Welcome to Shapes of Simple Molecules Part 1. Determining the shape of molecules with one central atom starts with the Lewis dot structure. The example below represents ammonia. It has atomic symbols. These represent the atomic nucleus and the core electrons. Lines. The lines represent the electrons involved in covalent bonds. Each bond contains two electrons. And dots. These are used to represent lone pairs of electrons. The groups of valence electrons around the central atom determine the molecule's shape. For example, in ammonia there are four groups of electrons around the nitrogen atom. There is one lone pair of electrons. Each lone pair contains one group of electrons. There are three bonds. Each bond contains one group of electrons. One group of electrons can be either one non-bonding pair of electrons, one single bond, one double bond, or one triple bond. Each counts as one group, even though some have more than two electrons. For example, in sulfur dioxide there are three groups of electrons around the sulfur atom. Since we count the two double bonds as one group each, and the lone pair of electrons is one group. Or in hydrogen cyanide there are two groups of electrons around the carbon atom. Since we count the triple bond as one group and the single bond as one group. And in carbon dioxide there are two groups of electrons around the carbon atom. Since we count each double bond as one group. Now you try it. In the following examples, how many groups of electrons are around the central atom? In formaldehyde the two single bonds and the one double bond make three total groups of electrons. In germane the four single bonds make four total groups of electrons. Next we'll look at how the groups of electrons repel each other to create the molecule shape. Groups of electrons are negatively charged and repel each other. Groups can be two electrons in a single bond or a non-bonding pair. Four electrons in a double bond or six electrons in a triple bond. In all of these groups the electrons move as far away from each other as possible to minimize repulsions. The two groups of electrons in beryllium hydride move to opposite sides of the central beryllium atom. Ball and stick models show how the valence electrons move around the central atom to avoid each other. Space-filled models are more realistic but obscure the geometry. In molecular models typically specific elements are given specific colors. For example, in the carbon dioxide molecule shown here, carbon is typically shown as black and oxygen is red. Here are some elements and the colors used to represent them. Now let's look at the different shapes the simple molecules take on. Both beryllium hydride and carbon dioxide have two groups of electrons around the central atom. The angle between the groups is 180 degrees. This results in the molecules adopting a linear shape. The trigonal planar shape is flat and has angles of 120 degrees between the bonds. Any atom that contains three groups of electrons around the central atom will arrange the electrons in this pattern. In sulfur dioxide the three groups of electrons separate into the trigonal planar arrangement. However, the shape of the molecule is bent because the shape of any molecule is defined only by the bonded atoms. The angle between the bonded atoms is about 120 degrees. In methane there are four groups of electrons around the central carbon atom bonded to four hydrogen atoms. A tetrahedral shaped molecule is produced when each bonded pair moves as far away as possible from the other three electron pairs. The tetrahedral shape, so named because the bonds point toward the four corners of a tetrahedron, has angles of 109.5 degrees between the bonds. Four groups of electrons around a central atom are always arranged in this pattern. The tetrahedral shape can be drawn on paper by using a solid line to represent a bond that lies in the plane of the paper, a solid wedge for a bond that projects out in front of the dashed line for a bond that projects behind the paper. If one of the four groups is a lone pair, the groups of electrons still arrange themselves in the tetrahedral shape. However, the shape of the molecule is defined by the four atoms and is pure middle. If two of the four groups are lone pairs, the groups of electrons arrange themselves in a tetrahedral shape. The shape of the molecule is defined by the three atoms and is bent. The lone pairs of electrons are closer to the nucleus than are bonding electrons. They therefore repel the bonding electrons more than bonding electrons repel each other. This results in a slightly smaller angle between bonding electrons as the number of lone pairs increases, for example methane, ammonia and water. What would the shape of the following molecules be? The shape is trigonal planar. The shape of carbon disulfide is linear. The shape of germane is tetrahedral. The shape of formaldehyde is trigonal planar. You have completed this video, Shapes of Simple Molecules Part 1.


Ukraine is one of the poorest countries in Europe and is currently facing an invasion from Russia. Over the past few decades, its population has experienced a steady decline in birth rate, with infant and perinatal mortality rates remaining high compared to other European countries. Despite this, there has been a decrease in deaths related to intranatal mortality, while early neonatal mortality rates have increased. This suggests that the quality of medical care for newborns needs improvement, as well as measures to protect the fetus during pregnancy. Additionally, congenital malformations and conditions associated with extremely low and very low birth weights are common causes of perinatal mortality in Ukraine. To address these issues, the country should focus on creating and restoring perinatal centers, providing adequate resources for safe childbirth, and ensuring timely diagnosis and treatment of conditions that arise during the perinatal period. Furthermore, it must also work towards improving the social and political climate in order to increase the birth rate and reduce infant and perinatal mortality. This article was authored by O. P. Volosovits, I. Obacharov, G. V. Bekatova, and others. We are article.tv, links in the description below.


So let me start with modular 7. So I'm going to keep my notes so I don't stray. So what is a modular 7? Well, so you start with a subgroup of GL2Q. Sometimes it will be GL2Q. But usually it will be a congruent subgroup of SL2Z. M is a gamma mod. Let's say, let me say, they usually have your ring sitting around. And so R will be summary. And then delta zero, that's my notation for the separate divisors of degree zero on P1 of Q. So P1 of Q I imagine as being, start with a half way. P1 of Q is the set of rational numbers on a real line together with the point at high and fit. Okay. And so then let me just tell you now, so that's what I'm thinking about P1 of Q. And then, you can see that board so well, I'll move over here. And then, so what are the modular symbols? So the modular symbols over gamma, with values in M, sometimes I'll write it that way, that is the set of homomorphisms equivariate over gamma from delta zero to F. Okay, so if I have a modular sample, I'll be thinking about things like this. I'll tend to write things like this. Phi of R to S. When I write that, what I'm, you might, in this interpretation, that would be phi of the divisor of degree zero S minus R. So I'm thinking about R and S. It goes like that. And so when I write phi of R to S, I'm imagining it as an integral from R to S. And so that's the reason for this notation. And of course, there's a remark that, in fact, this captures an important part. So a remark that I've been asking myself a long time ago that there's a natural isomorphism from the contact you're supporting called logic gamma with values in M to the modular symbols with values in M. And so that maybe is a justification for this picture. Now the way of Jekker sort of visualizing these things, it's fun to visualize these things too. Let me try. I'll do it here. What you might think about is zero. You have I infinity up there somewhere. And if you think about the path of one, two, minus one, minus two, you can draw these geodesics connecting those guys. Take a half. You make what's called the fairy tessellation. My picture's not great. But you can think about what's called the fairy tessellation of the path. And the idea is you draw the fairy tessellation down on the real axis and then you connect up. So let me just say it very simply. If I take infinity to zero, which is this path, and then sort of apply the elements of SL2Z to it, there's a one-to-one correspondence for PSL2Z, I should say. There's a one-to-one correspondence between the elements of PSL2Z and the edges of this thing where if I have a matrix gamma, this is A over C, B over D where gamma is the matrix, A, B, C, D. And so those are two adjacent terms in some fairy sequences. The idea. So I'm going to leave this picture on the board. This, by the way, is something that I learned a long time ago when I was in high school about fairy tessellations and fairy sequences. And one of the first things that I actually fell in love with was this idea of continued fractions. And I think that is the initial reason why I got so interested in this project. Gary showed me how to use continued fractions to compute periods of modular forms, compute modular symbols. And so, of course, that caught my eye. Of course, now there's very little continued fractions in the theory anymore. But still, I like drawing that picture. That picture, I'm going to leave on the board so I can point to it now. Okay? All right. My principle with values in M is a way of labeling the fairy tessellation. When I say labeling, I mean just the entries. Labeling the edges, giving each edge associated with some element of the module M. But doing it in an equivariate way. Yeah, in an equivariate way. That's a picture of the module set. You'll see that if you do that, there are certain relations because we need to have, when we go down and over and then back up again, we better get zero if this thing represents divisors of degree zero.  And they're the ones you see in the picture, and they're called commodity relations. Okay? And so you will use them without a lot of saying here, but they're important. Okay, so one of the things that Barry taught us is that when we're studying values of L functions, at least for modular forms, really what we're studying in some sense are these modular symbols, or if you like, the homology of the modular curve, and you're making certain homology classes in the modular curve and evaluating modular symbols on them, and you get numbers, maybe, or elements of a model that correspond to values of L, things like they're the universal. That's the path that you integrate a modular form over in order to get the melon transform of the modular form. And so that gives, I thought we'd compute L, maybe in my group. This you see is known as L to zero, or it's an element of the relative homology of the modular curve. Land of chi would be some sum, A equals zero to M minus one, A in Z mod M cross, then you'll get the value of the L function. It somehow changes the context for thinking about values of L functions, thinking of them as homology classes, which is very natural. Okay, so this is a basic example. If F is, say, a cost form for some group gamma, it's greater than or equal to two or even, we let omega F bring it equal to two pi i times minus two F of 50 tau. That's a differential form on the upper half, making values in some space that I will call wk minus two. Wk minus two is just our homogenous polynomial in two variables, x and y, to reach k minus two. Okay? And the key thing is that if F is a cost form, this defines a gamma invariant differential form. This is something that's invariant under the action of the group gamma. And so I can integrate it over paths and make a module assemble this way. And so I want to do that. Then we can define phi so that's the module assemble and notice that it takes value. Well, this is the degree k minus two. Okay, I want to mention. And then I'll pick up the picture. Okay, so module assembles the group gamma with values in w of the ring over F. This is the ring of HECA eigenvalues of the form F. The universal for the L value is something else, right? Pi sub F plus omega F. So the split of this guy over here are the algebraic parts of the module assemble associated to F. And when you take L to get something similar, you separated the L values of the cost form into the even and odd multiplied by, which is one that Barry taught us very well back, module C, L functions are something that we all know have something to do with arithmetic. So we think of some of the arithmetic logic like an elliptic curve or something like that. We make an L function and that then is a way of encoding local function complex something to tell us something about arithmetic. But you can actually do arithmetic with the L values. And because it's what I'm most interested in, in this context is Isenstein congruence, which is something that Barry taught me a long time ago. And then can you say something about the associated L values? So this is another very old story and this is a typical example, standard example or first example is one that we've seen already in this conference is to start with this Q times some product one minus Q. Square, square. Yeah, square. The Isenstein series, this is modular. There's an Isenstein series but we're not at Isenstein series. Of way two, the one point, the cuss point is one-dimensional and the Isenstein series are also one-dimensional and this is this. Plus some sum, n equals 1 to infinity, some modified version of the sigma function times Q to the n. And the thing that one notices here is that the f is not obvious but it's true that the f is congruent as a Q expansion to the Isenstein series, modular 5. So in particular you'll notice that the constant term of the Isenstein series is the visible lifeline. And so that's a congruence between two analytic objects and the question is does that tell something about these L values are they congruent and the answer is yes, they are. And so, literally, but I'll say more about it in a second. The size of f, size of e minus also reflects the congruence between the cuss form and the Isenstein series and there are two periods. There are two. But for Isenstein series there's only one and it's this. Maybe e minus is in fact a tie-up. There's no even period. There's no even part of the minus and seven. And so we can't even quite make sense to frame this. Okay now, so this is something that's interesting because in fact, people like Rob Pollack and Preston Wake have been thinking about congruences even in the even case and they've all write down congruences between micro symbols associated to f and micro symbols associated to e but when they talk about the micro symbols associated to e, they're actually out of boundary symbols. Our things that only depend they're actually extended to homomorphism not just from delta zero to m but also to gap from delta to m where you don't take dividers at degree zero. That's much easier to make such things and there is an there are in fact elements of that thing that have the same eigenvalues as the Isenstein series does and so that's what people when they talk about those Isenstein series that's what they mean by the Isenstein series and it's very significant so the question then is what happens what do you do, what happens when you're working with an Isenstein series and you have you're thinking about the even part of an Isenstein series okay and so that's the question, what does that mean how do we make sense of that so let me just think about an example of the actual example that's all described as best I can I want to start with a cusp form this, let me say right in front that this is the question, the original question I don't know what, where is Romyard actually starting with this whole stuff but Romyard, certainly the simplest case of his theorem or his conjecture which is now theorem mostly the conjecture he gave a conjectural formula for besides the best plus in the case where p is an Isenstein prime in the case where there's a congruence like this and so that's really what I want to talk about so for me he's a conjecture, let me just stick I'm going to start with a simple case he says much more than what I'm going to say right now but I'll try to say something that's his full conjecture in a moment so start with not 2z of way to care 2 and p a prime it will always be greater than 2 for me prime such that pk is an irregular pair position that it should be an irregular pair basically says by the way I want the p p would be bigger not just than 2i okay I don't want to worry about small primes and so this just means that there's a congruence between this i and this cusp form I want to say this is an i form a Hecker i form Isenstein series there's only one space of Isenstein series of way k on SL2z is one dimensional and so I'll take a generator of that thing and suppose so e then think of it as s bk over 2k plus again some sum n equals 1 to infinity some sigma k minus 1 star of n q to the address is q expansion and I want the cusp form to be congruent to e modulo some prime p or p of some prime say in the Hecker algebra q generated by the Hecker algebra by the Hecker eigenvalue of s and I want f then to be congruent to e as a q expansion and that's going to happen then the only way they're going to happen is it must be the case that the constant term is infinity so p that is some prime above okay and so the condition that pk is in your regular pair I'm thinking of what I really want is this congruence of the cusp form in an ison cycle and the ison cycle so then okay and so to rock our game with a nice conjecture for what the value of the algebraic parts of the L value should look like in this situation so I want to just describe the e-bracket through the unity and invertity okay the units in our and so that's just some fp finite dimension of fp that just takes a bit more collectively that is and so okay so now we take the u and we write it we can decompose it I'm going to use the same notation I used before I equal 0 to p minus 2 u 1 minus okay sorry for the for the weird way of arranging this but by this I mean the part of we can decompose you in even spaces for the action of the Gallo-Augre of q zeta p over q so that's just some type of a character so we're taking this as a decomposition of the components on which the Gallo-Augre acts by the 1 minus i power of the type of a character okay 1 minus zeta p this is the element of our cross q 1 minus i okay so that's just some some element in the 1 minus i p so okay um and so the conjecture then is something like this let me get it exactly right so what we think about we take u tensor u of course this maps down to by comer theory that's where we want a product to h2 f up to u p tensor 2 which is k2 okay and then in terms of page it says there's a niceomorphism from there to a a tensor u p group of the field f the field of fractions r of course is not 0 the 1 minus k component of this a reaction the same definitions is not 0 and so tensor a minus or whatever i want to say this then is an element of u tensor u i'm thinking of an element of u tensor u and then i take i call this not this map row i take row of that r that is in this a tensor mu p 2 minus k okay it lives in there now under special conditions and this this is a effective vector space if you like it will be one dimensional in examples as always that seem to be one dimensional could be higher dimensional what i'm saying is is too weak but the point is that that i can say take a linear functional of this thing and identify a piece of it as sort of a line so i'm going to think of the row of that r as actually being an element of fp of the choice of the basis okay of the choice of some linear functional if you like and so rawnor's conjecture says that let me actually get it exactly right rawnor's conjecture says that if you take size of f plus appropriately normalize evaluate on the universal special value we will get modulo p sum over even r of k minus 2 minus r okay so it's a bit of a strange statement so i have to have this ability to think of elements of the class group as elements of fp okay but other than that i could normalize things but the statement is that when i take that out of value that's what i'm going to get so maybe you can identify coefficients sort of the coefficients of this modulo sample with certain elements built out of k2 it's a nice statement so this was just to be honest i don't know exactly what motive is i find it an amazing statement and so i had a student at that time her name was Cecilia Bufuyo and i said well this is a fascinating conjecture why don't you do some computations let's see if we can see it and so she did some calculations she first had to figure out where it all went so she took a couple of months i didn't hear from her for a while a few months later i got an email from her i bought nine o'clock one evening and she said i've done the calculations for these two examples i don't remember which ones and it's checked out so that was great so i went to bed and i woke up the next morning and i had another email from her at 3am that said and i can prove it i was kind of surprised her statement about autism might have been a little bit strong but the point was she saw the idea of what had to be do to prove at least something about i should say upfront that i communicated with ronkyar Sharifi and he said he just discovered the same thing so it seems like a simultaneous close to simultaneous i don't know exactly discovery now to be fair the element is he defines a bunch of symbols in terms of the theory this other way have a matrix gamma in sl2z then if i take gamma times 2 to 0 and i apply gamma to it that will give me some edge every edge gets a horizon in that shape for exactly one gamma well if gamma looks like this if it's something x, y and it's congruent to that mod p then the volume can read off what it is from the bottom row it's just 1 minus zeta px 1 minus zeta py this is the Steinberg symbol happening in k2 of the ring r so this what she said is in effect put that label the edge of the very exhalation that way then it's equivari that's actually what she proved and it's not too hard to prove because the mod n is the second word the part that's interesting is that it satisfies the mod n relations and not just a matter of writing down some particular relation in k2 of that ring which was not very hard to do she just came in and showed it to me it worked beautifully, it was amazing and so this is the mod u7 so mod n relation I'll leave it like that for now Chalice's conjecture much more than this so let me try to state a little bit more what he did what he actually conjectured is that this should reflect the mod u7 that we're writing down should be corresponding to the Eisenstein series so in particular this mod u7 should be part of the statement is that it's a heck of an item and that the item values are the Eisenstein series and that's the part that turned out to be really hard okay the evidence was there and you can see as the connoisseurs worked so it was right in the examples but Cecilia sat down and she tried to prove to go down what it meant for t2 that we have the right item value and she found some relations in the Steindor examples that implied that and so she proved that this is actually an item sample the operators t2 and t3 impressive Romyard did the same I'm not sure but I remember somebody saying they had a proof like this for t5 but I'm not remembering but the point is that proving that this worked in general that it was an Eisenstein sample was really hard for some reason okay this can make more conjectures anyway and so let me just say let hn plus be equal to the homology of the modular curve t to the n with values in zp and I'll take the plus part of the action of context conjugation and it's some level pain level so these guys are relatively prime in this case where you have this irregular where pk is an irregular pair the idea then is to understand what happens as you go up the modular psychotomic count and so the omega n is defined to be we can define some math hn plus the same a n but now it's the class group the p power part of the class actually is the p to the it's the class group on p to the n of the field fn as you go up the top of the psychotomic count okay this is a class group okay it goes to a n minus and I'm just making a remark that even in the simplest case proving that in fact it was not object and wait then does he actually say that hold on a second I don't actually have that statement written I have to say that if I take a limit close to some projected limit with respect to the norm math of a n minus this is the math that he describes as a nice remark so a bit of a mess to read at all this is part a and that part b he said more he built some sort of a theatic L function as I was saying to all of this which is I'm sure important but I don't want to talk about it now part of this what happens here is that Sharifi I'm not Sharifi but Foucailla and Cato with about this time came up with a proof of this trajectory much as I've written it down under the hypothesis that the Fumoto-Leopold pietic zeta function associated to the level n to the tamed level that they needed they wrote down an inverse to the snap omega and said it's the identity of the e-liberation the statement that this guy was a nice insight class even in the simplest case and so we did actually do some stuff and I think I might have enough time to jot some notes about what we tried to do and this is the first one this is the first one but it's not so hard even and so as double coset operators and so we'll try to use some representation some ring I'll call it R1 the sign entity is an example really looks pretty much the only ones that we use but the other one that you know there there is one the point is that these are power series in Q where Q would be the two pi IZ you can specialize Q1 and if you do that you might have to be fixing it so we can probably compute K2 of this ring you can remember in a way that had an action of groups on it and so the group GL1 you can imagine what it is so we first made a distribution Q taking values in what I'll call K1 of R K1 of R is just R1 cross okay what a distribution is but it's kind of what you think it is you make test functions on Q and you make homomorphisms from the group of test functions to this thing and that's the way of expressing sort of distribution related and then there is a unique minus sample delta zero to distributions on Q2 taking values in K2 of some ring which I also won't write down some ring of trace vector functions into her okay now this is not exactly right we had to divide by some ideal I can tell you what it is let's try to get something on the board this is an ideal actually the normal K ring of the ring R2 that's a graded ring of head logic graded pieces I'm just looking at the graded two parts and there's a part of it and then taking the ideal generated by what I call Q1 and Q2 Q1 and Q2 are the two variables okay that's a pretty trivial submodular submodular sample where there's this unique where Q1 is gl2q of a gl2q gradient and the other thing is that the phi I just have to tell you what it is I should be saying something like p pi1 I think of Q2 have two projections to Q when I'm taking a distribution on this flowing back by one of the projections and then taking some convolution product of that we're going to pull that according to the other projection whatever I've written down is true so far but this isn't what we wanted to prove we wanted to use this to prove that the thing she's written down was an ideal ensemble for Hecker and we never got back to that we wrote this down so I'm not even able to tell you how the idea was that we would be able to specialize this at a Q1 equal to certain points and be able to say that instead of the naked class out of this it's a head-to-height ensemble way upstairs and then specialize it's a head-to-height ensemble downstairs we never completed this project because it's about this time that Foucaillet and Kato announced the general so it seemed like a good place to study Foucaillet and Kato were doing okay so the idea let me just since I'm out of time let me just say that what Hecker did was then made out of Ziegler units and so specifically this was actually in my world this was doing a contour off the Ziegler units G0U back with G G0V and when I write this let me be careful it's U over N P to the N this is V over N then P to the N take the Stein for example so this is from an element of K2 but I'm going to think of it not living at level N but it's fine to think of it let me write it at level N gives an element of K2 here's the then make a make a minor assemble from H1 X1 N to the N Y1N N to the N then specialize and then they specialize and finish in other words they make a map you can specialize these guys to make elements of K2 of these rings write it down I would call the same type of R U let me just write it down where it ends up A N minus O Y so specialization you take this guy and so it's an element of K2 of this thing but you specialize it at the infinity cost all right infinity here you specialize that element of K2 and when you do that the idea is that specialization infinity sort of is an Eisenstein map so it respects the Hecker Arbiter's, the eigenvalues of those of the Eisenstein situation in fact of the boundary assemble in fact which is the thought that just occurred to me recently but because you're only using one cost that's the thing that's interesting okay so but the body assemble is made as follows looking again at the various specialization I take the U and the V it's given by I take the U and the V and I associate to the same thing I take a gamma U V this is an element of SL this is the element of SL2Z one minus O N T to the N there's something like this you might as well assemble to be at this path this new line is a path to be I'm going to stop except that there's one more thing that I just want to at least say the thing that I'm personally am interested in right now which I'm not able to, sorry to talk about is a related module assemble it's built in the same spirit as many people have seen this thing that Kudal had an ice paper and we should wrote down the module assemble taking values in a certain he didn't describe it as distribution theoretically and so our formulation of this is to make a modular sample of this type it's a distribution instead of Q2 use matrices of 2 by 2 matrices with rational entries that's a four-dimensional Q vector space so you talk about distributions on that four-dimensional Q vector space taking values in K2 of the module tower all the way up the tower and this is due to Von Schroff by the way he didn't state it but it's equivalent to this and also Bruno gave a different proof of Von Schroff's theorem with some extra restrictions but the statement is in the form that I like it is that you're getting a distribution on M2 of Q taking values of Q of the module power it's built not so differently from this except that you don't require a zero for the first coordinate this is just so that you can specialize that infinitely you use A and B so the first column of the matrix over there is AB and the second column of the matrix that I'm thinking about over there is CD and you get some big micro-sample I believe that this micro-sample deserves in some sense to specialize to the micro-sample until you're on a road down but more, I expect it to be a lot more than that let me just say a little bit more about it when you specialize at the cusps one of these one of these bailiffs in samples say you have got to worry about whether or not the binary units are holomorphic and holomorphic after cusps that you're specializing and so when you take, even though this thing I call it the concovalence in model sample, following in your notes suggestion but it doesn't if you want to say, well it's honest but when you try to specialize at the cusps make something Isenstein from the boundary you have problems because you don't know that you can specialize at all points you can say something called a partial we might call a partial larger sample I'm sort of tending to calling them pseudo larger samples because there's something about them that feels like we should be able to smooth them in the same way that you smooth periodic measures to make them bounded, things like that so I'm interested now in this relationship between these two things and I should say that my main interest is right now depending on these those are spooked to conjecture and so the Darmolda spooked to conjecture the Darmolda spooked to make a periodic measure for a conjectural unit above some in some great last field of a real quadratic field and can be described in terms of this thing that is an easy description of it but it's just another description of the thing and it doesn't seem to be that the distribution somehow needs to be enriched that's the field but if they don't enrich it somehow in order to make these models you never make a unit you have to get some arithmetic data out of it and so that's basically my interest right now is just to examine this particle valence and by the sample to see if it has enough information in it in order to recover in some concrete form of the conjectural unit


and we'll start reflecting on this morning's session together with our amazing panelists. And I think I'll just welcome you all up. So we have Jurgen Apollo, please welcome up. James Priests, Joshua Vile, and Bonita Roy. There we go.  Good enough for now. We'll see when we're done. Okay, so we'll pick your brains a little bit for some 30, 40 minutes, and then it sounds awful. Yeah, I know. But anyway, that's in the program. And then we'll let the audience pick your brains as well. That's gonna be even uglier. So we'll open up for questions since we haven't had that much time before lunch for that. So, and I'd also like to welcome Joshua, who hasn't been on stage yet, we'll meet you later this afternoon. And you're coming in a sense from faraway land coming into Stockholm. And you're also traveling around, seeing many different places. And I introduced you before, as a person who's building the most decentralized organization on the planet. So we'll see if that. Yeah, you're gonna be able to comment on that soon.  And now you've been sitting still for half a day, just taking in things that have been said. What are your reflections from this morning, leading up to lunch? I really enjoyed sitting still for all morning. Long flight to get here from New Zealand. I think the main takeaways I took away from Juergen's talk in the first one was that being right isn't enough, like having a good idea isn't a high enough bar. It has to be accessible. And learning how to make it, things accessible to different audiences, takes as much work as coming up or discovering the right ideas or the good things. That was one takeaway I took from there. I think from James's in the morning, it was, I think the density of things to copy from that talk was just spectacular. And the work of Sociocracy 3 to discover and find good things that are worth copying and put them all together in one thing is like I wish that existed 10 years ago. Because I feel like a lot of my journey has been trying to find little bits of things that are worth copying and doing lots of work doing it and to have all of that put in one spot is just amazing. So that was, I wish I'd seen that talk 10 years ago and I could follow your work then. And I think from Bonnie's thing in the morning, it was very much around being inspired by nature and looking at how natural systems organize and using that not to blindly copy but to inspire us in our work of trying to find and share valuable things was just a practice which I highly endorse. So those were my main reflections from each of the talks this morning. All right, perfect. And we'll hear more about what you're doing and your story later on this afternoon. But let's continue diving into some of the reflections from this morning and do a quick round in a sense, Jürgen, you were first up this morning so you'll be first up now. What was your, because you've also sit sudden still for several hours, actually, what's your reflections from the talks leading up to lunch? Well, I saw the first good chunk of James's talk and I was very happy as I tweeted that he ditched the framework word because I have been on a crusade against that word. And acknowledges as I do that we are trying to find collections of good practices that seem to work for other people but then we pick and choose from those collections and make our own collection. That is, I think, a good way of seeing it. And yeah, good, so Chaucercy at three years is full of good stuff. I am bummed to have missed Bonita's talk because I was hijacked for an interview, sadly. So yeah, I will have to make good on that another time, I'm afraid. But I've seen her stuff online and we are very much aligned on the complexity of stuff. We probably outcompete each other on the complexity science books that we read. So I definitely go to lobotomize or pick her brain another time. All right, so yeah, there's a raise for the next book maybe. James, what was your takeaway from this one? Okay, well, one was, Jogun's funny, a face-to-face. No, I'm just joking, Jogun. Well, for me, it was just listening to what you were sharing now and feeling so much resonance with where you're coming from. And I always enjoy to hear somebody else's perspective. And I suspect that we are all in the business of kind of returning home somehow. So I see all of these different methodologies, frameworks, ideas, some of them more or less, like true somehow or pure. But in essence, beneath everything, it's all the same thing. And it kind of segues what I said about agile is how life does it. And what Benita's talking about as well in terms of self-organization in complex adaptive systems in nature. So mainly I took the pleasure of one hearing Jogun and then being able to share that we dropped framework because I knew who he'd be. Delighted. It was a big part in main win for today. When I saw Bernard this time, I said, Bernard, do you know what Jogun says about frameworks? It was one of the big arguments for dropping. And Benita, I love the analogies, like the visual representation that helped me to connect with the world in which we live. And I also came away from that with this kind of word of caution that organizations are not just living systems. There's some kind of structural component that we build in that's non-living. And both of these are important to consider in terms of how we navigate complexity. Okay, good. So a homerun for you and letting go the framework. Benita, what was your biggest takeaway from this morning? I think my biggest takeaway is the generosity of the agile people conference itself because I think it's, you know, we take a lot of things for granted and I think that inviting this broad range of perspectives on stage is, yeah, it's really something to acknowledge and to appreciate. And the way the different perspectives live in this space, I think, is something that's unusual and something to appreciate. So too often, I think agile is at this phase where for a while it looked like it was gonna collapse into its own ideology and I think Matias or E-mail said that this was actually consciously talked about by the Agile People Conference this year that you wanted to open up the conversation, open up the space. So I think it's really remarkable, you know, it's that norming move, it's that move to make the new, the next standard that gets kind of crystallized and ossified. And so for me, the fact that this is a different kind of contribution has made a big impression on me. Okay, but if we tag along those lines, so where will it end up then? That's a, we go from one big question to, or maybe a straightforward question to a very big one, but if we continue to open up and develop this area and where will it go? I mean, where do you see the agile principles and values and not frameworks, but the area that you're addressing, Bonita, because there's been a shift to opening up more. Where will this end up? Yeah, I think we don't know and I think that's what's the fun in it. I think that we all can, everyone in this room is experimenting and it's something I think we've rediscovered as human beings because so much of our lives are spent in accepting and receiving information as Steve Jobs, he's probably a no-no to bring up here, but as Steve Jobs says, everything in your world has been invented and created by someone and we take it as a given, but this re-emergence of a spirit of experimentation, a bold curiosity, so we don't know where it's going and yeah, and that's all the fun and excitement about it unless my colleagues might hear have more insight. So the agile experiment, where will it take us, gentlemen? I would say we've got no idea and it could go in many directions. We had a conversation just before the lunch together about the future of humanity and I think there's no guarantees. Where did you end up? Well, where we ended up is anything is possible. And right now it seems we're on a precipice and could go in any direction and there's certainly choices and consequences and I think it's really down to us. I'm very concerned at this moment, myself personally, for what I perceive as a kind of lack of proactivity amongst a general proportion of the populace. I mean, just through, by virtue of the fact that most people are just so busy trying to meet their basic needs on a daily basis and so it aren't really thinking outside of that box. So it's very easy here to kind of preach to the converted and kind of talk ourselves into a happy story. But actually out there in the world if I go to India, for example, I'm having a very different experience in terms of my hopefulness for what comes next. So I think this is an interesting topic and for me personally, what motivates me is knowing that positive change is possible and not just positive change but that we can really do awesome things together. I don't doubt that and I feel a huge energy to move forward and act on that and at the same time, I'm under no illusions that we face some immense challenges and as we develop our technologies and as we increase our capacity to impact at scale, then the consequences of those actions are very much going to be determined by the intentionality that's behind it. But is it lack of interest or lack of capacity to take it on? Well, which comes first? You tell me. I've no idea. I think it depends on the context. But if there's a lack of capacity then it's very difficult to be interested and there's a lack of interest and it's very difficult to even consider whether it's worth investing resources in something different. Right, Jürgen, will we end up? Where we end up. Well, I'm sure Bonita would agree with me that making predictions about how complex systems will evolve is basically a very fruitless way of using your time. But there is value in forecasting things and there are trends that are inevitable. Actually, there's a book called The Inevitable by Kevin Kelly. And I was inspired, as I just told this morning, to one or two people by his first chapter on which he said, the world is changing faster and faster, so fast now, that we can't keep up as human beings anymore and we are becoming the eternal newbies. I like that term. Eternal newbies. Yeah, the eternal newbies. Things around us every day are different. Again, we have to get used to that. We just don't know how the world works. We'll just have to experience it along the way. And the conclusion for that in the agile context is that we should focus on the things that don't change, which is the principles such as James has referred to that are sort of static. We have to experiment. We have to be empirical, et cetera. But the specific practices, they keep evolving and they will evolve faster and faster. So it's going to be less and less useful and interesting, I think, to send people to workshops, to conferences, whatever, to teach them there how to manage their team, for example, because the way you do that is going to be different the next day because new things will have emerged. So there will be reasons for us to get together at events like this because that is a basic human need. That is not going to change. But what we do here at workshops and conferences, I think that is going to change. More of co-creation will happen more, I think, at events like this instead of just knowledge transfer because the halftime of knowledge will keep shrinking. So best practices, guides, standards, frameworks. Yeah, they will be a faster and faster pace of change of those practices. Like the scrum is now, how old is it? 15 years or something like that. It still has the same practices. It's a bit odd, isn't it, in an agile space. So these collections will morph faster and faster, but that is something that we need to get used to, I think, in the agile world. We'll move into the overall topic for this conference as well because what we're touching upon now is sort of, I'm very curious about, so what's the future work then in this context and how do we learn the future work or how do we adapt to it if there's no best cases, there's no guides, there's no standards, there's no frameworks because they'll be old by the time we're about to use them. But just a quick comment first. What do you think will end up, Joshua? I think I'm gonna echo the, I think it's, I think there is limited value in speculating and what will happen and where we'll end up. I also think the framing that invokes is that the world is gonna change and you have to follow along, whereas where do you want to end up, I think is a much healthier frame, like what do you want the future of work to look like and make that happen in your part of the world. And so I think that there is, when you start to think about, well what do you do if there is no guide, there is no best practice and everyone has to discover that for themselves, I think is a much more accurate reflection on reality. You can get inspiration from all sorts of areas and I'd encourage people to draw quite a wide net for where to get inspiration from, like study military theory, study neurology, study psychology, study as many different places as you can and look for inspiration and things that you can translate into your world which helps you create the future of work that you want to see and helps you create the movements that you want to see. So I think the part of agile for me which is the most interesting is that it's a movement. It's all these different people attaching meaning and values to a word and having lots of different meanings by it but it has spread virally through so many organizations and so many people look at the whole thing or little bits of it and say, that's awesome, I want some of it and they attach the word agile to the thing that they do but it's spread very organically through a large number of organizations and that phenomenon, that viral movement, that's the interesting part of agile I think. But so is because you said something great which is the eternal newbie. So let's just do a quick poll. How many feel like you're an eternal newbie? Just in general when walking through everyday life, yeah. I love the term but is learning the future work or what is future work? Could we add unlearning? I think unlearning is as important as learning. And also this thing I said about remembering this morning too because actually we know more than we are conscious of and by unlearning some of the things that are unhelpful that we just picked up along the way through repetition and mirroring. We come to discover things actually that we already know which we can also interpret as common sense which maybe I said this morning is not common. I love the, for the HR directors in here, I love the notion of unlearning. So then you should have an head of unlearning and an unlearning and undeveloping department. That was good, yeah, okay. So we have some new take notes. I love that. Bonita, what's your take? Yeah, so what that question, where I go with that question is that where I hope the future of work is, I think we have a real problem right now and that is we're doing a lot of experimentation in work but the kinds of work we do or the kinds of tasks or goals we have in most of our organizations really don't address the significant challenges of our time.  We have a self-perpetuating economy where we work just so we can do work so we can make money so we can buy things so we can work. And I think that those two things have to be decoupled. So I think a lot of the experimentation we're doing in organizations, although they're still in conventional economies, I think that that is going to cede our ability to create more capacity to actually solve some of our critical challenges. And if you look at them, the workplace can't get at those problems. The governments are not able to get at those problems. So I see that as one trend that I think is going to happen. I really hope it happens. And the second thing that I see, if we're gonna be predictive, I think it's already underway. And it's kind of something, Juergen said that there are types of work that are very large scale that needs some kind of, whether it's, he called it centralized, or some kind of coordinating platform. And I think that that's gonna be one movement. So we see a lot of conversation around global infrastructure needs. So that's a certain type of work. And I think that is a direction that work's gonna go to. But I think there's going to be, kind of liberate the ability then to have the opposite. A lot of small decentralized entrepreneurial organizations popping up similar to the way in spiral is growing. And so I see those two, one, they look like they're in opposite directions, but one is going to allow the ability for the other. And I think our responsibility toward the global work is a huge challenge. But the way I look at it is in the OPO principles, there's like, that's okay, but once you build that, that's your new commons. And it has to be open access. It has to be a new universal. So everything we do at that scale has to be a new commons. And that will allow for all these micro emergent agile entrepreneurs to come up. So that's what I guess I hope more than I see happening, but I'm an optimist, so I think it's gonna go in that direction. Yeah. All right, so need for new global infrastructures and- To allow these much more micro environments. So how will they play out? And where would they emerge from? I think a really good example of that is what's happening in the blockchain community. So you see people like Bitcoin's now worth a million, a hundred billion dollars. And how do you govern something? And how do you have people who are affected by that ecosystem have a voice in it? And with all the launching of the new coins, you see a thousand experiments in governance of things which could become quite valuable. So, you know, it's difficult to experiment on the governance processes in a country. Like there's so much there, it's really hard, it's really slow to change. But some of these other places are doing lots and lots of really rapid iterations of experiments on how do you do governance well? But what I was saying about governance this morning in terms of deciding what and setting constraints on how, you know? So I believe that we're moving towards an era where people just by their own volition are choosing freedom. Realizing that they were already autonomous, you know, in the Brexit example. It's a very, very nice point, you know? So people waking up and realizing, wait a minute, actually the door's open, you know? I'm the canary in the cage, but I can fly out and there's plenty of other places I can go to. And then there's paradox of the necessity for new structures, new forms. And the thing about constraints is in the end, unless somebody is using extreme force, you know, then their variable depending on our own intention. So there's a consensus reality. And probably like the area of greatest need right now is for us to reconsider the consensus reality we want to create. Segway's in, I think with what you were saying around like our intentionality, it's not what is the future of what, but what's the future organizations that you want to create. And I'm personally at the beginning of my inquiry around this in terms of the relevance of constraints and our capacity through intention to decide this is how it shall be and then act accordingly. And the other thing that strikes me is I'm glad you bring in these, the meta and the micro perspective and the relationship between the two because I don't see so much difference between the organization of us at the species level and the organization of us in our own intracyclic universe. And I believe it's the same principles basically. And I guess coming to my optimistic, hopeful perspective, what I'm wishing for is that we learn to embrace the tension between apparent opposites in whatever collaborative context we're in. Because I see in that tension space between this is where innovation comes, this is where those innovative remixes, that slight variation that was never seen before emerges in how we get to this point of discovering the organizations of tomorrow. So it's more about bringing consciousness to that, consciousness to the importance and potency of consciousness and intention itself than about trying to predict and guess what the organizational forms would look like. Right. But where do people, because we talk about people in the end. So where do people want to belong? On the agile, the lower end of things or in the bigger entities in a sense that you touched upon. So will people be employed? Will people work in the same way? We talked about for many years that the big organizations will fail and disappear. But will they, will they or will they re-first surface in the form that you're pointing at? I think there was a point in our species life where there was no work as you're using the term. And I think there's gonna be a point where that concept of work is gone. I mean, I think as the kind of waves that happen, a phrase came to mind and I'm thinking like, we'll no longer be saying, what am I gonna do for work? We'll be asking like, what works and what doesn't. And then we just fix what doesn't work. So this is a different kind of phrase because that's originally what work was like. You worked on things, you didn't go to work. And I think it's not gonna work. So we won't say that we go to work anymore in the future. Correct, I mean, and if you look at, I know that a lot of people spend most of their life time at work. But if you have the discipline or the luxury or the privilege to not spend all your time at work, just watch how you get interested in things and you do work. And you create things and you're productive, right? And I think that there's an opportunity to reclaim some of that kind of activity. So take away, we won't be going to work, we will simply do work. Yeah. Work is something you do, not a place that you go. It's a quote that I'm not mine, but that I like very much. Definitely, I think we sort of rediscovering that. At some point it became a place that you go because the work was organized, was done there. And then it was a place where you went. But coming back to your point of, we may not have large organizations anymore. I doubt that. I think things will be different. There will be different reasons for having large or small organizations. Because there's always the effect of the economies of scale in any complex adaptive system. It's just, it's going to work in a different way. Like platforms such as Google and Facebook, they benefit enormously from economies of scale. But it's a different kind of organization than you had in the past, whether Zeeman's or IKEA or whatever, who have traditional business model. And those might break up indeed because they don't benefit anymore from that type of economy of scale. But technologies, I'm glad you brought up blockchain. I mean blockchain, machine learning, et cetera, they're going to have tremendous effects on how we organize our work. And we have to be agile, I think, and at a different scale than we were used to. Like for many people, agile means like doing stand-up meetings or having a planning meeting and things like that, right? Because that's what we were taught. This is what it means to be agile. Because it's in a PowerPoint presentation somewhere. It's in a book somewhere. But in the future it's not going to be like that. Agile will be inventing your own practices that are the right practices in that moment of time that will have a shelf life for maybe a couple of weeks, a couple of months, and then it is not a good practice anymore. And then you will invent something new. That is the real agility that I think we are after. So how do you start preparing yourself for this then? By having an agile mindset which many people still don't have. It's amazing. How do you actually practically get started then? Because if this is the future of work and everyone here will face this context in reality and the learning you do today will be unlearning three weeks because it will be old. So what can we do? I think that one of the things where I go there is around in a world which is changing rapidly, speed of adaptation is what becomes valuable and what becomes important. So the question of how do you adapt regularly? I think it very much is. How do you learn? Literally breaking down how do you learn something new? How do you grapple with something new? And one of the conversations I think it's really easy to have in the future of work and all of this is a very functional description of work. We have organizations, there are people, they do things and you can look at a very systemic sort of level. But I think that misses a lot of the identity level. So if you start to sit down and say, who are you? Then you might start to identify with your name or your relationship status or a mother or a father or I am this or I belong to my country, I'm a Swede or a Kiwi or whatnot. But a lot of people also say I am a profession and they draw a lot of identity and respect from the skills that they build up in a certain profession. If that profession disappears very quickly, people's identity is threatened. And I think this is where a lot of the real challenge comes in, is how do you deal with identity? What do you identify as? What do we identify as? What do I belong to? If I get a lot of identity value from saying I belong to a country or I belong to an organization or a city or a community, if that changes, my sense of belonging is what's challenged, not some logistics about how I operate my life. So I think that a lot of the future of work things becomes where do you get your sense of identity from? And it's a lot of what James is saying around, you can't change the outside without changing the inside. And so really looking at the fundamentals of where do we draw our sense of identity, our sense of belonging, our sense of self-esteem and putting that on things that won't change. Putting those things on things which might be outcompeted by a very rapidly evolving world is a risky strategy. Putting them on things which are constant which won't be taken away from you means you can adapt to the world much easier because all that stuff is secondary I think. I agree with that and interestingly enough I think many of those identities are not becoming fixed to time and location as they have been often in the past. I think I belong to a couple of communities but none of them have a geographical component. So it is all virtual now thanks to the impact that technologies have in our lives and work lives. And coming back to the learning, I agree to some extent that we need to learn how to learn faster but also at some point you call it unlearning, I would even call it no learning. At some point you just don't learn. There's no need to learn things because there's something else which is technology offering us information in the right place, in the right time. Like I do not learn how to get from A to B. I have an app telling me how to get from A to B. So there's no need to store that knowledge in my head. I have learned to use the app which is less information and it's rather static because it's been the same app for several years but it has updated a number of times. And I think it's going to be the same in how we manage our organizations. There's no need to learn how to do this, how to do that. We will just be guided through with machines, with AI, et cetera. So from learning to unlearning to no learning. But so how do you actually? But how do you actually? Are you irritated, Tom? No, it's funny because tomorrow there's the biggest Nordic EdTech conference out in Stockholms, Messam, completely focused on digitalized learning. So I'll bring a few of these things with me. But I don't know about anyone else but this rings alarm bells for me. Because I don't see technology as positive or negative. It's awesome and we can do anything with it, virtually anything at this point. And so it comes back to this question of intentionality again. And I like what you said in the future won't be do work, it will be what works. And technology when it works is great. And it works for many things and the question is what's your intentionality around that technology? Not just in how you interact with it but how you use it to encourage other people to interact. And so these two elements are very important I think as we move forwards. There's kind of two streams or two waves and I think the first one is technology. And technology moves faster than our sense to be able to handle it in smart ways. I think, and so prioritizing a little bit, learning about that and learning about the possible consequences, kind of applying agile mindset to experimentation with technology to see what works in terms of wellbeing and fulfillment of human beings would probably be a smart thing to consider. And I don't know how much emphasis will be placed on that in the future. I just know that for me personally I intend to speak out about it wherever I can. Yes, can I piggyback on that? So, yes, so I think technology has the potential and I think we're very close to it and that's why we're here. To give people a break, to get us to the point like where we don't have to have jobs all the time. But the question is, you know, I have this little ritual I quite often save little birds from my barn because they get deep in the barn and I save them and then I go, you know, here's your freedom, be careful what you do with it, right? And I think we're kind of at that stage with technology because it's going to deliver us a lot of freedom and these freedoms are gonna be very fundamental. They're gonna be freedoms in space and time. We'll have more space and we can move through space and we'll have more time. And I think this is going to really be disruptive to people because if you've been a type A person and had a profession and then you all of a sudden retire like I did, because you don't wanna do that anymore, you have all this space and all this time and it's really disruptive. So this is the first challenge. And I think that, so maybe that's the pivot point. Maybe this is what you're asking. And one of the caveats around technology that I wrote about is we have to be very, very careful because I think we talk about technologies becoming more and more like people, but it's actually moving in both ways. People are becoming so standardized and more and more machine-like that we're starting to think of intelligence as what machines are good at and not intelligence at what only humans are at. This is a huge caveat right there. And so I think there's gonna be a key turning point when we have the time and space to sit down with each other in a rather fundamental way and say, what are people for? What are we good at?  To really examine that from a collective conscious place. And I think that's a great opportunity, but I think there is a caveat around technology that I appreciate. So spend some of the time that you free up in a sense playing with technology, learning technology and playing around with it. Also, I interpret you, Josh Rod, very much sort of be really good at talking to yourself or understanding yourself. And sort of that's the only constant in a sense. If you're really, really good at talking with yourself and understanding yourself and working with yourself. Those are two components you need. I think definitely, I'd also add that when you're trying to look at future trends and what's happening with the rate of change of a technology, the funniest point of technology changes us as humans fundamentally and substantially. And so if you look at whether it was the technology was writing and our memories change or the technology's fire and our digestion system changes. Now, when you start to have apps people's attention is changing. So people have grown up with apps and tablets have much less attention span. They can't think in the same way that people who didn't grow up with them think. And I think that I definitely say that this is a genie in a bottle as this is being launched right now changes are happening in the human population which can't be undone. And that if you're interested in future trends that's definitely something to be across. So I'm still coming back to that manager or leader or the HR director who's sitting there planning and forecasting and hiring people to be put into this context. So how do you work with learning then? If we come back to learning as a key component and we're just about out of time because it's a good talk. But how do you work with learning? How do you actually organize learning or unlearning or non-learning? But if you have big group of employees today and this is what you're facing what would be your advice? How do you adapt? I already see the movement from learning to e-learning and then from e-learning to micro-learning where learning is reduced to the smallest possible nuggets of knowledge that are offered to people in the moment that they need it. I think this is going to continue down that road. So what the manager's role is to create an environment where this kind of micro-learning is possible and even appreciated that we stop sending people to three-day training courses once per week and then assume that they're going to learn everything that they're going to need for the rest of the year because that's not going to be the way things work in the future. The learning itself is the new normal during their jobs. I am from that age when I was still part of the business that taught people how to use Microsoft Word and Excel. Do you remember that in the 90s? We send people to two-day classes to learn. This is the file menu one. If you click here, then something drops down, et cetera. That's ridiculous nowadays. We don't do that because it's a new normal working with software. And so this is also going to be the new normal in organizations, this micro-learning on the job. The role is to navigate and make it possible for micro-learning. Well, I think another potential of management in the future is around enabling. And there's a distinction between managing stuff and leading. And I would love to see facilitative management that enables people to lead, to help them to learn, whatever in the moment, by moment, they need to be able to do that in an effective way. And to bang on about constraints once again to define the constraints within which those people have autonomy and accountability so that they feel free and comfortable to get on with doing stuff there and know when it's time to have a conversation with somebody else. I think one of the simple rules that I've found is quite useful is who you are matters more than what you do because who you are shapes what you do in an unconscious and uncontrollable way. So if I want to see an organization which is passionate about learning, I need to become passionate about learning and engage in that in a very active way. And then it will naturally just ripple through everything. I've spent the last three years managing a business which does intensive education, helps people switch careers into technology. So some of the opinions I have about learning are around always be learning, like having a practice or a habit which you establish which is every week reflect on what did you learn last week? What do you want to learn this week? What are your objectives? How are you going to do it? Creating dedicated learning times and spaces where you can say this is my learning time and always have that no matter what you're doing. And if you do that and start to share that with other people, it can ripple around like a virus. I think there's also sensors of, that's probably enough now. I can talk around accelerated learning programs and practices for a long time, it's a real area. And if you start to dive into it, there's a lot of value in that space. All right, but dedicated learning time on a weekly basis, not on a monthly or whatever. Yep. Let me do this here. I think what Josh is describing is what does the manager need to learn? And I think the manager needs to learn how to be a designer of rich environments for learning. And I think managers have spent way too much time trying to design what's downloaded in your head or design your behavior or design your work there. You know, and now I think it's gonna be more like, how can I design a rich environment for my people? And we can take a lot of cues from nature. And one of the things that, but I hear also in your question, like you're a manager of a big company, like what is the first step that I can take? And one of the phrases we use is we can help you be innovation ready. I mean, that's just the first little step. And what does that mean? It's just, you know, it's very subtle work that then opens up possibilities further along down the road. And I think that's a good phrase for like people who wanna make them move, but you know, they're not gonna change their enterprise overnight. So how can we go in there, make you a little more innovation ready? How can we open participation in this little space here and the conversation we have here and just start tweaking. And I think it's a complex dynamic system. So small changes will have very large effects further on down the line. So innovation readiness. So we talked a lot about future work. So let's wrap it up with the last question and then we'll invite the audience. What's the single biggest problem or pain point with scaling agile? If we're sort of summing that up before we leave this panel. I know the least about it. Go.  So they projected on it's a this, it's a framework. I know that we all beyond that point or it's a that or it's the, you know, and it's really, I think, to pull it off, we need to change as human beings in much the way that Josh is describing, yep. I described the characteristics of things growing virally are basically how big is the payoff for adopting the thing and how expensive it is to make that adoption. And so I don't know what the individual things are needed to scale the agile movement if that's the game that you're interested in. But essentially you need to look at how big is the payoff for adopting things and increase that payout. How costly is the process of adopting and reduce that cost. And if you just iterate on that, then eventually you'll have something which will grow, could grow as fast as cell phones. And I think one thing I would say is that I see a chicken and egg problem because in a way you need an agile mindset to appreciate the value of an agile mindset. And people in positions of power and influence are very reluctant to do things differently to what they've always done even though it might be getting them what they always get, yeah. And so the challenge is how to motivate people who are really in the positions of power and influence to initiate change. If we are still in an organization that requires that permission to be willing to experiment because through experience we develop an agile mindset, right? And so I think that the biggest challenge is for us actually, especially if we're advocates of agile mindset for organizations, is to focus on where are these people's areas of need, yeah. And what is important to them and why are they so determined to maintain those more traditional behaviors and start there and look at what practices in the moment are alive and most relevant for them. This is what I love about the application you're putting together, Jürgen. You know, it's like I can hopefully search by tag, find my pain point, see a practice and think, wow, this is gonna change things for me. And the agile mindset comes as a consequence. It's not something we can inject. Yeah, it's something that evolves over time. Well, thank you for plugging that. I dare not do that myself. But I think human beings are wired not to like change. That is in our DNA. That is why we have things such as conservative political parties because they tap into that fear of change. And that at the organizational level we see the same thing and usually the higher you are at the organizational level, the further away you tend to look because that is your job to look months ahead, years ahead and make strategies and try to navigate that change that is inevitable. So I think that is the main challenge with scaling agility to have that mindset that change is neither good nor bad. It just is, it happens. So let's deal with it. And that is, it seems to be harder the more you get higher in the hierarchy because their forecasts tend to be longer. It is might be easier for a software team of seven people to give up the notion of change, of certainty than it is for someone who is managing entire departments. And yeah, I have no ready-made solution for that. Otherwise it would be a billionaire already, which sadly I'm not. But I'm still working on it. But yeah, the mindset at those levels, it is, that's the main challenge, I think. So here we have it, the recipe in a sense. Although there's no recipes, that's the whole point. But again, thanks for letting us pick your brains a little bit, let's continue. And we started off the panel a few minutes later than scheduled. So for everyone who's wondering, we're still on schedule. So let's fire some questions. And we have, actually we need to lend a mic. Oh, you're so generous. PMIA or someone else? Do you mind? So are there any questions for the panelists? And this can relate to what we've said now or earlier this morning. So the role yours, not a single question. Okay. It's amazing. There we go. Yeah, the question is in regards to chains, since people are inherently against chains and organizations are much more complex things built on top of people. Wouldn't that make organizations even more against chains? Yes. So, no, seriously, I saw diagrams. I referred to the reports that I read earlier. This year by Deloitte and Accenture said, I wonder about a very nice diagram that said the rate of change that we can deal with, technology was fastest. And then individuals were slower. And then organizations slower. And then the government was the lowest line. So yes, there's definitely an advantage that you have as an individual over groups, because groups are harder to mobilize and change at the flip of a switch. So this is very difficult to do. And so, yeah, answers, yes. If you have, have you seen the diagram? How many have seen the diagram Jordan is referring to? So go into Deloitte University Press and search for adoption curve or something. It works like a charm. I mean, if you have a presentation where you need to put in the proof points of how slow people are, especially decision makers, there you have it. So it's a good treat, actually, that works well. Okay, so Deloitte University Press. Okay, follow up question. Sorry, yeah, is there any way to actually shift the curve up for organizations? Make it faster. I was working for you.  And I think we, for better or for worse, we're at a stage in our world where organizations and leaders of organizations, despite all their resistance, are looking and sniffing around things like agile because they're failing, the organizations are failing. And so, you know, it's not like the people really are changing. And, but there's just an imperative that's coming from the world in the state of affairs. So, you know, be careful what you wish for, you know, so how fast do we want the pressure to really take down our organizations is a big question. I think there's always value in trying to change organizations and helping them evolve faster, but it is not a necessity. It might be cheaper and less effort, to just let them die and have others emerge. I mean, I was at a bank two weeks ago and the CEO had a speech before mine and he was referring to all the challenges that they were faced with, not only a government regulation, which is quite intensive in the financial world, I can imagine, but then they have these big US companies, Apple Pay and PayPal, et cetera, they're now suddenly in their territory. And these young upstarts, mobile banks who start from scratch, they don't have any legacy that they need to maintain. And then there's the blockchain and the fine, the concept of finance itself is changing. I don't want to be the CEO of an old bank, I can tell you that. I would just say, okay, I give up, I just start from scratch, everyone go home. Because that might be the easiest solution, you know. Any shareholders in large banks in here? Any FinTech startups, no? I do think that raises one of the big dilemmas of innovation though, in that who should pay for the cost of disruption? So, you know, self-driving cars are coming, they're gonna put a ton of people out of work. Who's responsible for the social and financial consequences of those people losing their jobs very quickly? Is it the people who make the self-driving cars? Is it the government? Is it all of us? Because I think if you're frustrated with China Change and Organization, I always give the same advice, go start another one. Put that organization out of business by starting a competitor, but often when that happens, you'll see very unexpected consequences you might not like. The rise of social media and what that did to journalism is one of the reasons you see the US political system looking like it does. They didn't intend for that consequence to happen, but it was a direct result of a lot of that technical innovation. There's something else quite interesting I observe that these small innovative startups that bite the legs out of the old dinosaurs, if they're successful, they tend to go on a growth trajectory, and as they reach a certain size and fall back on the same behaviors that they were trying to do differently. And so there seems to be at this point at least some kind of relationship between scale and old habits. And so this brings up the question for me, what is it that's behind the old habits? You said people are inherently resistant to change. I think I'm inherently resistant to change if I don't see a reason to do it. But if you tell me how something's gonna add value to my day and I can understand that, especially if it's an area where I'm struggling, then I'm all ears, yeah? So it really depends on the level of vulnerability in the moment, of course, but generally speaking, people change when they need to, yeah? And what I see stands in the way of change is the fact that we're running on the habits of generations. So often when we realize we're facing an impediment, we only have our existing repertoire to fall back on. So I might try it like mum did it, instead of like dad did it for the next five years, and it just brings about another set of problems, yeah? So how do we expand the box for people in terms of what's possible? So not only to invite, hey, let's take a look at your problems, because that's a helpful thing to do like I did in the presentation this morning, but also to say what is there out there that we haven't yet thought of, yeah? And I believe that this is a fundamental topic to consider, regardless of the size of organization. For us who are making interventions in organizations today, if we want to facilitate change, help people to feel safe enough to be vulnerable and share about where the challenges are, and help them to discover what is here already and how that can be remixed in ways that are gonna be appropriate for them. And I believe that consciousness scales. I'd like that you refer to dinosaurs, because as we all know from nature, 99.9% of all species have died or extinct, and that is part of evolution. If dinosaurs had had successful transformation programs, we wouldn't have been here. So let's thank them for dying. And the same will apply to the financial industry. There will be dinosaurs, they go away, but people will always have financial transactions with each other. There's a basic need. That doesn't go away. The way we do it will be different. But we're always focusing on the negative aspects of change. I think Joshua has a nice example of self-driving cars. I always, always only hear about the people that lose their jobs because of self-driving cars. Nobody ever says how many jobs are created, how many opportunities will emerge because of their self-driving cars. This always is focused on the negative sides, on what we will lose. This is basic humanity that we see here. Fear, fear, something is going to change. I say, so what? Bring on the change, and let's see what happens. So what? Bring on the change and see what happens. But final comment from Bonita, you get the final word. So, yeah, so what I see that's really in common with Jurgen and Josh and James is, so in terms of change, one of the things to remember is we usually understand the way people respond to change in the wrong way. Most ideologies, most people will change their behavior before they'll change their minds. We think it's the other way around. But in general, if you can get people to start adopting behaviors like gamification, then they rationalize their change after they adopt the behavior. And so I think this is a real key to remembering about how to make the change you want to see in the world. Start changing your own behavior. Yeah. Yeah. I think that will leave that as the last comment. And you guys will stick around for the rest of the day so you can pick their brains with all the other questions we didn't have time for. And then I say we thank the panel. Thank you very much. And thank you. I couldn't stand in because that's great. All right.