WEBVTT
00:00.000 --> 00:04.000
Thank you, Mohsen, very much for the great talk.
00:04.000 --> 00:08.000
People, if you have questions, please put them on the pad,
00:08.000 --> 00:12.000
or IRC, but preferably the pad, and then we'll also open this room
00:12.000 --> 00:16.000
in a minute or two so that if anyone who wants to join here and ask the questions
00:16.000 --> 00:19.000
directly to Mohsen, they could do that as well.
00:19.000 --> 00:22.000
Dear Mohsen, please take it away.
00:22.000 --> 00:25.000
Hello, greetings.
00:25.000 --> 00:29.000
Yeah, I don't see any questions yet,
00:29.000 --> 00:35.000
so let me add a few additional notes
00:35.000 --> 00:39.000
to what was in the presentation.
00:39.000 --> 00:43.000
In there, I make several points.
00:43.000 --> 00:49.000
Some of them are tactical, some are more strategic.
00:49.000 --> 00:56.000
Let me delve into the strategic message a bit.
00:56.000 --> 01:02.000
On the messaging capabilities of Emacs
01:02.000 --> 01:08.000
and the broader office environment capabilities of Emacs,
01:08.000 --> 01:14.000
we have a huge, incredibly powerful asset,
01:14.000 --> 01:18.000
but the amount of complexity
01:18.000 --> 01:27.000
and the surrounding configuration capabilities
01:27.000 --> 01:32.000
and hurdles and difficulties that are involved
01:32.000 --> 01:41.000
into making a really powerful environment for ourselves,
01:41.000 --> 01:44.000
we have a big obstacle,
01:44.000 --> 01:49.000
and that obstacle is that of integration.
01:49.000 --> 01:58.000
Over the past 40 years, the general model has been that of producing components
01:58.000 --> 02:03.000
where we do great stuff.
02:03.000 --> 02:13.000
We put various email MTAs and support them through Emacs.
02:13.000 --> 02:21.000
Additionally, we say that we want Emacs to be used on all platforms.
02:21.000 --> 02:25.000
If you're on Windows, there is Emacs support for it.
02:25.000 --> 02:30.000
If there is Mac OS, there is support for that.
02:30.000 --> 02:35.000
And of course, all of the GNU Linux stuff,
02:35.000 --> 02:39.000
capabilities and platforms.
02:39.000 --> 02:46.000
So all of this results into tremendous amounts of energy
02:46.000 --> 02:54.000
to go both on the developer side and on the user side to support everything.
02:54.000 --> 02:59.000
And that's what we have been doing over the past 40 years.
02:59.000 --> 03:07.000
What I am saying is that perhaps we should revisit this approach
03:07.000 --> 03:16.000
and consider moving towards creating a complete
03:16.000 --> 03:23.000
Libre Halal free software digital ecosystem for ourselves
03:23.000 --> 03:28.000
and consider Emacs as the usage environment
03:28.000 --> 03:33.000
of that totality of the digital ecosystem.
03:33.000 --> 03:42.000
This will solve many problems if we were to buy into such an approach.
03:42.000 --> 03:47.000
If we were to say that as the platform de facto
03:47.000 --> 03:54.000
and because of everything that is happening,
03:54.000 --> 03:57.000
Debian is a reasonable good choice.
03:57.000 --> 04:06.000
And then we would tie in all Emacs capabilities
04:06.000 --> 04:13.000
primarily and firstly to our own platform
04:13.000 --> 04:17.000
and start building on it.
04:17.000 --> 04:28.000
So let's take the situation with email in such a scenario.
04:28.000 --> 04:34.000
The main obstacles that we have right now is that
04:34.000 --> 04:41.000
GNU comes out with support for pretty much everything.
04:41.000 --> 04:50.000
But as the user, someone trying to buy into doing email on Emacs,
04:50.000 --> 04:55.000
which of these facilities, which of these features
04:55.000 --> 04:58.000
would be the right way to go?
04:58.000 --> 05:07.000
So what I am saying, having chosen our platform as Debian,
05:07.000 --> 05:14.000
what if we were to say that we would buy into something like Q-mail
05:14.000 --> 05:24.000
as the outgoing message model and just fully bring it in
05:24.000 --> 05:30.000
and consider it as the only and the default MTA
05:30.000 --> 05:33.000
for everything that we do?
05:33.000 --> 05:39.000
Suddenly a whole lot of complexity goes away.
05:39.000 --> 05:45.000
And similarly for bringing in email,
05:45.000 --> 05:50.000
what if we were to say that we have bought into offline IMAP
05:50.000 --> 05:55.000
and then the next really interesting piece is
05:55.000 --> 05:59.000
what should be our mailboxes?
05:59.000 --> 06:08.000
This notion that today de facto Gmail is the universal place
06:08.000 --> 06:11.000
where you get your mailboxes.
06:11.000 --> 06:15.000
And very easily we can, not very easily,
06:15.000 --> 06:20.000
but we certainly can support Gmail.
06:20.000 --> 06:27.000
But what if we were to get in the business of actually providing
06:27.000 --> 06:32.000
mailboxes for everyone and combine that with the platform
06:32.000 --> 06:35.000
and the main user agent?
06:35.000 --> 06:43.000
So that's really the strategic message that I want to,
06:43.000 --> 06:48.000
that I'm sending.
06:48.000 --> 06:49.000
Excellent, thank you.
06:49.000 --> 06:52.000
And I think in the meantime we have four questions
06:52.000 --> 06:54.000
on the panel already.
06:54.000 --> 07:00.000
Okay, I don't see them here.
07:00.000 --> 07:03.000
Oh, are you looking in the public chat here on the big blue button?
07:03.000 --> 07:04.000
Yes.
07:04.000 --> 07:06.000
Okay, let me put a link.
07:06.000 --> 07:10.000
So there's a separate pad where people are posting their questions.
07:10.000 --> 07:13.000
Okay, now I am seeing.
07:13.000 --> 07:17.000
Yeah, if it might be easier I could probably copy the questions over here.
07:17.000 --> 07:20.000
No, no, I am actually seeing them.
07:20.000 --> 07:21.000
Okay.
07:21.000 --> 07:25.000
Perfectly, perfectly okay.
07:25.000 --> 07:31.000
So the first question is something I have liked about Not Much
07:31.000 --> 07:35.000
is using Maildear makes searching fast
07:35.000 --> 07:40.000
and the knowledge that you have all your email period.
07:40.000 --> 07:45.000
Why GNU's over Not Much?
07:45.000 --> 07:53.000
As a side note, you have also Much Think for Not Much client
07:53.000 --> 07:59.000
and Jmap for more exotic normal clients.
07:59.000 --> 08:04.000
So I think there are two things going on here.
08:04.000 --> 08:07.000
Not Much is more than one thing.
08:07.000 --> 08:13.000
Not Much is a search, a mail search engine
08:13.000 --> 08:20.000
and also Not Much is a MUA.
08:20.000 --> 08:30.000
So in terms of choosing, certainly for search, for mail search capabilities,
08:30.000 --> 08:33.000
we should go with Not Much
08:33.000 --> 08:40.000
and there is GNU's search capabilities for Not Much in there.
08:40.000 --> 08:48.000
So what I am suggesting is that we stick to GNU's as an MUA,
08:48.000 --> 08:52.000
but the search capabilities that you are talking about
08:52.000 --> 08:59.000
or that the question mentions are certainly available.
08:59.000 --> 09:05.000
A second question is, so the idea is more about Emacs
09:05.000 --> 09:10.000
as a holistic computing experience with other packages and services
09:10.000 --> 09:14.000
rather than about email specifically
09:14.000 --> 09:19.000
as an alternative to something like Microsoft Office Suite.
09:19.000 --> 09:23.000
Yes, this is right on the point.
09:23.000 --> 09:28.000
What I am saying is that email by itself
09:28.000 --> 09:33.000
is not really all that meaningful or interesting
09:33.000 --> 09:38.000
and everywhere that you look in the proprietary model,
09:38.000 --> 09:43.000
you would see that the likes of Google and the likes of Microsoft
09:43.000 --> 09:49.000
do not view email as standalone capabilities.
09:49.000 --> 09:52.000
They see it as integrated with address book.
09:52.000 --> 09:55.000
They see it as integrated with calendar.
09:55.000 --> 09:59.000
They see it integrated with search.
09:59.000 --> 10:06.000
They see it as integrated with your to-do list and time management.
10:06.000 --> 10:09.000
So you are very right.
10:09.000 --> 10:13.000
The question is right on point.
10:13.000 --> 10:18.000
Email by itself is not significant
10:18.000 --> 10:26.000
and the reason why Emacs is the right place to do email
10:26.000 --> 10:29.000
is because Emacs is the kitchen sink.
10:29.000 --> 10:35.000
It does absolutely everything and that is what you want.
10:35.000 --> 10:38.000
The third question is,
10:38.000 --> 10:43.000
early on you express misgivings about the Western copyright regime
10:43.000 --> 10:46.000
but you are using a GPL license.
10:46.000 --> 10:49.000
Is that a conflict?
10:49.000 --> 10:52.000
Great work by the way.
10:52.000 --> 10:55.000
No, I don't think it is a conflict.
10:55.000 --> 11:04.000
My position is that the Western intellectual property right regime
11:04.000 --> 11:08.000
is a colossal ownership mistake.
11:08.000 --> 11:15.000
Having said that, and I do call for its abolishment,
11:15.000 --> 11:21.000
having said that, it is unrealistic to assume or recognize
11:21.000 --> 11:26.000
that just because I say it and just because I believe it,
11:26.000 --> 11:34.000
in fact it will be abolished or that a significant change would happen,
11:34.000 --> 11:38.000
particularly in the Western world.
11:38.000 --> 11:44.000
So in the Western context, what can we do?
11:44.000 --> 11:46.000
What should we do?
11:46.000 --> 11:52.000
What I am saying there is that particularly in the context of services,
11:52.000 --> 12:00.000
all licenses should be the strictest ones possible
12:00.000 --> 12:07.000
and the one that is codified is the Afero GPL license.
12:07.000 --> 12:12.000
So I have subjected all my work to the Afero GPL license.
12:12.000 --> 12:27.000
I know of GNU, how do you think about using it for packaging,
12:27.000 --> 12:31.000
configuring Emacs, your various packages,
12:31.000 --> 12:37.000
else you might look it up or NixOS.
12:37.000 --> 12:46.000
So the idea here is that when we go back to this full integration
12:46.000 --> 12:49.000
in the context of a digital ecosystem,
12:49.000 --> 12:59.000
a major challenge is that of bringing in all the necessary packages
12:59.000 --> 13:01.000
from different sources.
13:01.000 --> 13:08.000
So for example, in the context of male user agents,
13:08.000 --> 13:13.000
to put things together you need a set of apt packages
13:13.000 --> 13:17.000
coming from the DBN world.
13:17.000 --> 13:25.000
You need a set of pypi packages coming from the Python world
13:25.000 --> 13:32.000
and you need a set of list packages coming from Elisp archives.
13:32.000 --> 13:38.000
And likely you need a whole lot of others.
13:38.000 --> 13:47.000
You need possibly Node.js stuff and you also possibly need Ruby stuff.
13:47.000 --> 13:54.000
And this integration is going to be complex.
13:54.000 --> 14:01.000
The approach that I have taken is that of going best of breed
14:01.000 --> 14:06.000
in the context of each of the domains.
14:06.000 --> 14:13.000
So in Python, while there may be other packaging models,
14:13.000 --> 14:16.000
we go with pypi.
14:16.000 --> 14:19.000
On the platform, it's clear that it's apt.
14:19.000 --> 14:25.000
On the Linux, over the past five years, we have solved mostly
14:25.000 --> 14:29.000
that archiving machinery.
14:29.000 --> 14:39.000
If the question is, and I'm not familiar with the specifics
14:39.000 --> 14:44.000
of what was mentioned in terms of a unified packaging model,
14:44.000 --> 14:54.000
but if the question is that of a unified packaging integration model,
14:54.000 --> 14:58.000
I'd love to do it when it's mature and ready.
14:58.000 --> 15:05.000
At this point, I am going the route of best of breed selections
15:05.000 --> 15:09.000
within each domain.
15:09.000 --> 15:15.000
And if I chime in briefly, Mohsen, I think there was a typo in the question.
15:15.000 --> 15:19.000
They are asking about GNU Geeks or mentioning GNU Geeks
15:19.000 --> 15:21.000
and also potentially NixOS.
15:21.000 --> 15:24.000
And I think these two also very much go with your idea
15:24.000 --> 15:28.000
of tying everything together, these different package management systems.
15:28.000 --> 15:33.000
So GNU Geeks is a GNU Linux distribution like Debian is,
15:33.000 --> 15:37.000
but it's written in GNU Guile Lisp or Guile Scheme.
15:37.000 --> 15:41.000
And it's a very interesting concept where all of the packaging code
15:41.000 --> 15:46.000
and everything is done in GNU Guile Scheme and ties everything together
15:46.000 --> 15:48.000
and integrates great with Emacs.
15:48.000 --> 15:51.000
So that might be something worth checking out later on.
15:51.000 --> 15:52.000
Right.
15:52.000 --> 16:01.000
I had taken a very cursory look at that, and I'll keep my eyes open on it.
16:01.000 --> 16:07.000
I think in due course, maybe that's the way to go.
16:07.000 --> 16:13.000
There's one more question coming in.
16:13.000 --> 16:21.000
I let the person who is asking the question to complete it.
16:21.000 --> 16:22.000
Okay.
16:22.000 --> 16:26.000
Yeah, in the meantime, I'll also mention that I think we have about
16:26.000 --> 16:32.000
four more minutes of on-stream live Q&A time, at which point after that,
16:32.000 --> 16:33.000
the stream will move on.
16:33.000 --> 16:38.000
But you Mohsen and, of course, people watching are welcome to come here,
16:38.000 --> 16:41.000
join this Big Blue Button Room directly and ask the questions here
16:41.000 --> 16:42.000
or on the pad.
16:42.000 --> 16:43.000
Great.
16:43.000 --> 16:44.000
Great.
16:44.000 --> 16:47.000
So let me read the question.
16:47.000 --> 16:54.000
Is this being split up in a heavily configured server for email hosting
16:54.000 --> 17:00.000
and the thin client package for you locally client to integrate with your
17:00.000 --> 17:02.000
Emacs package?
17:02.000 --> 17:11.000
Maybe with a client thin Docker container for other packages,
17:11.000 --> 17:15.000
like not much locally?
17:15.000 --> 17:23.000
Actually, that is not really exactly what I am speaking of.
17:23.000 --> 17:32.000
The concept of a thin client is difficult to characterize.
17:32.000 --> 17:41.000
So if you have Emacs and everything else that you want to use as a usage
17:41.000 --> 17:49.000
environment along with your email system, if we want to call that a thin
17:49.000 --> 17:59.000
client, certainly that is what I call the usage environment.
17:59.000 --> 18:10.000
On the services side, I am not speaking of just one.
18:10.000 --> 18:15.000
I am speaking of support for multiple, of course, obviously,
18:15.000 --> 18:22.000
but having one that in my own case, for example, by name.net,
18:22.000 --> 18:27.000
is the primary support.
18:27.000 --> 18:36.000
And in terms of packaging that as a thin client instead of inside of a
18:36.000 --> 18:45.000
Docker, that is certainly possible, but it is not, I don't consider it as
18:45.000 --> 18:47.000
the only way to go.
18:47.000 --> 18:56.000
You can do your packaging any way you want and, well, you can do your
18:56.000 --> 19:04.000
packaging and then deliver it however you want.
19:04.000 --> 19:11.000
On these questions, if I was not on the point in understanding the
19:11.000 --> 19:16.000
questions and answering them correctly, if there are any follow-ups,
19:16.000 --> 19:42.000
I would be happy to take them.
19:42.000 --> 19:51.000
Yeah, if there are no other questions, I can perhaps bring up the
19:51.000 --> 20:04.000
presentation and maybe make a few additional points.
20:04.000 --> 20:23.000
So, I think one key slide in here is this one, where what I am saying
20:23.000 --> 20:32.000
is that we have been very good at producing components and that we
20:32.000 --> 20:42.000
really need to get into systems development or environments
20:42.000 --> 20:46.000
development as opposed to components development.
20:46.000 --> 20:55.000
And to raise that a bit more so that we can move towards having
20:55.000 --> 21:01.000
something that we can call a non-procreatory digital ecosystem,
21:01.000 --> 21:10.000
I think we need to work towards having frameworks for services.
21:10.000 --> 21:17.000
And while we have defined free software or what I call Libre
21:17.000 --> 21:25.000
Halal software, we don't have precise definitions for Libre services,
21:25.000 --> 21:27.000
free services.
21:27.000 --> 21:32.000
Free services is going to be a very bad name, because we want it to
21:32.000 --> 21:34.000
be commercial.
21:34.000 --> 21:39.000
We want people to pay for it as they use it.
21:39.000 --> 21:45.000
And so the natural name would be something like Libre services.
21:45.000 --> 21:52.000
And in that context, if you go to Libre services.org, you will see
21:52.000 --> 22:00.000
my definition of what that would mean, what non-proprietary
22:00.000 --> 22:05.000
codification of services would mean.
22:05.000 --> 22:20.000
Another slide perhaps to take a look at is this one, where I am
22:20.000 --> 22:35.000
making the case for not considering Emacs by itself as core of
22:35.000 --> 22:43.000
anything, but viewing and cultivating and introducing this
22:43.000 --> 22:48.000
concept of common agent and building on it.
22:48.000 --> 22:58.000
Let me go see if there are any other questions.
22:58.000 --> 23:08.000
Yeah, I didn't see any more.
23:08.000 --> 23:12.000
May I drop in and ask a question directly?
23:12.000 --> 23:14.000
Of course.
23:14.000 --> 23:21.000
Okay, so I have a question regarding combining GNU and NotMuch.
23:21.000 --> 23:23.000
Yes.
23:23.000 --> 23:30.000
So do you combine tagging facilities of NotMuch into GNU as well?
23:30.000 --> 23:32.000
Sorry, can you repeat that?
23:32.000 --> 23:37.000
Do you also integrate tagging facilities of NotMuch into GNU?
23:37.000 --> 23:41.000
Tagging? I have not done that.
23:41.000 --> 23:46.000
Okay, because I was looking into combining GNU and NotMuch at some point,
23:46.000 --> 23:53.000
but what stopped me from continuing is that NotMuch is mostly about tags,
23:53.000 --> 24:00.000
and then GNU has a search option for NotMuch, using NotMuch.
24:00.000 --> 24:05.000
But how do you add tags from GNU?
24:05.000 --> 24:11.000
Right, in terms of continuous use, it's only recently that I'm doing that,
24:11.000 --> 24:16.000
and I don't think it means that it is not doable.
24:16.000 --> 24:22.000
It's just that in my own case, I haven't done it.
24:22.000 --> 24:24.000
Yeah, it's certainly doable.
24:24.000 --> 24:30.000
You present this unified system that brings everything together.
24:30.000 --> 24:33.000
So I was wondering if it's already implemented.
24:33.000 --> 24:44.000
Yeah, I must say all that I do is I want to say that that is the direction that I want to go.
24:44.000 --> 24:45.000
Okay.
24:45.000 --> 24:47.000
We have a long way to go.
24:47.000 --> 24:58.000
It's mostly a question of, and that is not the general direction and formalization that has been happening.
24:58.000 --> 25:06.000
So more or less, a lot of what I mentioned in there is not fully baked.
25:06.000 --> 25:17.000
Okay, thanks.
25:17.000 --> 25:20.000
I think we also have a question here in chat, Mohsen.
25:20.000 --> 25:22.000
I wasn't sure if you already saw or answered it or not.
25:22.000 --> 25:24.000
Sorry.
25:24.000 --> 25:28.000
No, let me, is it on the chat?
25:28.000 --> 25:30.000
Yes, public chat here on big blue button.
25:30.000 --> 25:31.000
Question by Thuna.
25:31.000 --> 25:34.000
Oh, public chat on the big blue button.
25:34.000 --> 25:38.000
Yeah.
25:38.000 --> 25:41.000
Can you expand on definition of Libre Halal?
25:41.000 --> 25:42.000
I'm a bit lost.
25:42.000 --> 25:44.000
Yes.
25:44.000 --> 25:46.000
Yes, yes, yes, yes.
25:46.000 --> 26:05.000
So, you see, we have labels of free software that are well established, and we have definitions of open source that are well established.
26:05.000 --> 26:20.000
And both of these are in the Western context and from the perspective of Western folks.
26:20.000 --> 26:29.000
What I am saying is that neither free software nor open source are the right labels.
26:29.000 --> 26:37.000
What we are looking for is actually ethical software, not free software.
26:37.000 --> 26:49.000
Freedom is something that is wonderful and great, but it may not be the right thing to be free.
26:49.000 --> 27:01.000
What I am saying here is that a manner of existence of software is the key concept.
27:01.000 --> 27:06.000
Allow me to share the screen.
27:06.000 --> 27:09.000
Just one moment.
27:09.000 --> 27:18.000
And maybe point you to a place where I could answer it in depth.
27:18.000 --> 27:27.000
It is certainly not a topic that I could do justice to in just a moment.
27:27.000 --> 27:51.000
So, if you were to look for nature of polyexistentials and Googling that would take you there, there is a 250-page document there that says why I believe the Western intellectual property rights is wrong.
27:51.000 --> 28:10.000
And it goes through and says, well, if polyexistentials are not to be governed by the intellectual property rights regime, then what is the right manner of governing them?
28:10.000 --> 28:21.000
So, what is the right manner of existence of software? And what label should we use for that?
28:21.000 --> 28:41.000
And in here, there is a whole section that about 10 pages or so that describes what Halal means and why the Libre Halal label is the right label.
28:41.000 --> 29:01.000
So, let me perhaps point you to that section.
29:01.000 --> 29:11.000
Yeah, this is on the Cure section.
29:11.000 --> 29:32.000
I think if you were to go to chapter 12, that would be a good place.
29:32.000 --> 29:37.000
Do you happen to have the link to this page handy, Mohsan?
29:37.000 --> 29:46.000
Yeah, it is included in the presentation. Let me go there very quickly.
29:46.000 --> 29:48.000
Oops, sorry.
29:48.000 --> 29:52.000
Just one moment.
29:52.000 --> 30:05.000
Yeah, it's in the presentation with a QR code. So, let me look it up and bring it back up again.
30:05.000 --> 30:13.000
Thank you.
30:13.000 --> 30:25.000
So, the link for that document is on slide 13.
30:25.000 --> 30:29.000
Can you see it?
30:29.000 --> 30:38.000
I'm not seeing your slides, but okay, it is getting shared again. Yep. Thanks.
30:38.000 --> 30:39.000
Yeah, sorry. Go ahead.
30:39.000 --> 30:42.000
Yeah, that is the...
30:42.000 --> 30:47.000
Oh, very good. Somebody else also threw it up on there.
30:47.000 --> 30:49.000
But it's a little bit different.
30:49.000 --> 31:01.000
Yes, yes.
31:01.000 --> 31:18.000
Yeah, it's PLPC 120.0.33.
31:18.000 --> 31:24.000
I mean, any other questions? Yes, thank you.
31:24.000 --> 31:27.000
Thanks. Yeah, I don't see any other questions on the panel.
31:27.000 --> 31:30.000
Oh, there's one new question here from Thuna again.
31:30.000 --> 31:35.000
What is the scope of what you are imagining? Just software?
31:35.000 --> 31:42.000
No, certainly not just software. It is software and services.
31:42.000 --> 31:49.000
So, that is, I think, the next challenge and the next step for us.
31:49.000 --> 32:03.000
We have to think of ways of competing with Gmail and Outlook.com.
32:03.000 --> 32:07.000
So, services are certainly within the scope.
32:07.000 --> 32:14.000
In the abstract sense of what polyexistentials are.
32:14.000 --> 32:18.000
So, polyexistentials are things that exist in multiples.
32:18.000 --> 32:24.000
So, any form of knowledge is within the scope.
32:24.000 --> 32:48.000
And that goes to medications, goes to anything that is patentable and art and anything that is copyable.
32:48.000 --> 33:03.000
Yes, NFTs are a form of creating mono-existentials out of polyexistentials.
33:03.000 --> 33:13.000
So, by the time that you create an NFT, it is no longer the subject of what I am talking about.
33:13.000 --> 33:23.000
But the process of creating mono-existentials off of polyexistentials is what we should be discussing.
33:23.000 --> 33:36.000
There is a section in that book on that topic as well with the same subject of how one goes about creating that.
33:36.000 --> 33:44.000
You see, any sort of a name could be thought of as an NFT.
33:44.000 --> 33:54.000
So, if you think of our domain name system, although it is in the realm of software and services,
33:54.000 --> 34:17.000
what you have emacsconf.org that has become unique and it's a mono-existential.
34:17.000 --> 34:30.000
I think my key message here is this vocabulary of polyexistence and mono-existence and mixed existence,
34:30.000 --> 34:38.000
which is the novelty in the stuff that I have written.
34:38.000 --> 34:43.000
We all have understood these for a long time.
34:43.000 --> 35:07.000
It's a question of coming up with the right vocabulary to express them with precision that remains and then acting on them.
35:07.000 --> 35:08.000
Excellent.
35:08.000 --> 35:15.000
As a lot of people have said, I think both here and also in IRC, there is a lot of information and material to digest from this talk
35:15.000 --> 35:21.000
and to try to think really deeply about for the coming weeks and months.
35:21.000 --> 35:24.000
So, that's great.
35:24.000 --> 35:28.000
Thank you.
35:28.000 --> 35:30.000
We can keep this session going as long as you want.
35:30.000 --> 35:33.000
The stream has already moved on, but here it is open.
35:33.000 --> 35:40.000
If folks have any more questions, feel free to post them here or on the separate pad page.
35:40.000 --> 35:46.000
Yeah, or if not, then we can all drop off at some point.
35:46.000 --> 35:48.000
Sure.
35:48.000 --> 35:52.000
If there are any questions, I'll be happy to answer them.
35:52.000 --> 36:07.000
Otherwise, perhaps we could go and watch the rest.
36:23.000 --> 36:31.000
Yeah, I mean, I think perhaps it's a good thing to consider the session complete.
36:31.000 --> 36:33.000
Sure, sounds good to me.
36:33.000 --> 36:36.000
Thank you again very much Mohsen, really appreciate it.
36:36.000 --> 36:38.000
Thank you.
36:38.000 --> 36:39.000
Cheers, take care.
36:39.000 --> 36:57.000
Take care.
