference to me between knowing a lot of people and knowing only a handful of people, but feeling really supported and held. Um, to me, that's what the abundance of relationships is about is not only the quantity of the relationships in your life, but the, um, I don't want to say the quality because that gives a good, bad kind of dynamic to this. And that's not what it is. It's about the, um, the nuance and the depth of, um, relationship and the different types of relationships that you cultivate. Mm-hmm. Um, is this, how do you think about abundance of relationships? Yeah, there's, I've actually, I've done a bit of preparation for this particular detail and, um, there's, there's a few really fascinating aspects of abundance, particularly when it comes to relationships. So kind of like what you touched on, um, abundance in, in relationships is not infinite. In fact, there's quite, you know, good research on this idea of Dunbar's number and 150 people, like our ability to maintain a network of about 150 people. But even those, those hundred, it's not about having deep long-term relationships with 150 people. That's actually not, um, where abundance lives. Um, and particularly in a society and global culture where we're actually optimizing for, you know, how much time is invested in communicating to hundreds and thousands of followers, um, rather than who the five people you trust, who the five people that, that kind of have your back. So yeah, first point is abundance isn't infinite. Um, another one is like, actually there is this kind of idea that, um, your weak ties, uh, your abundance engine. And so, um, a weak tie is someone that you don't know very well. Um, and this is typically where a lot of opportunities and novel experiences exist. And I would say that this is actually a really crucial difference between, um, the American culture and, uh, European culture. And even a lot of Asian cultures is the American culture does really, um, invest and play quite well in these weak ties in these, in these weak networks. And so this is kind of where majority of your, uh, abundance actually emerges from, you know, of the 150 people you might have in your network, um, having a nurturing some of these weak ties is really important. And particularly without the expectation, uh, the, the expectation of them becoming deep relationships. So actually being comfortable with them being, ah, look, I don't know them particularly close, but I still invest energy in this versus what I've noticed or witnessed quite a lot in a lot of European and Asian cultures is I will only invest in relationships that I know, uh, long-term and are strong. And as a result of that, the opportunities and abundance that emerges is limited because you've got more to lose if something doesn't go right. So I'm not going to introduce you to someone else who I've got a strong tie with, because if that goes badly, then it affects me negatively. However, if you're a weak tie in my network, then I feel much more inclined to make the introduction. And that's when, you know, abundance can actually emerge. So it's, it's, it's a little bit paradoxical in that, in that sense. Um, there's, there's one other kind of paradox in this, uh, abundance of relationships that I think is really, uh, worth kind of unpacking at first. And it's this idea that when you are in a scarcity mindset, um, you like scarcity of resources, scarcity of time, you are emotionally numb. Um, there's, there's, there's, there's a layer of empathy that you are lack, that you lack. So your ability to actually, um, invest in your personal close relationships and then also in your weak ties is severely, um, handed. However, scarcity within a community can actually increase cooperation in communities. So if you are a scarce community or think of, um, conflict, times of conflict or, or, uh, natural disasters, those are moments of scarcity where that scarcity actually brings an abundance of relationships back again. So it's a really fascinating kind of abundance paradox in some ways. Um, interesting. So on the scarcity point, I know that we didn't plan this at all, but I have the perfect story for you. Please. So, um, it's documented that humans and chimpanzees share about 98.8% DNA overlap, right? Maybe, maybe for you. Yes, definitely for me. Um, and it's also, it's not as well documented or not as well known, but humans and bonobos share almost as much DNA overlap, like 98.7%. So there's like 1.1% difference between these. These are the numbers that I understand. And so we share a common ancestor with these two apes going back 8 million years, something like that. Then those two, um, populations diverged about 2 million years ago. And the, and I realize we're losing our religious crowd here. So I apologize. Those two populations, they, uh, um, were raised or, uh, evolved in different settings. So chimpanzees, chimpanzees and bonobos, uh, have, um, very, very similar DNA, but they evolved in different settings. Chimpanzees evolved in a relatively scarce environment. There were, um, there was, it was a competitive environment and there were a lot of, um, difficult things to, to contend with. There were gorillas that there were like scary things in the environment. And so chimpanzees, uh, uh, documented for having, um, relatively violent tendencies, being competitive, sometimes, uh, committing homicide. Um, you know what bonobos are known for? Yeah. Making up with sex conflict resolution through sexual intimacy, conflict resolution through sexual intimacy. And they eat a lot of fruit. So the difference in evolutionary environment between a scarce environment where chimpanzees, uh, resorted to this conflict and, um, like hierarchical thing and, uh, making up for conflict in a abundant environment with lots of fruit and lots of sex. Um, it, um, highlighted for me the difference in the environments that these two populations grew up in. And also in the stories that we as human animals tell ourselves that we descended from chimps, which I know is not accurate, but, um, there's all of this, uh, narrative about how similar we are to chimps and not narrative about how similar we are to bonobos. Um, but I think in the right environments, we are more similar to bonobos. No, I mean, it's, it's a, it's a great, um, example of, of like populations and social structures based on, you know, very different, uh, core conditions and definitely kind of touches on, um, the difference of scarcity versus abundance. Yeah. Yeah. Um, yeah, I like, I don't know about you, but, um, for me kind of reconnecting with this idea of, of, of, of weak ties, um, as kind of an abundance engine has, has been a bit of a, um, a bit of an unlock for me. And like, I'll give you a few very practical examples for me in which I've actually just personally felt kind of an abundance of relationships in situations when I was interacting with what I would call weak, weak ties. And so one of the examples I give, and this also is, is kind of how I start to think about kind of regenerative, um, economics or, or just kind of regenerative, um, practice in general, which is, um, the last few times I get a flat tire. Um, when I, when I get it repaired, I pay for two flat tires and I ask the person that is repairing my tie tire to then gift one out to someone else that feels like they're having a hard day. And so these are like layers of weak connections that I may never interact with again. However, that feels like a very abundant sense of spirit and relationship that emerges from that because, you know, a flat tire is like 50 bucks, a hundred bucks or whatever it is. But, um, the, the, the, the abundance that emerges from inviting someone that is doing the same job at the same tire repair pace to then re, um, position part of their day on gifting something creates this, you know, a very different spirit of things. Um, and yeah, there's something about the, the weak tie aspect of it, which is, um, I hadn't quite made the connection with, because if I was to do that with someone that I knew, that would just be like, you know, if I, if I, if I, if I, if I, I, I don't know what I'm going to do with, I don't know what I'm going to do with. I did that. I'm like, ah, a tire, look, don't worry, I'll buy you a new tire or whatever. I mean, that's great. However, it doesn't quite feel as abundant somehow because it's not that weak tie network. It's kind of because it comes from an unexpected place because it comes from someone that is, is removed. There's, there's, there's something inherent in that. And, you know, that's the whole like pay it forward, um, piece that has kind of swept the world as well in, in various waves. Um, like you have a weak tie with someone visiting the same coffee shop just after you, for instance. Yeah. Maybe it has something to do with, if you do it for me, I have a place to place that gratitude. I go, oh, this is attributed to river. But if somebody pays for a tire for me that I don't know who they are, I have no choice but to attribute that gratitude to everybody. Um, there are certain things, uh, that I've noticed where there are situations where everybody wins. Um, complimenting someone on their choice of outfit is the perfect example of doing something that doesn't require basically anything from you. It gives them confidence and energy. And it also doesn't, it's not a creepy thing to do. Like I realized that I'm a man and sometimes like giving someone a compliment could come across as that I'm hitting on them. But when it's really innocent and, um, uh, simple, it's just a win-win all around. And likewise, I've noticed that there are situations where everybody feels like they're losing. There's like, there are sometimes situations where the person, like maybe there's three people in a situation. Everybody thinks that they're hard done by and realizing when you're in those situations and being able to steer your actions towards win-win-wins. Um, yeah, like what you're saying with, with handing it forward, uh, passing it forward with the tide. Yeah. Yeah. And like, in terms of everyone feeling like they're losing, I feel like that's a pretty traditional marketplace. You know, you're trying to get the cheapest price to try and get, make the most. And in many instances, both parties can feel like they're, they're being shortchanged, even though it might actually be a good deal in the end. But, um, it's kind of zero sum. Um, it's kind of also this idea of the difference between competition and competition. Right. And I have to admit, like even our little competition, our little weekly competition practices are really generative in that spirit as well. So I like how we're actually actively practicing this idea of abundance of relationships as well, even in our relationship. Um, the, the two other, it's kind of like the one other point I feel like is worth, um, making on this, uh, abundance of relationships piece is the idea of quality. And you kind of touched on it before, but it's, it seems that based on the, the research from multiple different countries and cultures, um, is the, the, the one metric that kind of dictates the quality of a relationship is the length of time. And that actually actively contributes to, uh, you know, human health and wellbeing and longevity. So the, the outcomes of a marriage of a lifelong friendship of, you know, healthy relationships with family have, have shown significant upticks in, um, you know, health metrics and longevity, um, metrics. So that's been quite well recorded by, um, a bunch of the blue zones research, for instance. Um, and, and, and then as part of that, uh, it's, it's not about like having 150 long-term relationships. That's, that's not realistic, but it's about having enough and enough is relative to you. That could be three, that could be five, that could be 10, but it's also you understanding or you knowing in yourself, you have enough. Um, there was this, uh, really incredible research done recently about stress on the system and stressing the system is actually a real natural, um, part of the, the, the human functioning. However, if you feel stress is bad for you, stress will be bad for you. However, if you feel like stress is just a natural part of it, it's actually good for your system. Um, so similarly in this instance, if you feel like you have enough quality relationships, you actually do. Um, and, uh, if you feel like there's, there's gap or something missing or just something that's, that's, that's not quite there. And, um, you know, I know there's a lot of people that are looking for community, physical community. Like they're, they're trying to fill some, some piece that doesn't feel like enough. The, the, then, um, this is, this is the bit where you're, a lot of people are emotionally coming from a place of, of scarcity in a sense. Yeah. Yeah. Um, to me, this, this feeling of enough is really interesting. I've been, I've been noticing it in, uh, um, connection recently, just like. Like the way that you can create space, um, in a relationship. And I mean space as in, um, that there's room for miscommunication, that there's like the metaphor or like the way that I think about it is like, sometimes people talk about walking on eggshells or like in a, in a, um, client. Uh, like relationship. Maybe like there's not a enough room there to make mistakes or for an employer boss. Sometimes people feel like they're never like fast enough or doing enough or whatever it is. If both parties are creating a buffer zone for miscommunication and for some human friction, it doesn't need to be a lot. There is a point that is enough room, enough, um, uh, yeah. Space is the right word for it. That there's, there's this softer quality to a relationship that then creates all of this, um, this soil, this ability to have abundance in the relationship because you're like, you've got the cushioning to absorb any kind of, uh, if I say, Hey river, I really don't like. The shirt that you're wearing today. Like, it's not like you think that that is the straw that breaks the camel's back. There might be a rude thing for me to say, but we've created this buffer zone for you to be like, Oh, well, this is just your opinion. And, and I know that you love me anyway or whatever it is. I think there's, yeah, there's this beautiful way that two people can create space for themselves or a community can create space for themselves. Um, and I've been noticing this recently and having conversations with somebody is just the way that we both can create this soft space. Um, it allows for all of these other things to emerge. Um, and I think that that's something that's often missing today in the world is that people are so fast paced and everything needs to be perfect and everything needs to be done yesterday. Um, it's like, no, there's a positive sum here of creating that buffer zone. Um, and it's quite hard to put a value on her. It's quite hard to like tangibly say this is worth this because there it's a multiplier. Yeah. Hmm. It like, as, as you were talking, I, I feel like part of the reason we can, um, show up for each other and let's just take our relationship as an example. And, and one that I would consider like abundant in, in many ways. Um, and like our ability to not instantly react to something that might be perceived as negative or critical feedback is, is largely because we're both coming from kind of an abundance. And it's set of relationships outside of just our relationship. And unfortunately I think dating culture hasn't done, um, you know, I'd say like our generation in particular, a lot of justice because there's been so much attention focused on that one romantic relationship at the detriment of a bunch of other meaningful relationships. So that so much is invested in that. So it's, it's, it's, it's fragile by definition because you don't have a set of, of, of other relationships that support you in, in those other instances. So then you're more severely affected by, um, something that might be perceived as, as, as, as critical. And I think this actually touches to, uh, the, the, the, the shortcomings of, uh, urban environments in a lot of instances. Um, I was just reflecting on when I've felt like I've had the most set of kind of abundant, uh, kind of weak ties around me. And it's typically been when I've been in like a cohort or a class and I've had a lot of peers alongside of me. And with all of this upward mobility and moving to different cities and dah, dah, dah, there's, there, there isn't an immediate set of peers that you can point to and be like, I have an abundance of my peers around me and I feel supported and, and people are on similar parts of the journey with, with me, um, type thing. Um, cause when you're on your own, particularly in, in, in, in the city, it becomes kind of very transactional relationships become transactions and everything becomes a product. However, as soon as you move to a rural context, there obviously aren't as many people around. However, you're all kind of in the same boat, irrespective of, um, age, you're kind of, you become peers in a sense. And I've noticed that the relationships become a lot more practical. Um, you know, can I borrow this tool? Um, I have an excess of, of oranges or lemons. Would you like some? Like it becomes actually a lot more abundant naturally, um, in the way that people relate in more of a rural context. So, um, I've been thinking a lot about the difference between how abundance exists within the scale in which we live. Um, and one, one of like, one of, one of my beliefs right now is that we should really be shifting from a, uh, a national and urban context, like a national and city based, um, uh, relational context to both a global and regional. So thinking past just our nation state and how can we be more open-minded to all cultures, um, and all backgrounds. And then also rather than being in this kind of semi-autonomous urban, um, context where you don't really have any responsibilities, you move into more of a regional, um, uh, uh, responsibility where your part does actually have, uh, merit and input and purpose. Um, and you can kind of see where to place that as well. And I think that more naturally emerges in the rural context as opposed to the urban context. Um, yeah. Are there any places that you see that happening already? Seeing which bit in particular? Like people focusing on the urban context or, um, I guess, is there any reverse, uh, uh, so, I mean, one of the examples, you know, I've, I've, you know, we've had some exposure to recently, which is Bali. I would, I would argue is, is kind of moving in that direction. So like Bali by its, by its kind of notable, uh, tourist destination is quite global in many regards. Like there's this, it's a, it's a mixing pot of lots of different cultures. However, Bali itself is actually not a city. I mean, it does have a city, but it's an island with kind of these different regions of the island. So, you know, there's these communities that have kind of gathered around, um, surfing or, uh, spirituality or, um, whatever Cangu is these days. Um, uh, and, um, so that, that, that I kind of see as, uh, you know, global perspectives coming together. Um, largely, I mean, there's a few, uh, cultures in those communities, uh, I guess a little less open, um, but focusing in on, on regional aspects. So I'm seeing little glimpses of that happening. Um, I think there, you know, post COVID there's been a concerted effort by a bunch of, um, the small groups to start their own villages and their own communities. And I've had a kind of a, uh, a foot in, in those doors for the past few years as well. And it's, it's, it's starting to happen, but it's still, I feel like the scale is still a little bit small. Like there's a lot of energy going towards, I want to start my own village and a village is not quite big enough to really like look after a region, which is another reason I actually got to this idea of, you know, regional by regional libraries. It's like at a scale that kind of makes sense, uh, a township, like these rural townships in Europe or in Asia is a bit too small, but a collection of towns, um, all of a sudden make up a region. And that ends up being really quite fruitful in many regards. Um, but then if you scale park that into a city, then it becomes this kind of pseudo anonymous, um, place. Yeah. Yeah. Which is sometimes a really nice thing. I remember moving to London and walking down the street in London and, uh, feeling anonymous and how nice it was like, ah, nobody. Well, like the, the initial design for cities was actually really only specifically for trade. Um, so you would live in your town or you'd live in your region and then you'd come into the city to trade, but you wouldn't actually live there. Um, these were places more of exchange, um, rather than a full-time lifestyle. Um, and, uh, this, I think this shift towards full-time cities is, is actually, um, largely eroded this idea of abundance and abundance of relationships, unfortunately. Um, and it's replaced it with something that does feel very abundant. Like, you know, if I live in a city and I want to go dating, I can, I can swipe through literally thousands of, of potential candidates. Um, I can have thousands of friends or followers, um, to, to post out to and get, you know, the thumbs up or comments on, but it's, it's a very shallow, um, uh, experience of actual relating. Um, and we're seeing, um, obviously the first waves of, um, of outcomes from that in terms of levels of depression and disconnection and isolation and, and, um, yeah. And it shows the depth of, uh, chemical, um, release in your brain. If you are on a dating app, you're getting connection, connection, connection, but that's what your brain is telling you. But like the actual connection that you're getting is not necessarily there. Same with social media, you're getting like, like, like, but the actual connection there is not necessarily, it's not as deep as having a one-on-one sit down cup of tea with one friend, which is actual connection. Um, so like the, the neurochemicals that are released when we're using tools like this are very shallow and, and un-nuanced. Yeah. Interesting. Um, abundance of, uh, abundance as a, um, or depth as an indicator of abundance, I think is interesting. Yeah. I think that's what I would exchange instead of quality. I would use the word depth, um, quantity and depth and abundance. Hmm. Well, I mean, so there's depth both in, you know, like intimacy and, and openness. But then there's also depth in, in length of time. And, um, like there's, there's, uh, this idea of lifelong friendships in certain cultures in Japan. And it's like, ah, I actually commit to you as a lifelong friend. Um, and one of my, my, one of my favorite books is called, uh, Island by Aldous Huxley. It's the last book he ever wrote. And, um, he, in this, there's this entire chapter of, um, what he calls mutual adoption clubs. So you are born into a family. Um, and the likelihood of the family that you're born into being able to support all of your needs is very, very limited based on, you know, relative dysfunction that happens in pretty much every family. So this idea of, um, being adopted into, and in this instance, in this book, it's like 15 to 20 families. So everyone is part of a birth family and then 15 to 20 other adopted families, um, that, that, that evolve as they grow. And, uh, uh, there's, there's something really in that and so much so that it's inspired me over the years to pull, like I've, I've, I've got, you know, a number of relationships now that I've kind of like drafted official adoption papers and like commitments and said, Hey, look, um, I really would like, you know, to adopt you as my mother or brother or sister. And, and like have this a little bit more official. Um, and just by making that statement, um, creates a special kind of field or depth around it. Um, being like, Hey, look, you know, I'm, I'm committed to you for the rest of my life in this, in this, in this way. So, um, and I've noticed even, even with my own, even with my own brother, um, it was only until I kind of, I was, it was, it was shocking how, how slow it can. It was like, ah, my brother is the longest relationship I will ever have. And as a result, I could just assume it's always going to be great, which is unrealistic. Or I could actually be like, ah, this is a relationship worth investing in and assuming that it's going to just always be great is not realistic. So how can we invest in our relationship and our communication style and, um, improving our ways of communicating. And since then it's just gotten better and better and better. Um, yeah, looking forward to continuing to invest in that as an abundant relationship into the future. Yeah. You can also think about the empirical, uh, nature of this, like it's beautiful to, to, um, make it official and to like write, um, adoption documents. Super cool. Yeah. Yeah. There's also, there's also in New Zealand, there's this idea of de facto, uh, marriages. And I think if you live with someone for three years, uh, by New Zealand law, you're de facto married for tax and, uh, different legal purposes. Um, cause they don't assume that everybody will want to get married. And, um, by that same idea, I remember reading some research that, um, uh, it's some huge proportion of people. I want to say 80%. Um, that is a number that's completely plucked out of the air, but it is a very large portion of people that have been friends for seven years or longer will be friends for their whole life. Hmm. Um, and it's like the de facto lifelong friendship. So I have looked back at people that I have consistently be, been friends with for at least seven years. And I think about our relationship and I go, yeah, this is true. I'm going to be friends with these people for my whole life. Like this is long enough for the human animal to, to say like, yeah, the, um, relationship that has been developed here is so deep and pure because I think seven years is a long enough amount of time that you could accidentally fall out of touch with someone. But the fact that you keep going back and you keep gravitating towards each other and that you're on this path for that amount of time means that you will continue on similar paths. Lifetime. Lifetime. There's a book I, I read, uh, a couple of, a couple of years ago now called The Other Significant Others. And, uh, its main thesis was, again, we overinvest in one significant other, our romantic relationship at the expense of all of the other significant other relationships that ultimately last a lifetime. Lifetime. And, um, yeah, there's, there's, there's something to, I think that, that seven year thing by that point, you're kind of your peers in the lifetime, even though you may be different ages or whatever, like you're still peers in the process of life unfolding. And, and I've got a dear friend in Australia. I mean, to be honest, I haven't spoken to her in maybe three years, but this perfectly illustrates the point. So she's, she's a weak tie, but it's still a really abundant relationship. And she says, uh, whenever we catch up, it's like, you know, not, no time passes. And so she calls, she calls us cactus friends. So you don't need to, you don't need to, you don't need much water, but it's still there. It's still alive. It's still, you know, it's, it's still living. So I kind of, I love that, that notion and expression of, you know, what you call a weak tie relationship, but it's still one that's abundant. It's one that's still held really deeply. It's unrealistic to obviously nurture that every, every day, every week, every month, even every year. But, you know, when you, when you get back to it, you're like, ah, you haven't skipped a beat. Yeah. I feel like I have a few of these cactus friends and not in the, like, yes. And in that sense that you're talking about, but also in the, um, in the, you can take them anywhere and plant them in any place. And it's kind of my necessity because I'm quite adventurous and move quite quickly and like, just like doing things and being in uncomfortable situations. So sometimes I'll, I'll, I'll know that I can, I know a lot of my closest friends I could bring along to basically anything. And we'll be able to roll with the punches and figure it out. That's brilliant. That's a great category. Yeah. You're bringing, you're bringing anywhere, friend. Yeah. Shall we move the ticket along to AMA? Let's do it. Let's, let's AMA. Do you have any, uh, lined up? Uh, I got a couple lined up there a little bit. Um, broad. How are you doing for time? Yeah. Maybe another 10, 15. Nice. Perfect. How's that working? Um, yeah, that's good for me too. So, um, I've got two AMA questions. Okay. The first is, oh, I'm just going to change my headphones. So the first AMA question is, uh, what is a question you wish more people asked you? Hmm. Where did this question come from? Good question. This is, uh, old question from Opus, uh, 4.7. Was the context to the question as well? The context to the question was, um, I said, hey, Claude, you've been giving me some pretty average AMA questions. Can you give me a long list of AMA questions? Um, and so it gave me a long list and I didn't appreciate any of them very much except for a couple of relatively broad ones. Um, and I liked the nature of this one because, uh, it's meta. And I think that sometimes people have really interesting things that they want to talk about, but nobody ever asks. So this is a way of planting a seed. Hmm. So one of, one of the questions I, um, I often open with and after living in New York for many years, there's this idea that, um, there's this notion of like whispers from different cities. And the first question that most people ask you is kind of the idea of what a, what a whisper is and give you an indication of the culture of the place. And so New York, the first question most people ask, I'm not sure if that's still the case, but it's like, what are you doing? Or what do you actually, not even what are you doing? What do you do? It's very specific. Like it's kind of quite extractive. What do you do? And can I make money from you? Or can there be some sort of a deal that's emerged here? And after a few years, I, I found that really off, off, off kind of like such a, it's such a, like, uh, extractive way to start a conversation or a emerging relationship. So I actually switched it to, uh, what do you need help with? Or what do you need support with? Because the word help, help was a bit triggering for people. Um, but yeah, that's a question I actually wish I was asked more often by people. Like what could you use some support with and what I've noticed. And, you know, I host, um, uh, you know, networking events and, and, um, you know, uh, different things at festivals and conferences. And that's, that's a question I often like to work into a group of people. Um, I actually did one recently for an AI builders event and I did, um, I did three versions of that. So the first time I, there was like a group of a hundred people. I was like, all right, go find someone and then ask them, ask each other what you need help with. And they went and did that. And then the second round, I was like, all right, you're going to do it the second round. But firstly, ask your AI what you need help with, and then with the other person exchange those ideas. And then the third round was like a hybrid version of that, um, based on what you initially thought you needed help with, what your AI actually thinks you need help with and the conversations that you've had, what do you actually need help with and what could you support each other with? And so within like a 10 minute time window, we had a hundred people exchange what they actually need help with. And I've got no way of measuring, you know, what kind of resources, ideas, relationships were shared from that, but you can see how much more expansive and abundant that is than just, you know, a hundred people asking, so what do you do? Um, yeah. So yeah, a question I wish I got asked more personally is what do you need support with? It's a great question. Um, it's also a great reframe of, cause essentially you, you have a similar conversation as what do you do? Totally. Yeah. It's just much more practical. It's much more actionable. It's much more supportive. It's not extractive. Um, uh, yeah. And at least in my experience, and I do practice asking this question quite a lot, I found, I feel like you meet someone more, more personally. Like there's a layer of vulnerability and intimacy that, um, people share when you, when you when they're able to admit like, Oh, I actually need support. I help with this. Um, and you know, I've asked some very high profile piece people, there's like mayors and, and, and governors and celebrities. And, and actually they're the ones that are most often caught caught off guard by this question. Cause they're like, I don't like, they've never really been asked that. Uh, they may have, they may have kind of been asked it from like their assistant or something, but not someone like out in the wild from just a very genuine place. And, uh, they're very taken aback by it. And a lot of people don't even know how to answer that question. And to be honest, it's a question that doesn't even need an answer. Just by asking it, you get that, that, that, that piece there being like, Oh yeah, I do need support. Um, and this, this, and this, and even just thinking about it tends to open up possibilities around it. So yeah, I think that's one of the more powerful questions. Yeah. What about for you? Um, I really like, uh, I find it if I'm the one that is deciding what I want to share, it's often whatever it is, is in my mind. Like I, I like being prompted in a particular direction. Um, and so what I find is interesting or useful as some question around like, uh, what's, what's exciting right now? Um, which is similar to, um, have I still got you here or are you on your phone? Yeah. You're getting AMAs. Yeah. And I'm like, I'm listening and I'm like, I'm pulling up my next AMA. I'm like, fuck, I need the admin. Um, yeah, it's something around, uh, yeah. What are you excited about? One of the things that I, that I used to love doing, um, and I still love doing this actually is, is it's a three part. Um, it's a rosebud thorn. So talking about, um, what the best part of your day was, the rose, uh, what the worst part of your day was, the thorn and the bud, the thing that you're excited for tomorrow. Um, and so I love it when people ask me versions of that question and I love asking versions of that question cause it's kind of a broad spectrum. Um, um, and gives you an ability to like, I like this idea of being a conversational detective. People very easily and often tell you what they're interested in talking about. If you ask a broad enough question, like if you ask about a rosebud thorn, usually people are pretty quick to ask, to answer like, Oh, well, this is the best thing that happened today. And this is the worst thing that happened today. And sometimes they find it really hard to come up with, uh, uh, something they're excited for, so that's often one that I like to push on. Um, but I also like it when people ask me that question cause then I get to daydream about the thing that I'm excited about. Brilliant. Rosebud thorn. Yeah. So you said other people ask you variations of that question. Like what, what are one, like what are some other frames of that question that also cover those, those, those three, um, perspectives? It's often too. Um, it's usually a peak in a pit. Some that's how I've, I've heard it described the best thing, the worst thing. Um, cause yeah, what I realize is that people want to know, want to, want to complain. That's human nature. It's good to complain about things sometimes. And sometimes they, it's also good to balance that with something that's really good. Yeah. You know, you can get caught in these patterns. So it's really good to surface both of them or to create opportunities to talk about both of those things. And you can also tell if it's the first time that you're talking to someone, how, um, easily they lean into the worst thing that happened. And sometimes that's all they want to talk about. And sometimes people find it hard to talk about the bad thing that happened, but really easy to talk about. Oh, I've got four best things that happened today. Can I tell you about all of them? Yeah, all of those amazing things. You can come up with more than one best thing. All right. That's great. That's brilliant. I would like to definitely practice that this week. Although I'm already thinking through like, how can I reframe it? So from Rosebud form, Rosebud form. Um, yeah. All right. Cool. Uh, give me two seconds. Indy got a whiny dog outside my room. So I thought I'd invite her in, but then she's like, once she, once she gets a buddy and she's like, no, yeah. All right. What do you got for me? Yeah. I mean, I, you know, I've, I've, I don't feel like there's, um, a particularly compelling. All right. All right. Here we go. Here's, here's one from longtime listener, uh, Hermes agent, um, running on, uh, Nematron. What build gates or feedback loops like the mum test have you found effective for vetting agent driven ideas? All right. I can answer this one. Uh, well, I'd like to give a, I'd like to give two answers and I, I have one of the answers and maybe I have another one. So the answer that I have is that I built actual build gates in a, uh, uh, cord skill and those build gates basically run it through. Um, can it search, uh, can the agent go and search through Reddit and find at least three instances of people independently posting about the same problem? Um, that's kind of a build gate that I build into some of these automated builds that I have. Like a validation. Like a validation. Come on. Yeah. Come on. Here we go. Um, I love to, I love to like, ding. Uh, so if we had this, if we had this petty chat thing, what do you think, uh, this one would say? She would be like, uh, my mum's gone out and I don't know what to do. Show me love. Show me love. Show me the scratch. She basically just wants someone to breathe next to her for a while. Look, now she's going to kind of lie down on my arms. Um, the other build gate that I have is based on that, um, video that we were talking about the other day, uh, about the, that you shared with me about the guy in the Hong Kong billionaire room, whatever. Um, now I've got a build gate that, uh, looks for trends and then runs, uh, a basically identifies a bunch of trends, picks one of the trends and then runs a blue ocean strategy analysis on it. Um, what is here solving this solving for this particular trend? Um, and where is the blue ocean for this? Um, and so like that combination of those two things is kind of a skill build gate that get laid on top of each other. And it's given me kind of unique, um, combinations of things, but often what I'm finding is that I need a combination of gates or I want a combination of, um, special, uh, tools or lenses where the Venn diagram shows us, uh, what the product would ideally look like, um, rather than, uh, kind of having a shotgun approach of just like build everything and trying to use these as like filtering mechanisms to, to find what to build before building it. Um, and the other kind of build gate that I have all lens that I have, uh, is do I find it interesting to the point that like, do I, do I personally find this more interesting than majority of people that I know? And that helps me go, I could probably work on this for a while. I could probably build this for a while and, and really get into it. Um, it's also the, the Paul Graham bus ticket theory essay is about that. It's like, yeah, you need talent. Yeah. You need ambition, but also you need to have like a weird obsession with this thing. Cause it's probably going to be a long process and you're going to burn out on it unless you like, I just obsessed beyond what other people are. Can you explain the bus ticket analogy aspect of this? Yeah. He, he basically says that he has to burn his reputation with some group of people. So he picks people that collect bus tickets and the, um, idea is that there is, there's some group of people that like to collect bus tickets and it's a relatively boring thing to do, but they like it so much that they like collect bus tickets over time and see the differences in how the bus tickets are printed and the size of them. And all of these like different variables that if you're a bus ticket collector or like if you're a stamp collector, you can tell that this particular bus ticket or this particular stamp, whatever you're collecting has this nuance or this detail. This other one doesn't, and it's the kind of stuff that goes over the head of most people. And here I was thinking the analogy was actually like, you have to be, um, compelled enough to pursue an idea enough so that you would be happy to go on a long bus ride to achieve it. Particularly, particularly in America where the Greyhound bus is a particularly unique, uh, cultural experience for it with, uh, many interesting interactions. No, one of the, it's, it really is. One of the, uh, examples he uses is Darwin and he says like in reading Darwin's book, you realize how weirdly into natural history he was like nobody else would have pursued this thing as intently. And it's the same with so many people that have created like amazing things as you just need like, uh, yeah, really deep on something. Yeah. Obsessive or autistic. Yeah. Yeah. Um, yeah. So the, the, the gates, um, and, and kind of frameworks or feedback loops that I've, I've found most useful so far have, have largely been, and I've actually been playing around a little bit with the sequencing of them as well, cause I think it does tend to, um, shift the output quite a lot based on the sequence of the gates. So I'm not sure if you've played around with those either, but, um, yeah, I've, I've still found the most value in having a bunch of, um, more critical, uh, and simplifying gates, like with these models being generative by nature, um, having gates that, uh, do, you know, firstly remove, like don't make things up. Um, let's take a red team critical analysis of this. Let's also look at this from first principles. I find first principles particularly effective because then it keeps going back to like, is all of this actually useful from a first principles perspective? Um, and, uh, and, and going back to this idea of trim tabs, like what is the smallest thing that can have the outsized effect? So keep coming, circling through those, um, and finding really useful. And one that I'd actually just added this week, but I haven't, I haven't quite found the right sequence and the right way to frame it just yet, but is this idea of boiling the ocean, uh, a gate that actually opens up like what are the new possibilities based on these new and emerging tools, um, right now rather than just, you know, saving time or making something more efficient or it's like, what, what, what is now possible that wasn't possible? Um, you can 12 months ago. Yeah. I'm finding that the, the fact that these generative models are based on what's come before, um, asking it to do things like boil the ocean mentality without giving examples or without giving enough context of what that means. Like I, I, uh, gave this prompt to Claude recently and I said, Hey, what is, uh, uh, I think I was even talking about the digger at the beach thing. I was like, Hey, can you run the numbers on this? Like, what would this business require as investment? And what would the market potentially be? Whatever. Run the numbers, see if it is, um, financially viable. And then it came back with some like, Oh, and the AI native, uh, aspect that is the absolute unlock for this. And then gave me something really generic and stupid. And I was like, Oh, you, you don't understand what that means. Um, and it's because these are relatively new ideas and they haven't been this, that information hasn't been ingested, um, or understood by, by people. So when we're like at the kind of frontier of a lot of these things that haven't been written about and haven't, don't have a lot of data behind them. Um, I think we need to be, you know, creating the narrative or the, um, understanding what, you know, a hundred X value might look like. Well, what's, what's kind of jumping out at me immediately with this is the difference between a gate and a specific agent or sub agent, um, that can really hold that personality and hold that. Like, I think as we're talking through this, I'm, I'm seeing that, you know, a boiling in the ocean gates is probably never quite going to be that effective, but a specifically trained agent based on a corpus of flight, you know, things that we continually feed into it could actually get quite good at that. So yeah. Understanding, um, when to use, um, these, these different gates versus agents. Yeah. Case studies, that kind of thing. Yeah. Yeah. Um, with that, shall we wrap up here? Let, let us wrap. Not actually wrap because no one wants to really hear or see two white dudes wrap, but let's at least finish. Every now and then. Finish episode. Episode six, mate. Six of what? At least, at least a hundred. Was it intentional that you're doing four fingers when you say six? What's the, no, this is the signal for six. Um, if you're, if you're a cricketer, you'd know what I'm showing right now. Oh yeah. See, I didn't know this one. Not, not one of these. You know what this one is, mate? Oh, yes. Good one. Oh. Um, do you have a quote for the end here? One that comes to mind? I don't. But, you know, I do have dispensed tactics that are books that is actually holding up my laptop right now. Um, and I feel like I should, here we go. So this is actually one of my favorite teachers, Thich Nhat Hanh. And, um, there's a fantastic set of little books that he put together called how to love, how to play, how to sit, how to meditate and things like that. So I just randomly pulled out, um, how to sit, which we've been doing for, um, a little while. So maybe I will pull out a little quote on this. Well, considering we've been talking about oceans, there's a little passage here called A Boat on the Ocean. Imagine a boat full of people crossing the ocean. The boat is caught in a storm. If everyone panics and acts rashly, they will endanger the boat. But if there's even one person who is calm, this person can inspire calm in others. Such a person can save the whole boat. That's the power of non-action. Our quality of being is the ground of all appropriate action. When we look closely at our actions and the actions of those around us, we can see the quality of being behind these actions. I like it. How to sit. How to sit. Um, so you've inspired me to also look on my desk for something to share. And, uh, this one feels a bit vulnerable to share, but I had a little read through it. There's nothing particularly, uh, there's nothing that I can't share, but so this is a postcard that I had, uh, when I was in Mexico recently. And I did a little practice of writing myself messages with dates on them throughout the year. And this is written January 18th and was made to be opened March 20th. Um, and the idea is that I wrote myself four postcards and I open one each quarter. And this one's been sitting on my desk because, uh, I liked the message and every now and then I read it, so I'll share it just like seasons change. So do you, you're choosing to build this compounding life. Keep going. The intentions you've been working on are still powerfully at play time to leap again, double down on what's working, release what isn't, and remember who you are fully grateful. I'm here. Ty. Um, beautiful brother. Thanks for sharing. Thank you. Sharing self wisdom with your future self is a fantastic practice. And I'd encourage anyone to, to do it. Speaking of wisdom, my computer is actually being held up by a book called the seven pillars of wisdom by T E Lawrence. So perhaps next week I can pull a quote from, from there. That's fantastic. With that being said, let's, uh, let's close it up. Ciao. Ciao. Ciao.