Science funding cuts choke tech talent pipeline

is it that much of a problem. People in the US, in particular are worried because some of the signals out of the US economy are looking a little bit worrying. And that's the job data and also last week the manufacturing data, and we had some of these big tech companies report their earnings and their revenue in late July, and that sort of has spooked some analysts and Americans in general who are looking at it going wow, you know, are these running out of momentum the great run of

growth that they've had. Then we had Warren Buffett sell down a massive stake in Apple, seventy odd billion dollars worth of Apple stock. So I guess that's not a great sign for a trendsetter like a Warren Buffett in his mid nineties now sort of saying I want out of Apple it's running out of growth. Not that he's actually said that, but there's clearly a reason why he is liquidating a big chunk of Apple stock still has

a lot but once out. At this point, he is a guy who is notorious for picking the market very accurately. A lot of people are just saying something's not right here, what is coming?

of control. It it went way higher than I think it probably should have, and we saw that it returned. I think an interesting one is probably Intel. That we saw a massive drop in the share price of Intel after they announced a bunch of layoffs and some tightening, and they're clearly really struggling in this world of arm processors and GPUs to try and keep up with the new technology. So I think that you can look at as an example of where there has been a real

downturn for a stock. But I think overall, I probably wouldn't say this is, you know, the end of tech stocks as we know it. It's just that they are reaching their new normal and mediating out a little bit, maybe.

language model training and the like. Now and Nvidia is actually facing US Department of Justice action and investigation into complaints from its competitors that it may have abused its market dominance and selling those chips that power artificial intelligence.

So we're seeing this on a number of fronts. When we're about to talk about the big one this week, which is Google after four years of Department of Justice litigation, the Department of Justice basically saying, Yep, you're a monopolist in the search game and we have to do something

about it. So it seems between the unease about whether the US, which it's sort of done well in the last couple of years, is starting to face the same sort of hard landing that we did coming out out of COVID and we're paying the price of that now.

Has the US just been pushing that down the road through injecting money into the economy through the Inflation Reduction Act, all that money that has gone into things like semiconductors and manufacturing, pumping out all this money for infrastructure that Biden's been doing. Is it just a delayed reaction now? And are we going to see a few hard years

for the US? So? I guess there's that, But also people looking at the Stella run in tech and going are we ready for that sort of correction we saw in the late nineties and two thousand with the bubble bursting.

I don't think it's going to be that, but clearly between regulation and the hollowness of AI at the moment where the revenue isn't coming, but the expenses there from the likes of Microsoft and NVIDI and all that, a lot of people are going, we knew this already there overinflated in priced, but we're going to take some money off the table now.

But actually getting that tangible, independent feedback is great.

In seventy seven page ruling, Judge Ammett Metta basically said that Google has made these massive payments to Apple and Mozilla to make the Google Search Engine the default on new devices, and including that they did this with Samsung and others as well, paid billions of dollars to other companies to ensure that the first thing you see when you boot up a new device is the Google Search Engine.

So they basically said that after having carefully considered and weighed the witness, testimony and evidence, the court reaches the following conclusion. Google is a monopolist and it has acted as one to maintain its monopoly. The consequences of that is that it's charged advertisers higher prices than they would have in a more competitive market. And that's why we see Google with ninety percent of the search market and being and others scrambling for the crumbs off the table.

That has a tangible impact on how much a business pays to advertise on the Google search engine.

just nowhere else I can go. It doesn't matter. I have to pay if I want to get those leads through Google. And you know we're not talking small change, it says in the article Apple got an estimated twenty billion dollars from Google in twenty twenty two. It's in one year just to make the search engine the default on Apple devices. Why would Apple need a twenty billion

dollar incentive to have that? If everyone want to Google anyway, That's a really big and interesting question, and I think why the courts have decided the way that they have.

It will move into a new phase where they will continue. They will start hearing arguments now in court about what remedy should be implemented to address this monopoly that the court has decided is monopoly. So nothing's going to happen

in the immediate future. But some of the things that could potentially happen is what has happened in Europe where they've the EU Court action near decided a similar thing, which Google has monopolistic properties there, and sort of what they've done there is this what they call a ballot screen. So when you boot up a new device there, you get to choose what search engine you want, say a new Android phone, it will give you a list of them,

including the Google search engine. But apparently it's had negligible effect on the company's market share in Europe, so people are still in that mindset of Google is the best, Google is the default. So what will actually make a difference. Will it have to go to structural separation where they sort of break up Google, And how do you even do that without killing the effectiveness of its search engine.

It is renowned for being very good, so how they actually fix this problem will create another sort of headache. They're going to have to work through.

around the Google search engine. And I've read articles saying that the Google search engines saying there are one hundred thousand results is a lie and you can't actually get if you keep clicking through it's not those are not actually there, and that it will only ever display those has a very strong recency bias, and all of these kinds of criticisms of the Google search engine that are

slowly growing. So maybe that movement, in conjunction with the ability to select, with new search engines potentially coming out with new technologies underpinning them, we don't know, you know, there could be a step change, a shift in consumer mindset around the corner when it comes to search. It's hard to see because Google is so all consuming it is a verb at this point, but perhaps we will start to see a shift, if you know. I mean, all empires fall at the end of the day, don't they.

I don't think digital ones are any different.

we'll see how this play out next week. We do have an expert on search advertising, paid advertising and that and how some of these changes are affecting what businesses will need to do when it comes to trying to find an audience. That's Ryan McMillan from Atlas Digital. So that's on next week's episode. But just finally on news this week, being some interesting commentary about Spotify, and I'm

no longer a Spotify user. I bailed out of Spotify a long time ago just because it was a better deal to do YouTube music, because I get bundled in the ad free experience on YouTube, which as a super user of YouTube, I really appreciate. And there are real fanatical loyalists to Spotify, which I remember being a bit sad to leave it because it was a great discovery machine for new music. But increasingly we're seeing commentary a big piece in the New Yorker that's got a lot

of attention. Another one in the Guardian, people going what is up with Spotify? It's not showing the music I want to discover anymore. It seems to be recycling all the same big name artists. To me, are they paying behind the scenes to have this stuff featured? And it

turns out it's not as simple as that. But what is going on is this new discovery mode, which effectively allows an artist to forego some royalties to be featured prominently in parts of the Spotify app, which effectively gives them more exposure to people, encourages people to follow them and start listening to their music. So the argument is that by manipulating that discovery mode, they're favoring some artists and it's why people like you've been are seeing more of them.

terms of who owns the data around my preferences. But yeah, I definitely have noticed over the years that Spotify stops serving up unexpected everything I hear. Now it kind of fits within these kind of expected realm of music that it keeps serving to me. And I have fairly broad tastes, so it's nice to just hear some new random stuff

every now and again. That could be completely terrible, but when you're actively looking for new music, it's okay to have terrible stuff, well, stuff that you think is terrible put in front of you, because it's kind of part of the fun to.

the day. I think that's the reality of it. And now Spotify, with all of its podcasts and all of its kind of pretty terrible approach to audio books, to be honest, there's a whole new level of kind of trying to get through the user experience, and the New York A piece talks about how hard it is to find stuff that you're looking for, and it's absolutely right, like trying to find a playlist, and yeah, so it feels like it should be split into a few different

apps Spotify podcasts, Spotify audiobooks, Spotify Music, and then you can kind of go where you want to. But by trying to shove what they want in your face, it speaks to that kind of inification trope. And if you have successfully moved from Spotify to Apple Music, let me know how you did it. Until all your playlists with you, that would be great. Thank you.

relationship goes back over a decade. Related to the Science Media Center. We were working together on the Cydeblogs platform. You were a big contributor at the time to the

commetary that we were putting out to the media. At the Science Media Center, you went through our Science Media Savvy course, and it's just been incredible watching your science communication journey, going from being an academic that didn't do a lot of communication to being on stage with Neil de grasse Tyson doing a Q and A with him at spark Areen in front of tens of thousands of people. What's that been like? What was the key really to you?

Sort of coming out of your shell and really building communication into your career?

around the field I was in wasn't being corrected. And then saw a course and managed to get the scholarship to go on the course, and then was like, hold on, I could be the person who talks about this and I had no skills in it, right, I was painfully

shy and it was awful. But the Science Media Center and the media Savvy course I went on that you led showed me that there are different ways to communicate, and there are different platforms, and actually it's really important for scientists to have a voice when it's about things that you know, the public just don't know where to

get good, solid, evidence based information on. Then I've also seen a need for it as I've got deeper into science communication around you know, different pockets of the community that really don't get this. So yeah, you you, Peter, you where I am here?

just come up with something that's not me. So the amount of work that I will do behind the scenes, the research, the memorizing soundbites, the things to make myself confident is massive, and maybe people don't appreciate how much work happens behind there.

So it's in my brain like there's lots of little things that I do at least to make sure I'm prepped.

others were doing it as well. Richard Easter, Sean Hendy, Michael Plank, all these people, and a lot of them became very prominent during the COVID pandemic, most notably I think Susie Wiles, who went through hell really with her own institution and recently won that employment court case against the University of Auckland, was a great communicator for the university and in her own right didn't get to support that she needed. For you. You were at the University

of Auckland. I think you said you've sort of had to put up with that as well then going out on your own. I guess the freedom that gave you, but also no safety in it, no institutional support at all.

fifdoms everywhere. And so when communicators like myself and like Susie come along, where our craft is not just our academic knowledge, but our ability to get information out to the layperson, to the public quickly. It's a really a skill, and I think people think they could do it but don't understand that actually it's a skill that has to have work. So yeah, there was a few more, probably more times that I want to admit that I was

told that my communication was a waste of time. I remember winning the Prime Minister's Science Communication Prize and I literally got off the plane and I went straight to work, went to my office, put the it was this massive trophy, it was amazing, it was so heavy, put it on my shelf and I was so proud. And within three minutes an academic in my department walked into it, picked it up, looked at me and said, well, it's not

like it's a real reward, is it. And then walked out and I just went, why would you take that from me to elevate yourself Like it's crazy. But that's academia, right. It's just filled with lots of quirky people. And that's the amazing thing about academia. And that's when I realized that great, that it's not a space that I probably

want to stay in. But I've come from other places, so I sort of had to think to compare it to But during that time became great friends with Richard Easter and shown Hendy and Susie and sort of became this amazing communication cohort where we could bounce ideas off

each other and talk about what we were doing. And then COVID and so I had left the university by that point, and I had my own business, and so I was also asked by lots of people, including the government, to help communicate things around COVID, and I think the difference is when you run your own business and you don't have academic freedom to protect you. I made choices about what I went into or one I didn't, and what I said and what I didn't. So as a communicator.

I turned down lots of lots of media when they said can you do this? And I was like, do you know what, No, I feel like it's too high risk, especially things that are aligned with telling people what they should do. I never once said you should do this. I said, hey, here's the evidence that we know right now. This might change tomorrow because it's coming in thick and first, I'm not going to tell you what to do, but this is what the evidence says. And I never aligned

myself with any sort of political party. Labor was obviously in at the time, so I went, hey, you know, these are the people who are in. This is what they're saying, this is what the evidence says. But I had to be really careful because I have stuff, and if it all goes horribly wrong, it doesn't just go horribly wrong for me. It's the livelihood of all of the stuff that they have, who have mortgages, you know, that depend on me bringing an income in to the organization.

So I had to think about those people. And I think if I was an academic, I maybe would have taken on more things, hoping that academic freedom would have protected me. And I saw that, you know, Susie was able to do that. Sean Hendy was able to take on more things, or at least they thought they could. Yeah, and obviously it went pretty horribly wrong for them. And

I'm not saying that I didn't have issues too. So my home address, photos of my home were taken, pictures places that you could shoot me from the easiest as a gas station across my old house. I moved, actually, but it did the same with Susie, you know, taking picture of a cat outside a house, posting her address, saying, well, do what you want, this is where she lives. And

it was a really awful, frightening time. And then she had a public workplace right that people could and they did go to and confront and I think it was a really scary time because people were just a little bit unhinged. I think everybody was super stressed and you just never knew. And the challenge with being in the media spotlight is people know who you are and you

don't know who they are. And being recognized in part is a double edged sword for sure, because if they're a friendly, it's great, But if they're a foe, let me tell you, they'll come up to you personally and tell you what for. So watching what happened with Susie, I mean, she's so brave for taking on the university and luckily being awarded the win. And I think it's I hope it's better for academics to be able to come out and talk about things that might be a

bit hairy. But in the meantime, we've lost I'm an amazing communicator. She's, you know, a shell of herself. She doesn't come out anymore to talk about the things and she was at the top of her game around communication, and it's been really distressing to see that. So you do take more risk as a communicator. I do it because I really see I really feel the benefit of the work that I do, because I do get people

saying thank you for that. I just didn't know. It really helped me navigate choices in my life, and those can be choices, big choices that people you know are trying to make because they don't have great science literacy. And that's the challenge. Our population has terrible science literacy in general. And so where do you go when you're an adult and you're trying to make a good informed decision about something When Google says anything you wanted to say.

that was on my radar. I think, you know, having fallen into lots of lucky situations and lots of grown ups at the time who helped me becoming an engineer in the end, and then having an academic career and having a career in tech in the US. I just I always, every day felt so grateful that I was here, especially when I look back at the kids I went to school with. Granville Harvey I went to school with is in prison for attempted murder, no surprise, but he's

the guy I shared my textbooks with. You know, we were rough kids, And I go, well, it was only a hot for me not following in his footsteps. Right, So how am I not in jail? How do I have this amazing career? And how do I make sure that kids like me, who through no fault of our own, just not living in areas with lots of tech, not having those ecosystems where academia is promoted, how do those kids get to do this? And so I always had this inner fire to go how do I get that

to happen? And when I worked at the university, and even when I worked in sort of the tech space in the US, it became very clear to me that the people I was working with and the students we were bringing in our privileged students. That's privilege through education. That's privileged through Often parents are academic or would push

them into that system. And the kids who weren't making it through are those kids you expect not to write, those growing up in poverty, those growing up in rural those growing up with parents who aren't in this sector and don't know it exists. I said, well, how do we because diversity is so important in tech, especially because otherwise all we have is a bunch of Caucasian Silicon Valley nerds inventing tech for us, and that doesn't represent

our problems. And it became very clear to me that even our academic system shuts off so many students based on grades, and the grades these kids getting might not be the top because their school doesn't have a physics teacher, because there's so many things that affect our young people

because of their postcode. And so I'm still on this mission to go, how do we help more young people who come from diverse backgrounds to realize that STEM is a place that they should be, They should be welcomed, and we have to figure out how we get them into it when so many doors are closed because the system's been the system for a long time, and then how do we then keep them in the system and help them to think through problems that nobody else in

the field is really thinking about. And we've just rewritten the high school curriculum for four Pacific island nations, which has been such an honor, and we've shown that those students who now study It was a year ten program and now fifty percent of them are now staying on to study science at year eleven because we did localized context.

Right now, they're being taught by a non science teacher and they're being given a free New Zealand or Australian textbook to read from right, And that's just how we've dealt with the Pacific And so we wrote this amazing program that was I mean, it was amazing that you know, they could look out of the window and suddenly see the context of what they were doing. The examples were local to them, and it's I mean, it's not brain science,

like it's not rocket science. You just go, hey, yeah, make kids understand why we're doing this'll stick with it. So for me, yeah, I have this inner burning desire to help increase diversity in STEM and that's been a big part of what we do, and it's been a rollercoaster because funding keeps getting cut. So covid obviously happens our in person stuff. We were about to do a big global tour. We had just opened our California office

in February twenty twenty. We shut it in March twenty twenty, I think, with the shortest New Zealand company ever see having built up all of that stuff setting up a Delawes c or like all of the work that goes into setting up your American office and then hiring a GM there, only to have to let them go, like it's a huge spence and it's a huge learning curve. So it's been rookie. But what I've loved is being able to build all these communicators. So we currently have

thirty five science communicators in New Zealand. They're all students, usually graduate students doing their musters who also are Nana girls. They all have their own superhero names and they're local to their communities and they go out and they do schools, parties,

mall shows, public performances under the Nanogol brand. And I go, well, this is also how we get to sort of create the next generation of science communicators and show young people that there's an amazing young female scientists in their neighborhood and this is what they're doing. And we've got everything from jumping spider experts to music physicists. I mean, it's just incredible.

to diversify our economy using engineering, science and technology. But we're not backing it up with that commitment at the early stages.

down because it's been depressing. So OMD Tech obviously that I co founded with Born rosel from then back ten years ago, they were the main national digital technologies education provider if you wanted to learn anything about coding robotics, and they had a massive MADI and PACIFICA Group two making sure that they were doing it bilingually and trilingually.

It was amazing. So they have just closed down. So that means it's going to be really hard now if you're a teacher to do PD development, to learn or upskill in tech. But that's just one of them. So we lost the Curious Minds funding now that's one point six million dollars a year. That has a significant effect not only on cool projects that spun out of it, but also it was where Comet, which is the big

South Auckland STEM group got all their funding from. Now they're independent and I think it's going to be really hard for them to do what they used to do with that. So they are obviously downsizing and trying to figure out who they are. Otago Museum, who do amazing outreach. Curious Minds funded all of their communicators to go up to schools and do those programs. They have cut all

of those programs now because they've lost that funding. The Wonder project, which is an incredible program by Engineering New Zealand where they would go into schools and so my finger dab into that is I helped to build that program. And what I wanted to build was a long term relationship with engineers and scientists with school so they would go in for nine to twelve weeks every week and help kids build a rocket. And they had a project

from start to finish. They've lost a million dollars a year of Callahan funding, which is basically their big breadwinners. So who knows what's going to happen to them. House of Sciences. You may have seen City and Upper Hut Council stopped their funding. That was access for fifteen thousand students. Now Chris luckily has managed to get enough because she's worked hard on raising some funds till twenty twenty five. But then what and I just go, oh onn this

is nuts. This is on top of all of the academic jobs that have been cut and the knee were in the CRI jobs and so the jobs have gone, and the training and the funding has gone, and teachers now don't have anywhere to go to learn this stuff. It's like the whole system's been shut off and the consequences are I mean, it's easy to see what the

consequences are for that. Nobody's going to come to New Zealand for our high talent line and nobody's going to be trained here for the jobs that need to be trained in.

What those journeys are of those top people, and it's not academics. It's experience, it's trying things, it's being hanging out with people who are diverse to you to solve those problems. And if those people aren't getting into the system and being able to test some things out, we're not going to build the next whatever it is. Rocket Lab is a great example, and we seem to go, oh, well, once you've got your degree dot dot dot, you can do this, but the evidence shows you that the degree

has very little to do with it. It's those types of personalities having good systems around them where they can access funding, where they can access information, where they can just try something, fail and try again, and with that comes confidence and with that comes your ability to when you I mean, if you talk to Peter Beck, he's a rocket scientist because when he was eleven and Invercargo, he was building rockets in his shed with his dad,

like that sort of stuff. Having kids building things in schools, trying robots, trying coding to build that confidence young is how they make it through the system.

explore new technology. The technology of the moment is generative AI, which you have been scoping out and are heavily involved in as well. Just last week, you spoke at Gartner and Sydney at their big annual conference. Rewiring for the Future was the theme of your talk, So you've obviously

been looking at this technology. What's the message that you were giving to people who went to the Gartner conference about what this technology means for the workplace, about skills and what they need to do to make the most of it. Yeah.

and what is probably going to be very expensive. And with businesses, it's all about return on investment and AI actually, if you're going to build your own system in house, is a lot of financial commitment, and so businesses are feeling the pressure to throw all this money into something that they really feel like is a black box right now. So my goal is to help people understand, Hey, what's

already out there? What does it mean. There's all of these terms, you know, like large language models, neural networks, and they all sound so insanely technical, and I actually go, hey, here's what it is like. This is what it does, this is what it can do, this is what it

can't do. And my philosophy, whatever age you are, has always been come play, because when you play with whatever it is, you learn, whether I'm giving you a self driving robot and you're learning how to code it to go around in circles, or I'm giving you some AI tools to play with that are fun, that are silly. My favorite one is there's a website called bored humans dot com and in there is a marriage simulator and you can get your virtual AI husband or wife and

you can argue with them. And I love that because suddenly you went you out of your work environment and you're playing with an AI system and you're arguing with it. You'll realize that humans are way better at insarting than AI. Right, So it just takes that intimidation out. And I've had lots of people go, I don't know where to get started, and so credit a YouTube series to help people not

only demystify the jargon. So in three minutes unless you'll learn about whatever the jargon is, hallucination or the difference between traditional AI and generative AI, that's easy. But then Joe Crib came to me and said, can you just help me actually get started practically? I don't know where to use this, and so I'm building a YouTube series basically use AI to heck your life that she's following and writing up and in the Sunday Star Times every Sunday,

but actually is free for everybody to go. Hey, So the one that's this week is how do you use AI to help you take the mental load off figuring out what's for dinner every day? So we have a simple one which is recipes by AI. Just look in your fridge, type in what you've got and it'll give you dinner for tonight. But the longer version is you

can actually take that meal planning away. So I'll give you some prompts and jet GBT and just explaining that prompts are instructions, and I have a way that I write my prompts a really simple formula that gets a good result out and then you literally go, hey, this is what my family looks like. It's winter in New Zealand and we're budget conscious, so only you seasonal things. My kids don't eat, bean, speech, treat, whatever it is.

Give me a meal plan for the week, and also write me a grocery list with everything in order that's in the grocery. I also, I'm not having to find everything, and then you can just print it out and go and you've suddenly taken away all of that mental load of what's for dinner? What are I need to get from the sharps, blah blah blah. And the goal is just to give people time back in their life, in

their personal life. And what I've seen in AI is the big hype, especially around the media, is it's going to take all of our jobs, and everybody's petroviied, and I just try and sort of show people how you can really push it to its limits in ways that you're not afraid of, like doing your grocery shopping or picking what's for dinner, and then see what it's greater and what it's terrible at, and learn when it lies to your faith through hallucinations like how many hours are

in the word strawberry, and how it tries to convince you that you're wrong as a human and that's okay because that's just genera to AI. That's what it does.

boost that I was promised to you. So we still have a bit of work to do, don't we Until we do see productivity efficiency, But also new product generation, new ideas coming through in businesses that these tools are enabling.

And AI has been around for a long time, obviously, I think it's just the jargon of saying, Hey, what people are talk about is generative AI. That's great, this is what it can do. This is where it gets stuck. You've been using AI on your Spotify or on Netflix for a long time. You don't even think about it. So let's not stress about the big scary words that are being thrown down. If you want to understand them, here are some videos just be a way and rewaring

the brain. The talk that I give is about, hey, you don't have to be an expert in everything, but just be open to. If you hear something new, just dabble in. What is it? And do you think that's going to be the next big thing? And the easiest way to tell is ROI like, does it have huge economic potential? If the answer is yes, great, it's going

to be big. But we've been through the cycle through you know, blockchain and NFTs, like I feel like there's always something on the cards and what succeeds is the thing that has huge economic potential. So just go can somebody make lots of money out of this? If the answer is yes, keep an eye on it. If the answer is no, keep an eye on it too. But don't start trying to move your whole business to incorporating something early. And we all know that early adopters are

never the ones that actually succeed. I think it's good that New Zealand's a little bit behind sometimes because we just get to sit and watch everybody else throw money into something and then we go cool that one would let's go with that one?

in that. What do you think the implications of AI are for coding? We've got GitHub Copilot, we've got increasingly automation off the coding process. Are you still recommending kids go and learn how to code?

actually learn to code in. What you're understanding is the process of how do these systems work? And that I think is the most important thing. It gives you confidence around tech. It allows you to turn something that wasn't moving into something that does something. And I think having digital literacy is really important. So if you're learning to code at the age of eleven, like, it's not going to harm you. You're learning about language, you're learning about

order and structure. And also if your AI coding system has a bug, you can see where it is, and that's the most important human side. AI is not going to replace us. What you need is a good human to overview the AI to know where the bugs might be. And to do that you have to be proficient in the language that it's speaking. And so that's code, that's understanding how things work in sequence, that's understanding brackets, that's

all of the nerdy stuff. And I think if you do that young, you just have a confidence throughout that you can, even if you don't know the language that's in, you know the process of that language, and then you can sort of debug it. So I'm still an advocate because I don't see any harm in it in having our kids learn how to Even if you're just coding a self driving robot that drives from A to B, go through that sequence and you'll never lose that skill.

another example, Edmund Hillary and Kate Shepherd. But the thing about those people and a lot of people is that they are generally from families that have the privilege of kind of giving them space to be able to do

what they want. And you know, she talks about the creating a new curriculum for PACIFICA students and putting it in a context that they understand or not they understand that suits them, I should say, And it's always going to be the case that if you have kids who are coming to something and they are having to understand a new context for it as well as the new content,

they're going to be doing double the mental workload. So being able to make it more accessible is not just about taking the same curriculum and putting it in front of new kids. It's about finding new ways of engaging them and then giving them wrap around support so that they can try and fail and explore and create and build in all of those kinds of things as well, Like just restructuring the school curriculum in minor ways is not actually going to make the major shift that we might need.

A lot of that stuff is getting cut as well. So I think we're at risk, and times are tough across the economy, but we're at risk of really taking a step backwards in terms of having those opportunities for people to really get exposed to STEM subjects and therefore want to pursue a career in those topics. But great to see what Michelle's doing and nanogirl Labs, and we'll be seeing a lot more of her, including on our YouTube channel around artificial intelligence as well.