Trusting In Open Source | Projects Built On Truth & Equanimity

Unfortunately, no matrix level, shenanigans going on behind the scenes. Instead, we're going to be examining the open source method, open source just in general, learn about the positive side of of open source of why trust is rather important, Squashing a common misconception, I keep hearing three important requirements that you'd, perhaps find an open source and to finish off a long, deep breath of calmness. So let's jump into the first one here, and we'll start off with a little definition.

This isn't from this book, but I actually found The Cathedral in the Bazaar by Eric S. Raymond, which was musing on Linux and open source by an accidental revolutionary. It's really good piece. It's kind of an essay ish book. It's not super long, but open source, for those who haven't heard perhaps the term before or wondering what it is, is a decentralized software development model that encourages open collaboration. I think that's the the best way of kind of putting it.

And I actually stole that from Wikipedia, which is open source as well in a way. And I talked in the first couple of episodes about why open source was needed for the decentralization aspect of protection from overzealous governments, for example, of why you would want and need to to have this kind of protection from, authorities from a centralized location. And that's kind of rooted in a rather, I don't know, negative outlook. It's not certainly not a positive thing,

rather defensive position, if you will. And I'd like to talk about the more positive aspects of open source and perhaps the offensive, even though that that doesn't feel particularly right. I wouldn't call open source offensive anyway. And I'm not going to particularly get into the, I guess, how to of open source. And this is because I think once upon a time

it was a little bit easier in a sense to to contribute to open source, to understand what it is and and how it works. So I'm thinking of the time when you could code something for Linux and it would just be available, editable. You could test it out for yourself on your own hardware when a simpler time, you know, musing on the old days, which was even before I was born. And it was in the time when I guess you'd have it was more about, you know,

operating systems of your own hardware and making that, you know, more accessible for yourself of not being trapped into the Microsoft, you know, unipolar landscape that was out there

of individualist, simpler things like PGP, pretty good privacy, where, you know, you could be so simple, you could write it on a t shirt and carry it across borders and be an international terrorist for doing that. And, you know, technically, I guess, you know, that that was more I guess the wasn't even called open source, then it was a bit more like freeware, for example. And

I also understand some of the examples I gave I gave a proprietary like PGP, but it birth things like open PGP standard and GNU PG. So you get you get my drift of what I'm getting at here. Now it is when you're talking about open source, it's a lot more complex because you're complicated dealing with more people, you're dealing with businesses because you can have businesses that open source portions, for example, meta open sourcing the llama models

and more money at stake. There's more variables, more effort thing, more Morpheus, in fact. So I'm gonna talk about, I guess, like, the method of it in in general. And I kinda compare open source to the scientific method. It's not just about the results that are generated.

It's about how those results were generated, how to get to these things. In essence, you're showing all of your workings for the whole world to see and the to prove that the answers, the things that you get at the end are real. In fact, we're going back to high school math. And so if you think about it, you know, why why is one of the reasons and I'm not sure if this is still the case, perhaps probably is, with all the, you know, LLMs and stuff like this.

Oh, why would teachers get you to showcase that you had to prove you're working to get to the answer? So you couldn't just see, you know, ODE, ordinary different differential equation or something like that. And you couldn't just write down the answer. You'd actually have to show the logical steps of how you got to that.

And the reason for this is because, you know, you could get the same answer, the truth in essence, via cheating and knowing the answers beforehand like one of my friends Nitin did in high school and then subsequently confessed up because he's he's a bit too too much of a guilty conscience. And the the reason you're doing this is is to show, okay, you know, sure you can get the truth, the final answer, but it can be a suboptimal thing.

You know, you could optimize for cheating like my friend Natan did, or you could optimize for someone who understands the principles of mathematics to get to their their final answer. The the truth is, you know, one of those things where you want to strive for it as much as possible, but it's also

about how you got there and what it's used for in a for an example. So you can have things like black truths. I could just go up to a fat person, tell them they're fat. I think objectively, that's true. But is that a good truth to to put out there and to just hurt someone like that? No. You can have kind of misleading truths as well, such as the statistics. The gender pay gap is indeed a real thing. But, you know, what is the reasons behind it for it? No. It's not because,

men hate women and pay them 75¢ on the dollar. It's because of, like, maternity leave and childbirth and because men are crazy and do shit like run multinational companies and be CEOs and hate their lives and things like this. So, you know, it doesn't provide the full story. If you're thinking about it in an open source example with AI, the open source LLMs, the reason that they are popular and why people want to use them is because they want to see for for themselves,

are they replicable? If I use all of the same inputs trained on the same data, will these weights still occur or was there like massaging of the data behind the scenes or biases? And, you know, a lot of the times there is. And this is where you can decide, okay, at least I agree with this bias. This is something that I I I think is useful even if it's perhaps for other people not useful. So open source, I guess, is ultimately a way of of showing the truth of getting to something plus

showing how it's true and therefore generating trust, which is getting us on to our little next topic here. Don't trust, verify. If you've done your one thousand hours, hundred hours of, Bitcoin research, which I would recommend that you do, you'll come across this phrase rather often. And the whole point of it is that trusting in humans or human controlled things like a product or a company, can lead to bad outcomes. You can get tricked, you can get misled, you can be defrauded.

We need look no further than Mt. Gox, which I don't think was fraud. It was more incompetence, or FTX and SPF, which certainly was fraud. You know, those are things that have perhaps impacted some of you that are listening, perhaps not. A more common example, I would say, is just

an experience with a bank. I think everyone has had an experience where their bank has closed an account or, you know, stop them from making a payment or move money around or slight things are missing. You haven't been able to access what you thought. You know, your money isn't actually yours. And

this is one of those parts where, okay, don't trust verifies is the whole point of this thing. Like, where's the money coming from? Did it go to the right place? Am I in control of that? And so the verify part is that, you know, you can check with Bitcoin, for example, you can check that the money is in your wallet, that you're sending it to where you want to send it, and that it has arrived there. And, you know, all of this is backed up by now one zeta hash of per second of energy expenditure,

many different wallet interfaces, which are open source themselves, and not a single trust me, bro, in sight. Well, yeah, we'll quibble a little bit about that a little bit further on. So open source is certainly working and has created a multitrillion dollar asset of just Bitcoin and then, you know, getting closer to tens of trillions probably soon in, many other things related to that. Now, one quibble I do have with this is that, you know, with this phrase, don't trust, verify, which

I quite like, I I enjoy. I think it's a step in the right direction when it's when you're talking about money and things like this. But you're missing out on the tremendous opportunity that trust does provide. So I personally prefer the Russian version of this, which is trust but verify. And this has thrown us back into the the nuclear disarmament and disarmament days of, Ronald Reagan.

And this was, like an old Russian proverb and essentially saying like, yeah, you know, I trust in you, but I'm also going to check that you're you're doing the right thing. And I think this is applying it to the the human context, in in a way where you're still going to need humans for basically everything in this world. Almost every action I take an interaction in the world relies on

trusting someone to have done or be doing their job. So if we're looking at driving on the roads, you know, I'm trusting people to know the rules and that they should stay on the left side in Australia when they're driving. I am trusting the, you know, when I go to the gym and I'm beneath this ginormous fan, I'm trusting that the person has put the bolts in correctly and then that shit's not just gonna fall on my head,

well on my feet because I'm doing hair stands beneath it. So there's plenty of things like eBay, for example, if you're looking at a a company which has built its whole model essentially around trust. I'm trusting random people on the other side of the world that, I can send them things and they'll send them money. And this whole has a, you know, verification system behind that of reputation. And this is kind of getting into the the Morpheus

section as well. So I I certainly prefer this this trust but verify aspect of, you know, using trust is it can be valuable as a way of of shortcutting many things. But you do want this kind of verification or the ability to verify as well as as well. So you can get some know it alls, for example, and trust. And this is where getting into this trust aspect.

I can't do everything, and I think most people can't. And so you kind of need a collective group to help you with this. And this is where you're trusting not on someone's words, but on the, I guess, actions of code perhaps is is is perhaps a better way of putting this of you can go and verify things to a deeper degree than just someone saying, yeah, don't worry. Like, you know, Bernie Madoff coming to you and saying, like, I've got this great opportunity.

So for Bitcoin, for example, I think nowadays it's impossible to be able to to verify everything. Perhaps if you are still very technical, you could do it on a technical level. So you could learn of the failure nodes, for example, of, you know, how does SHA-two 56 and encryption work, the nuances of the C plus plus language and how that might affect the technical aspects of the code that Bitcoin is written in. SEC P two fifty six ks one elliptic curves.

The that's a long stretch. I don't think many people could do it, but perhaps there's a couple who could verify all of those things. But then when you're building things on top of it more and more, you know, the layers are pretty thick now. What happens if bit of BlackRock owns 10% of the circulating supply? What is going to happen with quantum computers? And is this exposing, you know, Bitcoin addresses to being unlocked by anyone?

On the Ethereum side of things, the other l twos cannibalizing the main chain In recent news, if the gold standard of cold storage multisig wallets and doing a transfer of three or five signatures by Bybit is able to get hacked and misplaced and 1,500,000,000 stolen. How the hell is like little old me pleb meant to verify everything on all of these chains and make sure that they are, you know, working as intended and how people say they are.

There's no way there's no way I can gain all of that knowledge and do that myself. So I think at some level, all of us have to have some trust in many of these things, especially if you're more on the, like, investing side of things and whether that be investing your your money or investing your time or your energy. These are the sorts of things that you you want to be thinking about when you're when you're doing this. And so

how how can you get this level of trust? I think open source is the the verification tool that's probably best suited for many of these things. So do I personally have the knowledge that Morpheus Smart Contracts are distributing tokens as they should be? No. Can I personally verify that the hard cap of 42,000,000 is written in the code base? No. I don't know how to do that. Can I even know that, you know, the arbitrum and base networks which they were launched on

the correct places to do this and that they're working as intended? No. Not a chance. But I'm reasonably confident that the because of the way that Morpheus was set up, the open source contracts, everything's on GitHub, that there's not some sort of secret cabal working together to defraud me and defraud many other people because it's there, it's open, it's verifiable. All it would take is one default suspicious, disagreeable, prudent person to come along and expose the whole sort of thing.

Now you could be then saying, oh, but just because it's open source doesn't mean, you know, someone's going to do that. There's always gonna be someone. There's always some suspicious guy who's gonna go into those things. So this is where, you know, I should clarify as well that I'm not against companies. I'm aware that base and arbitrum are, you know, probably not open source. I don't think those two are open source, layer twos.

I'm not against the people wanting to have privacy, safeguard secrets to keep the work that they've done for themselves. I like competition. I like free markets. I like you being able to own your own property. And if you have created code and you want to do that for yourself, that's awesome.

It's more the aspect of the when that then becomes into unfair competition, when there's a referee, there's corrupt, for example, or the the think about, like, the state, for example, or there's changes to the rules willy nilly,

that impact people's free freedom, liberty or property, things like this. This is where I'm I, I tend to have the idealism of open source in me. I'd say it's probably like 80%, eighty five % idealistic of the open source method and then 15% of like, okay, in reality, not everything can be open sourced, much like decentralization

we talked about in the last episode. Not everything can be decentralized down to the very atom. No, that's silly. But the the core concept needs to be there. And then you need to have some pragmatism on what sort of trade offs you're gonna take as well. So I'm gonna be talking more about, I guess, I'm happy to trust Arbitrum when I know that base is there as well. And this is that aspect of, having having trust in things when there is more than one of it, when there's competition, in fact.

And we'll be talking a bit more about this in an episode about being chain and agent agnostic. One thing I wanted to highlight here was a misconception that comes up pretty commonly with open source and Creative Commons licensing, for example. It's the ever present, but someone's gonna copy it, with the implication that they'll somehow steal your work,

and make money from it. And this is, I guess, epitomized, I think, by the digital artist x copy, in one of his more famous pieces, which was the right click and savers guy, which was essentially, you know, NFTs digital art. But I can I can just right click that I have and copy and save that, you know, right click and save? That's mine now. And the the aspect of,

and I quite enjoy his art. I'm somewhat of a mini collector. And all of his works are the of the most permissive licensing, the CC zero license, which is essentially waiving all of the rights and claims to his work so people can remix it, edit it, edit it, copy it, not give attribution to him at all if they're doing any of these things. And this is where it's getting into that aspect of like, okay, if this is true, if, you know, giving it all away for free and making it available to anyone,

is this going to harm you? And the same sort of arguments you hear about open source And the the answer to this is largely no. Perhaps in some very rare individual

instances and cases. Yes. But for the large part, no. Xcopy once again has another piece of artwork called grifters and is rather popular and to the utter shock horror dismay of the community. They're all copied and put on the ordinals network. You know, how dare they? How dare they? And what happened from this? You know, someone just stole his art and they just put it on another chain. Like, isn't this bad? Isn't this gonna be like, they're just stealing his work?

What happened? Nothing. Because nobody cares about the copy of the thing. They want the original. They want the story behind it. They want the aspect of owning, you know, something connected to this person who they have some affinity for or the provenance of like, this is the original, this is where it came from. And so him making it

this open license, sure, he could have made it a, you know, iron all the works of this. And so every time someone copies it and puts it on their screen in a video like I am doing right now, sure, he he could do that, but that's just going to harm him in the long run. The the most important games in life are non zero sum. And I think this is the thinking that gets wrong. The misconception is that everything is zero sum game. That guy on the who put the grifters on ordinals.

Sure. Maybe he made like $100 from it or something like that. And the implication is that that hundred dollars could have been x copies if you know if he'd had the the licenses and things like this, that would have been his, which is incorrect. That's not that's not how these things work. And

the zero sum game of this and I guess the non zero sum game is I'm talking about x copy right now. That guy actually probably just promoted x copy to more people. And if they saw the art and if they dived into it more, they might have realized like, oh, this is where the original artist created it and where it actually comes from. So, you know, that wasn't parasitic to

to what happened to x copy. A guy copying his his artwork is, that in fact just promoted him and made it more popular, more widely available. And this is kind of linking to the the value for value model as well. This is why I make this available anytime, anywhere for anyone is because

I sure I could put all of this behind a Patreon and a paywall and, you know, make you pay to to gain access to these things. But I'm more of the, you know, once again, the idealistic here, the information should be available, widely spread free. And so, you know, is in the Morpheus context offering the the fair launch contracts

for anyone who else wants to use them. Is that going to hurt Morpheus? No. Am I hurting the project by talking about it openly and sharing info that took me ages to hunt down of scrolling through the discord for,

you know, decisions and things that were made or reasonings for why this existed and this doesn't exist now. No. Is David David Johnston, who writes these kind of essays and puts it on his blog for anyone to to access? Is he getting cheated by writing these things, which obviously take him a lot of time? No. Some more examples that I care about from the podcasting world, for example,

Joe Rogan was on Spotify for a long time for a couple of years, and he got his payday. But then why is he now available everywhere and putting it everywhere? It's because that actually hurt his his numbers for sure. By putting it in one place, he lost people like me who, yeah, I was just a casual listener, but I became a non listener for like two to three years because I don't like Spotify. I don't want to use their,

their app. And these are the sort of mentality and things that that people miss. It's very short term thinking when you're when you're talking about open source and you and, you know, you're putting this out there and anyone's just gonna take it, anyone's gonna steal with it. That's that's not the the thing that hurts you.

And one of the things that actually can help you is in if you don't follow the three requirements. So in preparation for this episode, I was doing some reading on articles just about people who have spent time in open source, multiple open source projects, what they see happens when they fail and, you know, what what are the kind of most important core aspects to something that's open source to succeed? And I there was one great article, titled

How We Maintain a Healthy Open Source Project published by Dan Funk from the Spiff Workflow Project. And he has three core takeaways, three requirements, if you will, of what's needed. And this is infrastructure, community and funding. So the infrastructure is, I guess, this aspect of it's got to be the focus of the of the project.

If you're trying to build something out in an open source manner, you really don't want to be getting sidelined or following niche little paths for, open source is about allowing anyone to come in. And I guess a good open source project is one that generates a lot of people or success is a weird word. Depends what you want to do. You could create a very small little niche thing that, is only applicable for niche people, and

that could be a very successful project. You could have something that's mid sized. I'd say podcasting two point zero is probably about this mid sized, you know, has hundreds maybe in the low thousands of people who are contributing or have contributed to to that on the both the technical of writing documents and documentation and the code and helping to improve RSS. And then also on the, you know, promotion side like I'm I do where I talk about it, like right now.

And then you can have the real big ones like Linux and and things like that, or Bitcoin, which are revolutionary and, you know, change the world. WordPress is probably up there for this as well.

And this is where you, you know, for example, for Morpheus, I see the infrastructure as yeah, this is building the infrastructure so that people can come in with their own agents and help to monetize that, to spread that to add to as many people as possible, and that we're not just relying on one OpenAI company or one company, whatever, for the access to these agents, which would be a really terrible outcome, I think, in in my opinion. But it's not getting distracted by, like,

oh, we need to build the actual open source AI agent. No. That's leaving for other people. If they want to open source that they can. That's awesome. But no, this is more the infrastructure around things. Community, you need the community to be engaged, to be friendly to newbies, to be inviting, have good documentation, for example, and have passionate people. So when I look at Morpheus, I I think that's

pretty bang on. You know, there's multiple podcasts now of people talking about Morpheus and and videos. There's the discord and the social media where that's active and and helping for the people to join in and talk about it. There are the core developers doing interviews, for example, and and this is in, I guess, the media presence, even though there's there's no team,

there's certainly people working on it and talking about it. And even in real life events such as the d a d e a I days, one coming up in Austin very soon. I'll talk more in a episode in the future about highlighting people and and why there's no team, but there is a community. And then finally, funding must be sustainable and long term.

Once again, you can have projects which are just hobby ones, people doing it for the fun and hell of it, because they enjoy it. And this is usually where they kind of start off. But eventually you probably do need the funding to be a way for people to work on this full time, especially if you're you're trying to be a bigger project, if you've got, you know, aims to really change the world in some sort of sense.

This is where the funding needs to be, you know, have some sort of sustainable method, for that. This is where Morpheus, I think, is in spades because it's got the four buckets. It's the self boost trapping reinforcing mechanism for, building the infrastructure, which is the most important thing at the end of the day. My last little thought here is on,

the main problem I I see with other projects that kind of fail open source projects is actually around the community. Technically, things seems to work themselves out. Funding, yeah, that can go through periods. But if you've got people who are passionate and will, you know, do things where the funding doesn't even matter, like, you couldn't pay me enough money to

create a new podcast. Like, I'm not gonna do it, but I'll do it on something that I find interesting and that's valuable and that I want to talk about. There's, like, there's literally no amount of money that you could offer me to for my time. And this is kind of where it gets the community aspect and internal battles of forking. I wanted to call something about, like, forking hell for this chapter, but no. The the thing here is where you see people

fighting, having disagreements and not being able to resolve those in a friendly manner. And this is where you do get projects forking and sometimes that's healthy and needed, especially if the the founders, perhaps of a open source project, a mean, a stingy, a hard to work with, dare I say, assholes.

And when I look at certain projects recently, that have had some of these kind of like internal kerfuffles, you can see where if things went differently, these could lend to like the project failing as a whole or these forking's and, you know, division of labor and not helping. Podcasting two point zero recently has had people claiming, you know, the Adam and Dave aren't doing enough. They need, you know, Adam needs to be evangelical. He needs to be going to the podcasting conferences.

He needs to be going to, you know, doing keynotes and really pushing it out there and and things like this. Once again, the should word I hate hate that word and, you know, questioning Dave and, the some of the technical aspects of, you know, the podcast images tag is terrible and etcetera, etcetera. You know, all of these sorts of things, if Adam and Dave weren't chill guys, they they could certainly just be like, oh, fuck this. Like, I'm not gonna do this. I don't wanna do this anymore.

Instead, they dealt with it in a calm and reasoned manner, and everything continues on as normal. If you look at Matt Mullenweg, for example, he's in plenty of hot water in the last couple of months for the, you know, kerfuffle, the controversy of WordPress and the WP engine. And that's probably one way you can see like, okay, he's not handling that very well. Like, this is where the community is, is

spending a lot of time and energy on, on stuff that could be handled in a much more calm, relaxed manner. And so my main thoughts just on this is the key to avoid fights, the project forking, blood, blood, bad blood, wasted time. It's a nice long calm breath. And this is why I actually fence it a lot of the time, as you can see by Karen Karen cat fence sitting here. I didn't have many strident views on on things.

And even when I do firmly believe something very much, it's it's hard for me to see in a case where I will completely dismiss, dismiss something or, you know, hate someone for the rest of my life or something like that or leave a project and, you know, swear off and only, tell bad things about people. So, for example, tariffs. I don't know. Trump. I don't know. Upcoming Aussie election. I don't know. Certain topics. I'm looking at you. Sex, politics and religion are just incendiary

by nature. I've recommended this book before, but The Tyranny of Words by Stuart Chase really gets into semantics and why people fight and spend a lot of time over things where it's not the they don't hate each other. They it's it's more like and maybe they do hate each other. It's more like words can cause, disputes which are unnecessary and just bad communication

is is part of this. So, you know, I think a lot of projects probably die for this reason more than anything else when it comes to open source, the incendiary nature, it's not the technical reasons. It's people getting into fights of not having a calm, chill disposition. You're always going to get people coming in, claiming this, claiming that, you know, why isn't price number going up? You're stealing stuff from this. There's always going to be

people looking for a fight. And this is where you really got to trust in the the, the people themselves who are working on the project to have that calm breath, you know? Sure, there's assholes out there, but you just gotta take it in stride and be like, okay.

That's fine. I'm not gonna engage with you. I'm not gonna do this or that. We're here to work. We're here to, you know, create something that's valuable, interesting, and will, in the case of Morpheus, I think, improve the future by having decentralized private agents for anyone. In the case of podcasting two point zero of enhancing the ability for anyone anywhere in the world to get their voice out and a, and not have to rely on places like Spotify or YouTube to be able to to do that.

And this is personally why I love open source projects and can contribute to them in the ways that I best can and trust in them and trust in the open source method. So thank you very much, everyone, for tuning in. We had a couple of live people here as well. One, in the mere mortals says trust in them. And then Cole, I probably won't say this,

now say it. Credlin pisses me off. I have a hard time listening to Pod News Weekly. And that was, you know, someone who is perhaps a bit more spicy coming in. But even he's, you know, contributed a lot to the project as well. So this is, you know, the nuances of of these things and why open source is not easy and not is not the answer to everything and is very hard to do. So there's a value for value podcast.

It's not open source. It's it's very much reliant on me, but I do make this available anywhere, anytime for anyone, especially on the audio side of things. I just upload this to YouTube because there's no easy place to upload videos to multiple different locations. And for better or for worse, YouTube is the place for you, for video. So, I do this and I am never gonna be sponsored. I'm never going to have people, paying me money to talk about this topic or that topic. Or if I highlight,

agents being built on Morpheus in the future, there's never gonna be the incentive of them coming out and telling me I need to or paying me to do this. The motives of why I do these things are because I think it's important and because I am interested in the topic and want to talk about it. So I provide all of this value for you upfront here available, and I just ask that you provide that back in some shape or form.

Many different ways you can do this. The easiest and probably the most valuable right at this stage would be just sharing it. Sharing this with a friend. Word-of-mouth is super important. So if you heard some topics on here, if you have a episode in particular that you wanna recommend, mere Morpheus episode number 12, you know, he talked about open source. I thought it was he had some interesting points. Oh, you know, any of the four bucket ones, I think

are pretty decent episodes for newbies coming in. Recommend those to them. Sharing it, all these sorts of things. Giving a sub a like, providing feedback, joining me on the live like Cole and Juan have is is, is helpful as well. We have the talent. So if you recognize things that I've got wrong, if you have topic suggestions that you think I do and I would enjoy, if you

want to, contribute to the show of some sort, I am thinking perhaps later in the year of doing some interviews again. So if you have people or suggestions, it's very much helpful. Graphics, audio quality, a website, anything that you think that I would need and want to help out with is very much appreciated. And finally, there's the treasure aspect. I've got linked down below, a address where you can send some Morpheus if you want to. That is also the address that you can use for a staking

reference. It's like a referral thing, if you are thinking of contributing to the capital bucket. And finally, there is the builder subnet I have created as well, and you could, stick to that and, you know, help reward me in in those manners. So multiple different ways you can do that. I think down below, I also have a a PayPal. And if you go into your fountain, the podcasting app, you can actually stream me Sadoshi as you're listening, which would be super awesome.

And, yeah, we're going to end it there for today. I've got four more episodes before I start traveling to Europe, and that will be the end of season one. So there will be a hiatus of some sort. And yeah, just just a reminder, you know, if people aren't valuing this podcast, I got a really encouraging message from David the other day saying that he listens in and and enjoys it. And these are the sort of things that give me the passion and the the willpower, the energy, the

appreciation to continue on creating these things. Because if I'm just talking into the void, if no one's really enjoying it, the podcast goes away. So if you enjoy it, leave a leave a comment, reach out, all these sorts of things, very much appreciated. So we're gonna end it there for today. A bit of a long one. Thank you very much for joining in and ciao for now. Until the next time. Bye.