FM Talk 1065 Podcasts
Beyond the Blockchain 6-25-24 self-managing open source, Internet of Things, house-data share
Welcome to Beyond the Blockchain with Scott Tindall, a discussion of blockchain technology, cryptocurrency and why it matters to you. Hey folks, welcome in to Beyond the Blockchain. I'm here with Scott Tindall here with Phil here on the board. Hi there. We're running the Whites in the Village. You're keeping us in between the right track, right? Oh, absolutely. Best I can anyway. Well, you know, it's better than what I can do. You know, we're here on a Tuesday night. You may be catching the podcast later. You may be catching the podcast from wherever you get your favorite podcast. But if you want to call in, you have the opportunity to do that now during the live show. It's two, five, one, three, four, three, zero, one, zero, six. You can text and or call in and we can answer your questions if you listen to the podcast. Too late for that. You got to do that next week. We don't have a live chat like YouTube was, but you can definitely call in. Yeah. You know, so, you know, I think that's fun. You know, Phil, we like to have a good time on this show. We talk a lot about, you know, the slogan is, Blockchain technology, cryptocurrency and why it matters to you. But if we're being honest with ourselves, the show has really kind of morphed into cryptocurrency, AI, machine learning, futurism, you know what I mean? It's like we are quickly morphed into what is the future of the world based on the technologies that we're seeing every day and we report on stories. We're seeing every day. So it's not like we're just spitballing on what we think is going to happen. We're reporting on those technologies. The things have already happened, I think I had posted that to you on Facebook about how that, you know, I was on a, you know, book Stephen King message board and somebody had posted a story written by an AI and this is in 2013 and nobody could tell the difference between that story and one written by an actual author and that was 2013. So this thing is, you know, it's been, it's been kicking into overdrive. People have been kicking that around for, you know, a lot longer than we've been paying attention. Yeah, AI is going to change our world. I posted an article on my Facebook and LinkedIn the other day and Twitter about, there was this guy that was working for a technical writing company and it was him and 60 other colleagues. That was it. Yeah. And they basically replaced the 60 colleagues with AI and told this one guy, you're in charge of all the prompts to replace all the 60 people that we've let go. And that's not going anywhere. I mean, that's just an early story. I think we'll look back in a couple of years and that may not even be an early story, right? That may just be like when our eyes started opening it up and we realized what was actually going on because AI is going to replace a substantial number of jobs. I saw something the other day said AI now can be a radiologist 90% of the time. So a human radiologist can look at an x-ray and they get one result. An AI radiologist can look at it and they beat them 90% of the time. So you've got to think like if you've got a fleet of radiologists to this giant hospital system, let's say you've got 20 radiologists and you start implementing AI, you may only need two, three, four radiologists actually verify the results that are coming back from AI and you eliminate 15, 16 radiologists from your staff. Right. Right. Right. It's still not quite sure how deft they are with scapples yet. The AI has driven. That's a great question. But AI, AI surgery will probably, I think most of the math shows that within the next five years, AI surgeons will be more deft with a scalpel than human surgeons. Maybe the question will become, do I consent to an AI surgeon or do I want a human surgeon? And I think that's something that we're all going to have to figure out for ourselves. The point is, it's a weird world, man. This is a weird world and getting weirder by the minute. But you have to remember the human brain is not what it was 20 years ago. If you look at the social media platforms like TikTok and Instagram and Facebook, you'll have seen this ground swell of thousands of superhuman young musicians playing the guitar and other instruments in ways they're just doing it off the cuff in ways that no one could ever even have imagined. This never has been. This thing's never existed before. This huge quantum leap of these young musicians and software programmers doing things that are just, again, is a staggering. I think that the human brain is a highly adaptive instrument and I think that we'll be surprised that the human brain is not going to sit by and wait very long before it takes its next leap. I'm not here to bet against the human brain, right? Not it. But when we come back from the break, we'll talk more about this and I also want to talk about how deep in, we talk about deep in all time, right, decentralized physical infrastructure networks, how that can fix some problems. So we only talk a little blockchain when we come back on Beyond The Blockchain. Welcome back to Beyond The Blockchain with Scott Tindall. Hey folks. Welcome back to Beyond The Blockchain. I'm your host Scott Tindall here with Phil on the boards. Here I am. How are you, Phil? How are you? How are you? How are you? How are you? How are you? How are you? Hi, man. I love this article. You know, we talk about deep in a lot. The decentralized physical infrastructure network, right? And if our listeners have listened, they're familiar with it, if not, go back and check out a podcast and you can learn more about it. This article comes from CoinDesk and it says, "The Internet of Things," which we call IoT, "is still broken, but deep in can fix it." It says, "Manufactures have struggled to make services for smart devices profitable. Leading to problems for consumers, but these machines could be corralled to create blockchain linked decentralized cloud infrastructure." Okay. This author says over a decade ago, "I got it in blockchain business because I wanted to fix the Internet of Things." A decade later, both businesses are thriving and both still have big problems with their business models. It may well be that, like the original Internet, we can never really escape bad business models once they take root. I, for one, am skeptical that will ever be free from our services free because you are the product model of social media, for example. Still, I have some hope that, as the Internet of Things, IoT, is still relatively nascent. We might be able to use blockchain specifically in this blockchain-enabled decentralized physical infrastructure network deep in to fix it. At heart, the problem with the Internet of Things is the business model. Companies need a constant stream of revenue to maintain their products. Consumers, very understandably, don't think it's reasonable to pay a subscription to maintain, say, the software on their doorknobs or fridge. The result is a great deal that usually comes with a nasty hangover. Products that are free from subscription fees, that one day discontinue because the company selling them wants to stop maintaining the product. Blockchain offers an alternative, combining open-source technology with decentralized systems, allowing us to build Internet of Things networks that manage themselves and can operate more sustainably. At the heart of the problem is the mismatch between the life of products and the life of the product line being sold by the businesses. We might ditch our smartphones and PCs every three to five years. But generally speaking, light bulbs, doorknobs, refrigerators and other home devices are expected to stay in place for much longer. If you need cloud infrastructure to manage these devices, you have a recurring cost that goes on for a decade or two after you may have sold the product. Even that with software maintenance costs and it's easy to see how you can consume all your margin over time. The result is that with depressing regularity, companies decide to switch off online services for products they use to sell. The result often turns a device you integrate it into your life into a brick. Alternatively, the vendor offering the service that was included in the purchase price starts charging more. A few years ago I was suddenly hit with a $90 annual fee to keep my smart door locks running. I suppose that's better than obsoleteing them, but I was so incensed that I went out and bought new locks and installed them as replacements. It probably cost me eight years of service to replace the locks, but my decision was driven by spite, not rational analysis. Despite some very frustrating experiences, the IoT industry has made some very good progress in the last few years. Devices that integrate with the HomeKit standard and those using the new matters controls and thread ratios are built from the ground up to run without internet connections. This means their basic functions do not require cloud infrastructure and the burden of maintenance does not fall on a single enterprise. However, if we truly want smart homes and connected experiences, we will need internet connectivity and cloud computing infrastructure, and for that we will need to centralize cloud infrastructure as well. Using blockchains, devices with spare computing capacity and network connectivity can run more complex network level applications. If we want to manage your home power consumption based on the state of the grid, sell power the best times or use generative AI systems for a conversational interface. All those things consume a lot of computing power and bandwidth, and if we want a sustainable business and price model, then we must be able to do that without needing lots of new data centers. The good news is that the smart home devices have become absurdly smart. This isn't because we really need the intelligence of a smartphone in our light bulbs, it's because it turns out that it's cheaper to put an entire smartphone level brain in a light bulb than it is to make a highly customized light bulb-specific smart chip. Chip making is a volume business and building a standard overly smart chip and using software to make it do things like handle light or manage a refrigerator is cheaper and more scalable than customizing each device. The upshot is a lot of idle connected computing power that can be put to work in building a blockchain link decentralized cloud computing infrastructure. Your smartphone, home and car can pay its own way when it comes to computing power, selling excess capacity when you're not using it and using more from others when needed. The result should be a sustainable network infrastructure that doesn't need constant injections of capital from the original product sellers to keep working. If the cloud is, as the t-shirt says, just someone else's computer, maybe it could be your neighbor's refrigerator. There are many ways of building decentralized computing infrastructure, but there's a reason that when I started on this path more than a decade ago, I chose blockchain and not some other technology, payments or contracts. It's very simple. If we want a system where smart devices transact with each other to provide computing services, we need accounts, ledgers and agreements. Blockchains come with those baked in. For more than a decade, I've been hoping to see cloud computing, blockchain and the Internet of Things work together. We might, at long last, be approaching that time. I think that's a pretty interesting story. Yeah, I like the idea of house-to-house transfer of excess memory and data and computer capacity. Yeah, I mean, it was a little long, but I think the point is very appropriate. If we want IoT to work, if we want blockchain technology to work, even though we think it starts on a global basis, it kind of starts on a local basis. I know it's not exactly the same, but I have a piece of software that I bought and there's something to be said about older operating systems. I had a newer operating system, an older operating system, two copies of the software. Well, they suddenly decided to change their policy and they expired my license. I bought a permanent license and they just expired it. How does that work? Well, they sent some kind of a permanent ... Well, they sent some kind of signal to the software and say, "Okay, it's been a year. They must have already had built that in there, but I didn't buy it for a year. I bought it permanently, but they decided to change their policy and made it for a year." Well, the Windows 7 computer wouldn't acknowledge the signal, so the software stayed active. Oh, that's better. That's a better result. That's like decentralization. What you're talking about is sometimes the company wants to make automatic obsolescence into something and didn't necessarily agree to it, and whether it's by the decentralized network or the automatic decentralization of an older operating system like a Windows 7 computer, whether it's by default or by on purpose, that decentralization, that's the way to go. That's the key of what he's talking about. I mean, that makes a lot more sense to me than what we've been dealing with otherwise. Oh, yeah. It takes us all about the privacy, taking back control, whether it's your medical records or your programs and software in which you put your money in tune, you put your money into all the software in your house or in your phone or in your laptop or in your programs, and you want to make sure that you can take care of that, so it may just keep changing it on you all the time, and actually ironically you're changing it yourself. Yeah. Look, it gets very complicated very fast, and sometimes I try and back it down and think about like, all right, if I'm just trying to look at this from a kindergarten point of view or a fifth grade point of view, sometimes that's easier, right? Because you can just, if you're in a kindergarten point of view, you go, is this okay or not okay? Where that way is going. And that, a kindergartener can give us a much better moral judgment than a PhD in philosophy. Because I feel like kindergarteners go like, they have a very good intuition on if something is or is not okay. Sure, sure. I can see that. I mean, not on all things, but they definitely have like a more like a ground level. They're too basic. Yeah. They have a basic intuitive understanding, right? They can't exactly tell you why that was wrong, but they can definitely get upset and say that was wrong. 100%. Yeah, they can't, they can't tell you why, but they can tell you like, "Hmm, this is very right. I don't think this is the way." And I think we should take some time and appreciate those perspectives sometimes and go, "Okay. Let me back this down." Because I think a lot of what happens is we get in this really high level, theoretical infrastructural level conversation. And sometimes that just needs to be backed down into kind of the baseline. And is this okay or is not okay? And if it's not okay, we just cut it off. If it is okay, okay, then we move through the space of sophistication and higher level knowledge and everything else that goes with it. And we can make that determination from there. But if we baseline it and it's not okay, then we just need to cease those conversations for now. But the job of an air traffic controller is an extremely complex and high-stress job. But we don't, do either of us really know that much about actually being, if we sat, we're sat down in the chair. I do not. I could not actively tell someone how, "How are we in or who is appropriate to fly?" And so we have to, you and I have to come back to a basic level. We both have to sit ourselves in a kindergartener's chair and begin to be instructed from that level if the air traffic controller comes in and begins to explain it to us. Yeah, I certainly, FAA is a good example because we use that a lot with crypto, right? Like, that's the one we use all the time, we say like, "No, when he gets upset, there's an air traffic controller telling us when to take off, when to land, when to move around the airport. That's what we need with crypto. We need that version of legislation. We're praying we don't get the IRS version of legislation or many other versions of the federal government. But we do need some version of that. So I'm glad you brought up the FAA and air traffic controllers because it's something that we do think about a lot on the show. That's kind of what I was thinking about trying to, I was coming around, "You know, we talk about that." We do talk about that, yeah? Because of the crypto. Yeah, because the crypto market needs some version of regulation. Yeah. What is that going to look like? I don't know. Do I think Congress is smart enough to figure it out for themselves? I do not, not because congressmen aren't smart, but because they have no basic knowledge of any of these concepts and they're so busy fighting about everything else going on right now that I don't know that any of them are taking the time to learn about these concepts. And I'm not convinced that there's somebody in each of their offices that is actively learning and then trying to educate each congressman. So it's not an intellectual capacity thing. It's an attention thing. And until they start to pay attention, we're going to have real big problems. And what's going to happen very soon is we're going to see AI problems, we're going to see crypto problems, we're going to see big, big AI problems. And our current legislature is not equipped to handle it, nor do they seem to be interested in trying to learn how to handle it. And so that gives me grave concern. I'm generally an optimist in life, but I have grave concern about our government's ability to think about the future of technology and AI and large language learning and machine learning and all those things. And honestly, I don't think they know any of those things mean putting things off did not make them go away. Well, these things are not going to go away. They're going to grow exponentially, and it's going to become a monster. All right, folks, when we come back on beyond the blockchain, Phil and I will try and talk about some less depressing stuff and what we talked about, maybe we'll talk about aliens. I don't know. Maybe just ask watch time trial. Who knows? We'll see when we get back on Beyond the Blockchain. Welcome back to Beyond the Blockchain with Scott Tindall. Hey folks, welcome back into Beyond the Blockchain. I'm here with Scott Tindall here with Phil on the board. Hi, Dan. Hi, Dan. The white and the yellow. Always. Phil, I think we had a pretty good first half of the show. Oh, yeah. We covered a lot of different rounds, man. We covered a lot of different rounds, which is what we do with this show. We do cover a lot of different rounds on the show. A lot of times in the back half of the show. Sometimes we have a guest, but Tindall, I want to talk about, look, let's get a little Beyond the Blockchain early. Have you seen this movie on Netflix called Time Trap? Oh, you got to see this movie Time Trap. All right. It was created in like, maybe like 2017 or so. It's kind of a B movie, but not, I mean, B movie in like the roster of actors, but it's this idea that there's this cave in Arizona and the fountain of youth is at the bottom of the cave, but as you go through the cave, you go through this parallel paradox or whatever, and time is normal time at the bottom of the cave, but time above the cave is a year every second. So like once you go through the field, the magnetic field or whatever it is, while you're down there, time is advancing a year per second while you're down there. It is a really interesting movie. Part of the reason I like it is it kind of reminds me of like 80s movies, right? So it's like, like the Goonies or something like that, you know, you've got these couple of college kids that are going to search after their professor. They bring the kid sister along, kid sister says, well, we got a babysit. This other guy who's also 12 and so we end up with like these three college kids and these two middle schoolers, you know, and it's like, it's very like in 1980s kind of model. And then I don't want to give away the ending for people, but they get down inside this cave, they call the time trap and like I said, every second you're in the cave is passing by like a year above. And it's just a really fascinating like without giving away the movie. I just want to stop there because the movie is so good, I don't want to give it away. But without giving away, it's like, what an interesting concept. Oh, I will say they run into pre neolithic cave people in the cave that have been there since pre neolithic times because that's how old the cave is. And because these people never exited the cave, you've got this really interesting kind of dynamic there. That was what was it in H2L's time machine, what was it, what were the underground, underground dwellers? Well, I remember it, but I can't remember the name. It's anyway, it's not Molek, that's actually something else entirely, something along those lines. Do you remember the story? I was thinking of stories, you know, the name of the first choose your own adventure novel was Cave of Time. Really? Yeah. And I used to love a choose your own adventure novel when I was in elementary school. I did too. I'll go to the library. They'd like choose your own adventure. But like, I will buy all of these and I'd be like, my mom did not give me enough money. Can I read one, turn it in and go get the next one? I'd be the kid like sitting in the corner of the library trying to read the whole book before class was over because I couldn't afford the next book. So I was like, if I just go read this book, get it over with, then I can go buy the next book and I got two for one. That's a really great idea. I mean, that was just a genius idea, the whole idea of you're the person following through all the different possibilities. It's a great idea. And you keep reading it. You try to pick the right path and the right ones and then you go back and read all the wrong ones. Yeah, so you're never going to be right. But I mean, that's kind of like kind of like what we see through modern movies and fiction today. You and I were talking about previously before the break even about the last flash, right? And the last flash, there's this concept of you can go back in time. But every timeline, it's like a bowl of spaghetti. Like every timeline still has intersections between all the other time, like when I come like interpoints or you want to mean like at the end of the day, though, like no matter what in spaghetti noodle you're on, they all interact somewhere. And when you interact one part of the noodle, you interact the whole noodle, not just from your interaction going forward. But now you've impacted the entire noodle and the giant bowl of spaghetti back to from beginning from all the way far as far back as you can see, all the way far far as head as you can see or not see as far ahead as you can see or not see the multiverse all at once. A multiverse is a weird thing. And scientists tell us it's real, well, I always think, you know, we think about we just take piping for granted all the water piping system, you know, running under a city. I mean, but that's kind of the way that that noodle works. It's like the amaze of the noodles running through each other like that. That's a good point. Sewer systems. Right. But really nice ones though, I'm just thinking about just the way all those pipes, you know, they twist around each other. Doesn't like, you ever seen like the maze books growing up, those little maze books? Oh, yeah. Like the, they had like that the whole pipe maze and it's like three dimensional go back in your perspective and come forward and you'd like follow the pipes everywhere. Yeah. You had to use your two degree pencil to figure it out, right? Some of the noodles, they'd have to do that little, your two lead pencil had to help you get, get your way there. If you didn't have that, you weren't going to make it. And like even like the page, like one, one book had like holes punched through the page and you can follow the swirl through the holes to the, to the other side of the page. I remember that like you're, you're taking me deep back into the eighties, but I do remember that. Um, but you know, I think it's not that different than today because like today, what science tells us is whatever you think about the universe, take a piece of paper, fold it up, wrap it up, ball it into a ball, make as many different orientations and connections as possible. And that's not near accurate, but it's far more accurate than this linear piece of paper where we think time moves from one direction to the next and not through other dimensions. I had this dream, Philip, the other night, I can't remember exactly how it goes because you know, it's how dreams and it was about understanding multi dimensions. And I think the, the question was, if you're a four dimensional, you can only understand things in a four dimensional space, right? So we're three dimensional. So we can only understand things in a three dimensional space. So if I'm a multi, but dimensional being, I will only be able to understand things in my dimension or negative, right? Not like if I'm an eight dimensional being, I can understand things from eight, seven, six, is that right? Scientific science fiction, let's just not talk science science fiction. Is that what the stories tell us? Well, you know, it depends upon like somebody has said that they're like only 10 dimensions, but out of those 10 dimensions, you get like an infinite number, like they're all operating in 10 dimensions, like each of the spaghetti strands is operating in 10 dimensions, but, but that that may be it, you know, but there's so many strands and infinite number of strands running on 10 dimensions that really don't need to add any more dimensions. Well, it's trillion dimensions, but, but from a multi, from a multi dimensional being, I can only, as a three dimensional being, I can only see one half of 1% of the wavelength of all light. I think science is pretty clear on that that the human eye can see one half of 1% of all the available light. So, when you're saying dimension, you're counting the different wavelengths, the dimension is a wavelength, or a set of wavelengths that haven't been perceived. Maybe. Yeah. So, I'm saying like, could a fourth dimensional being have, all right, let's just back it. Let's just go to the three dimensional beings. There are plenty of nocturnal animals that see at night better than humans see at night. Mm hmm. Right? I think everybody agrees on that tigers see on a different plane than human see on a plane. Right. Right. A tiger's prey, let's say like an antelope or whatever's going on in the jungles of India. It sees on a different plane. The reason the tiger is orange and black is because to that prey, they don't see orange. They only see an obvious color and black and it blends in. Right. So, because that prey only sees that color, the tiger's orange, which to us, to us orange seems like terrible, like that's not camouflaged at all. But to their prey, it's incredibly camouflaged. And so, if we take that back in a couple of levels, you go, okay, well, if our brains, I think, I feel confident saying that science says the human brain sees one half of one percent of the light spectrum. Well, that means we're missing 99 and a half percent of what's actually going on. We're blind. We're essentially blind. Think how much of the dog snails. Yeah, I mean, animals smell far more than we do. I mean, most animals see far better than we do, but it's like, to us, if we don't see it, it doesn't exist. So you don't. We'll talk about other weird things and maybe some, I don't know, maybe we'll get an ass clutch when we get back on Beyond The Blockchain. Welcome back to Beyond The Blockchain with Scott Tindall. Hey folks, welcome back into the show. I'm your Scott Tindall. You're missing Sierra Catalina tonight. She is dealing with some brain issues. We wish her the best. We hope she feels well soon. She's got a migraine. Johnny Gee, who's normally with us, he's got a leg issue and we're hoping he feels better soon. So we got a couple of people on the end your list. Yeah. You feel that? But, you know, we love them both. We're very appreciative of them both and what they provide for the show. And so hopefully they both will feel better soon and they can join us next week. I think that would be fun. I think we'll have our peeps in the panel podcast band. The panel podcast just makes so much fun, man, I just can't tell you. But Phillip, I enjoy having fun with you too, but like, we have a good time. We have a good time for other people in Bobo, but we just have a good time to go too. So that's our. We were talking offline about home lander season four, figure up or thumbs up or thumbs down or thumb sideways. Yeah. All right. So there's a grid point to jump in. So one of the things we talk about the show all the time is pop culture and things that are going on. If you've kept up with the show, you know that in the past, we've talked about this show called The Boys, which comes on Amazon Prime season four just recently released. And it's, it's this, um, I feel maybe you can help me in, but the best way to describe it is it's a superhero show except we accentuate and focus on all the bad parts of being a superhero. Is that fair? Oh, yeah. It's like you could be a superhero, but like it's all like a yin and yang. Like your superhero on this side, the yang side is your personal life as a disaster. Or some version thereof and you have to be what a, a bulimic or anorexic to make your power work or you have to keep, even if you want to stay one way or the other, you have to keep switching into another person just to make your powers work because your mom says that's what you need to do and your dad says, no, don't do that. It's a disaster of a show, which is, it's, it's, it's primary charm is the, the human just utter disaster that life really is. Yeah. The humanity of being a superhero, right? Or, or being what they call a soup, right? So you're not like a superhero, you're super natural, this, so they just call you a soup. And a soup is not a complimentary term. You know, they're not mentally superior. I mean, some are really smart, but some are not, you know, it's like, you know, their, their version of Aquaman, he's, he is not pretty dim bold. That guy is a disaster. Oh, what, oh, I'll think of his name in just a second before you ask me that. Back to the flash. At the very end of the flight. Did we talk about the flash on air? Or was that before? Yeah, we were talking about the parts of it having to do with the spaghetti. Oh, yeah. On air. The relaying of the beginning and the ending. So the very, did you see the very end of the flash with the, um, kind of extra, you know, ending extra version and it's flash with Jason Moa as Aquaman. And he's like so drunk and he can't even hardly get out of the bar. He falls asleep in this puddle and flash is trying to tell him like, no, you don't understand. I met Batman and he was an essentially saying he was Michael Keaton. He was also Ben Affleck and he was also George Clooney. Like, I think one of the best things that DC did in that film was to bring in all these people from the DC universe that have played these characters over these years because it just gives people this like relatability. They're like, Oh, yeah, I love that movie. I loved this movie. I love that movie. I'll be connected. Like, why would you not like bring all that in? And then finally at the end, flash, you know, Barry Allen, uh, Ezra Miller, he thinks he solved all this problem and he meets Bruce Wayne and just George Clooney. He used it. He spent a minute out of life and he was like, Oh my God, what have I done? He was just so well done. I liked the bit. Plus he saw Superman, all the Superman. He saw all the superman dating back from since the dawn of Superman. You see, they've had that set up for a long time. The crisis on Infinite Earth has been a series in the comic books and all of that since the mid 90s. They've had that whole, the entire plot set up for that. They were ready for that before they even, you know, took a lot of that to television or movies. Well, apparently they're doing a reboot now. So apparently DC is doing a reboot. And so it's like encapsulate all the actors that have done whatever. And now they want to start again and do like a new version of all of those actors, which I think could be interesting. Like Marvel has done a masterful job with their characters. DC still has really good characters. They could do a better job with like their TV universe is the one where they just excel and they really take, you know, they really do well in the TV universe. I feel like if the Justice League was run by Marvel and Disney, it would rival Marvel and like rival Marvel, right? It's like who is controlling these characters because the Marvel characters aren't inherently better than Justice League. It's just who's doing a better job of presenting that to the world. Does that make sense? And of course they've implied I can't even, it was on the TV series of The Flash where they mentioned how he went down to the comic book store and he got Iron Man and Spider Man. He was talking about the Marvel comic books in the DC TV series. The Flash. They were having a conversation about Stan Lee and Marvel comics that down at the comic book store in the Star Lab in the TV version of The Flash. That's really interesting. Was that like the CW version of The Flash? Yeah, that CW TV version. Oh yeah. And I think he went on for a few seasons and they did a really good job. The Crisis on Infinite Earth where they took Supergirl and they took Superman and they took that. They took The Flash and they took the Legends of Tomorrow and to call four of them and crossed over like one episode to the next episode and went from like Supergirl to Green Arrow from Green Arrow to the Legends of Tomorrow to The Flash. And out of the middle of that Supergirl and Superman arrived. Interesting. I mean that sounds fun. I knew you'd go check that out I hadn't seen that yet. And one thing I love about these comic book movies is it gives you this ability to disconnect from the modern model and just kind of like release your brain and just let whatever's going on just like be a part of it, right? It's like I try and spend a lot of time, I think a lot about the Stoics, right? We've talked about this before. It's like if I can't control something, I don't want to spend any time worrying about it. And the beauty of a comic book movie like Marvel or DC or any of these is, I can't control any of it. So I don't have to spend any brain power worrying about it at all and I can just enjoy it for what it is. It kind of becomes like a, almost like a meditation, you know, where it's like I have no ability to control any of this. So I'm just going to absorb it and think of it as the way it is. But sometimes sometimes that is where the internet came in, where there is a positive side to the influence that like all the fans of Lost did actually influence the direction the show went in. It wasn't always bad either. That's the thing. As some of the directions it was influenced, I was actually for the show's benefit. Sometimes there is that interactivity and things can change because you're predicting, trying to predict where a story might go next and the author themselves don't necessarily know. Well, I think that's an amazing opportunity for a producer. If you're a producer of a show and you get to hear back from your audience about what direction they think this thing should go, that's a total bonus, you know, just out how you want to use it. But you at least got some feedback on how this thing may go. All right, folks, we're going to wrap up the show tonight. It's going to be on the blockchain. Next week. I don't even know what we'll talk about. Something fun. Something interesting. You'll probably have a good time. When we come back next week, I'll be on the blockchain. All right. [MUSIC PLAYING]