Good morning, everyone.
I'd like to introduce Michiel Linaz.
He's the director of strategy at NLNet Foundation.
He's going to be your first speaker today.
I don't know how many people have been here standing here looking up to you and knowing that
this is being streamed and this is the opening to a thousand lectures in a day.
But I can tell you it's a bit intimidating.
Even for old guys like me.
Especially if they're tooling doesn't comply.
I'm using this nice new tool.
I told that we fund it, but it's not playing nice.
Which means that we will not do that as well.
It's so nice that...
I can try.
So I'm seeing stuff is just a lot faster than it's supposed to go.
Anyway, let's talk.
I think all of you, I don't think I even need slides.
I think all of you look back at a long period in time where you've been working for the public good.
I think collectively we've spent literally billions of hours doing things for the public good.
And I think we can congratulate ourselves.
We've done amazing.
We've created a lot of infrastructure that the world now depends on.
That said, that infrastructure is now out there and it's being used and it's not being used for good alone.
It's being used by an insane amount of people to do all kinds of things.
And even worse, the things that they're doing actually directly impact us.
And there's a bittersweet irony in the fact that we're trying to empower people, but we empower machines.
We try to empower humans and we empower the people that try to get those humans and control them.
And so I've prepared this enormously lengthy slide deck which you're not going to see.
And not even I'm seeing it.
So maybe I should just try and switch.
Because it would be depressing.
It would be very depressing not to do that.
So let's try again.
We're going to get another pair of hands.
That's starting to look better.
Okay, so we are again good.
What we need to do is get get back here.
So it's really killing me.
Can I just use the mental notes?
It's not playing nice.
That sucks, but it's...
Maybe you keep talking about trying to get a thing?
Not one point work.
Hey, we see something.
So let's see if that works.
This is what you get when you do cutting edge software.
Let's see if we can take it from here.
We've made it in such a case that users can just take the technology we create.
And not only use it as a consumption product, but actually can take control of their own destiny.
And they can tweak it, they can prune it, they can recombine it.
And if they choose, they can actually help to create a bigger thing.
And we've created, I think, the biggest ecosystem in terms of technology on the planet.
It's all connected.
And so on the top of this free and open source software, we've created a global cooperation,
and a reuse that is spawned an enormous amount of economic activities, social activity.
But how did we get here?
This is, when we look back on it, we started in a pretty naive, our idealistic era.
The wall that's fallen, there was a political calm.
The internet had been there in this place, but we just got in the web.
Now, man, this is so annoying.
There's some folks here from Surn, I was the turn last week.
Surn is another kind of thing where we've created this idealistic situation,
where people from all over the world collaborate.
And it's no coincidence that the web was born there, because it's in the DNA of such an organization.
And it's this kind of thinking that of technologists that say we should do stuff for the world,
we should collaborate, we should not have boundaries.
This is often coined as capitalizing on peace dividend.
We want to be fair, we want to be eager, we don't want any war anymore.
So let's see if we can share.
Now, this confidence was permeating.
The economies were booming.
Everybody was in a good mood, because money was being made all around.
And parliamentary democracies seemed to be taking over.
And we finally got into the end of the end of time.
And people actually considered it like that.
It was philosophers like Fukuyama that said, this is the end of history.
This is the end point.
We've now had all the ideological conflicts.
We can globalize now, we can create this one-world and start working on a common global cosmopolitan market.
And of course the technology was also booming at the time.
We were getting color screens, we were getting faster internet connections.
And everybody was really in such a positive, constructive mood.
And I think somebody on Hacker News last month when somebody put up my tentative slight announcement.
So this is reads like a ulogy of the original internet.
And in a sense, it is.
We had a beautiful ideological 90-tay when we started collaborating.
And everybody wanted to be part of this ecosystem.
And we didn't see any enemies.
We did choose some pretty dangerous allies.
So we all think linear store vaults created Linux all by himself.
But it was actually big tech companies that started adopting it at native difference.
When the cloud providers came along,
they started investing heavily in the technologies that we use.
And they're allies, but they're also different from us.
They target platformization.
And they want to have a proprietary service layer on top of that.
So there's a bit of lock in there.
And we obviously thought that we could control that.
But that was not the realistic assumption.
Now, of course, most people know underneath all of that was a darker narrative.
And the narrative came to light when whistleblowers like Edward Snowden revealed the fact that the US
knew all along that the internet was broken and insecure.
And they were hacking our politicians like Merkel.
They were breaking into pretty much every system that they had doing mass surveillance.
They got caught out as well.
Because once people found out that we weren't playing fair,
they started playing unfair as well.
So somebody broke into their vault and released all their hacking tools.
It's something called the shadow brokers.
And I think from there on, people started to pay attention even in the general audience.
But most people just assume that, well, you know,
if we don't hear about it as long as my computer turns on in the morning,
as long as my code gets committed and it compiles,
I'm not touched, I'm not affected.
But this dependency that we created for ourselves on the cloud,
on our commercial providers like GitHub,
that we entrust with all our data with all our authentication.
And the fact that if we have a repo that we don't want to share with anybody,
we do share it with them and they share it with the US government if they must.
And this dark layer underneath didn't get us so upset until we reached the point
where we saw that political leadership in the US was changing.
And all of a sudden it feels very uncomfortable that that was the case.
And it is obvious we've been played well.
I would say if you look at the biggest IT company in the world losing out to a platform company,
Microsoft bought a $25,000 operating system, MSDOS.
It was originally from a guy called Gary Kildall.
And they took over the computer market because they owned the platform.
If you owned the platform, the software can not easily place itself
in other ecosystems.
And so platforms rural and evil platforms, they rule out competition.
And obviously there were people that noticed this.
There were visionary people that knew that this was a problem.
And they spent their lives work.
They started in the 80s, old people, and they want to empower users.
They wanted this freedom to be created and to be retained.
The free software movement in particular is actually named after this whole freedom.
And a lot of people took that for hyperbole.
A lot of people took it for granted.
But obviously people flock to the cloud.
And it's understandably so.
There were many red flags, but it's also convenient.
And also we thought we felt equal.
We didn't feel as if we were at a disadvantage.
We thought these are our friends.
It's so much effort to do all these things.
It's so boring to buy a machine, configure it,
and then it breaks on a Sunday night and you have to fix it.
And it's just, it's got awful to do that.
And so what if nice people offer to take all of that off of our hands?
And we feel, even the company names, I mean, we see some company names as sponsors here.
They were household names.
They filled us friends and as people that we could trust.
And so we were told, focus on your core business.
To look at the total cost of ownership.
It's almost like if you sending your kids to a monastery in the 50s in Canada,
saying, we'll take care of your kids.
It's a very dangerous proposition.
Taking care of people, taking care of all the hard bits.
Makes you incompetent and makes you a victim of potential abuse.
And of course, in the short term, you don't know.
You don't feel this.
The pain comes long, long afterwards.
If you see that your autonomy, if you see that your sovereignty,
you got your hands free.
You can party.
You can get a career.
You can make maybe a little buck of money.
But if we look at it, if all of Europe did that and it did,
then we collectively now draw the short end of the,
always draw the short straw out of the hat.
Because at the macroeconomic level, we don't have capacity.
We are literally incompetent in surviving.
And CEOs were even proud of this.
And CEOs mentioned the work that they have a cloud first strategy.
And I mean, I find that an obscene term.
It's a well-chosen frame.
The market here is that the cloud companies that came up with this term
did well in making it palatable.
But it is obviously not something where users
are still have any say in things.
So my proposal to name it is strategic computer rental
and anchoring to proprietary services.
Because that is what you're doing.
You're strategically renting somebody else's stuff.
And then you're using their proprietary services on top.
And obviously, that's an acronym.
If you take that strategy, then you end up with what you bargain
for.
And that is scraps.
It's literally you end up with the breadcrumbs from the other people.
It's where you make the money.
Is the breadcrumbs of the other people.
You're allowed on their machines.
But they can kick you off.
And at any point in time.
And when there's any margin, they can just replicate it.
Because you've shown them how it works.
And that is competitive.
This advantage that Europe is now bleeding for.
And we notice how it is even worse than that.
Even the scraps are not guaranteed.
We can just wait for the moment.
And we've seen it already where the international court of justice
was threatened by the American president.
And their service were taken off.
So we're not even allowed to run this minimal service that we need to exist,
to email, to write documents.
And so we're now at the mercy of the same people that exploited this.
And if we look at their bank accounts, I think we can agree that if you're a
Hector billionaire, you've done pretty well.
And they still hold the kill switch.
So now, fossils obviously offers a really elegant way out.
It always has.
And probably always will, because that's the nature of it.
You give the whole recipe.
You're allowing people to build everything that they need to do.
So there's a big task.
And there's a big opportunity.
And this big opportunity is that societies now looking at us to
well, handle things.
Keep society afloat, because I think by now everybody's in a panic mode.
All of a sudden, now we see here, government saying, well, we shouldn't.
We shouldn't have, we shouldn't have become so dependent.
But that's about three decades to late.
And at the same time, really enough, there's still inside governments.
Many people that are running exactly towards the fire.
Keep pushing in the wrong direction.
And of course, the big driver there's AI.
But that makes us indefensible in a very literal sense.
There's just no way that we can defend people that that go that route.
And there's an example for us in the Netherlands.
The most critical ministry I would say is the Ministry of Finance.
And the Ministry of Finance has for the last couple of years been working on migrating
everything to Microsoft 365.
And so they were told by Parliament, please don't do that.
That's a huge liability.
They've seen Trump.
They've seen the whole situation.
And yet they say, well, we've put so much effort into this.
And oh, by the way, we get a lot of productivity loss,
because we're using an old software from the same developer.
Because they're their long term Microsoft customer.
So they have alternatives, the Germans and the French are actually
have produced a tool suit suite that they can use.
They're working with them.
But this particular ministry thinks that it doesn't need it.
And there's a sort of a sort of,
weird thing that if you're locked in by the same company for 50 years,
close to 50 years, since the 80s, you're still going with,
and despite all the threats besides all the warnings you're going,
it must be quite sort of a stock home syndrome where you're kind of in
love with your capture.
And now I must admit that I do agree that they have a problem with our current
tools, because three months ago I filed a request,
a freedom of information, a request.
They have not be able to produce a single document in three months.
And they're supposed to do this within six weeks.
And yet they're unable with their, with thousands of employees
to produce a single document backing up the claims that they made to
parliament about how much productivity lost that the current Microsoft solution
has given them.
So now I'm not saying that we need to strip all these people from responsibility
and put them into a corner or make them where a point he had.
But it would be nice if they would be slightly more aware of how
enormously delicate the situation currently is.
And they would stop pushing people towards the wrong path.
Because if they don't take these steps, if they don't lead by example,
then who else will follow this?
And every SME in the country, every other smaller city or
municipality will just say, you know, if the big guys don't do it,
well, why should we?
Now another direction that we see, and this is a painful thing is that
the answer is let's get more European startups.
Let's get more companies, let's get all of these small,
let's go to FEC route, let's create lots of competitors,
so that we can grow them.
But we don't need to breed more predators.
We don't need to have these companies that are in there to exit
by selling to a big tech company or to make an unfair advantage
and extract money from customers.
We need social entrepreneurs.
We need companies and organizations that are stored on
and that have a public mission.
And we know this because we see it working.
We see all these smaller organizations that have this in their DNA
to not grow into a big and shit-fight organization,
but to just do one thing and do it well.
So we need this pipeline from academia, from engineering,
and towards NGOs, towards nonprofits, towards commercial companies
that are happy being a service provider,
and don't want to be a platform predator.
Now, we've made this technology cheap.
We've made it ubiquitous.
And, in fact, the world seems to be in a worse place than it's been in decades
because history didn't end.
We see that governments all across the planet are now using
super cheap cameras to do surveillance.
To spy on people, we've actually made postmodernism possible
by creating alternative media so that people could broadcast information
that they could manipulate very well instead of having to rely on independent media.
So an example is Truth Social, which is built off a fork of Macedon.
And there's a bitter irony in how good the intentions were and how bad the consequences are.
And of course, if you look into any school these days,
people are looking at screens, and 90% of what they're looking at is open source,
or 95%.
And the other 5% is crap.
It's cognitive warfare.
It's really content that is supposed to make them dependent on even more short content.
And it creates this cognitive funnel for kids in the formative years,
where we see that people are just IQ scores are going down.
The reality is no longer being dealt with.
And people are using generally ChGPT to answer questions to do their homework.
With as a result, their brains are suffering from something that is a little bit like dementia,
but worse because it doesn't even reach a functional brain.
You just have this enormous dependency, almost called like dependency on asking questions
to this to LLMs.
Now, I don't fear as much as a third world war as a fear of dark age,
because I don't know, for instance, last week, it was made public that people started reporting
that if they typed the word Epstein into TikTok in the US, they cannot send messages.
Literally the message will not, they cannot press the button unless they remove that word.
And if we reach that stage where all of a sudden political messages get into communication channels
that reach young people, then we've, well, it makes it, you can really see
as the introduction also made clear.
You can see the risk of this becoming a dominant totalitarian state.
And of course, I guess almost all European countries have those parties that are sympathetic to those ideas as well.
So now, when we think of war, this is a difficult situation, because war is no longer what we thought it was.
If I think of war, I have this picture of people getting off of playing in Operation Market Garden
like doing this kind of thing. So you have young people, they're getting all on airplane, thousands of them are being thrown behind enemy lines
and then they take their gun and shoot at people.
And that's been the case for, well, at least for the entire 20th century.
But that is no longer how war is being done.
It's, uh, war is now, instead of enemy lines, it's your lines.
Your lines of code are where, where, where it will be fought.
By, by disabling you, and the, by disabling code as, uh, into the, in, inside the infrastructure,
we, we can actually, uh, newter enemies, uh, and people see us as the enemy.
Um, we can actually lose a lot of, uh, of our, uh, capacity without even knowing.
And, I mean, we have real, real, real war out there now.
So there's kinetic war, there's people shooting at each other, but there's, for a longer time, there's actually been war going on inside code.
And it's super cheap, it's super low risk, and it has a very high yield.
And, uh, a good example of that, uh, was, uh, a couple of years ago, two years ago, three years ago, uh, in, uh, in Israel.
Uh, where they, uh, took, uh, attacked, uh, pages and, uh, a radio-hances.
Um, and this, uh, attack, uh, was called, well, a beeper gate, uh, or, uh, uh, the green beeper.
And, uh, basically, what happened is that, uh, overnight, all of a sudden, uh, people took a device from their, uh, their pocket.
It's sort of beeping, and then it exploded.
And what happened?
Well, uh, uh, Israel, uh, did a supply chain attack.
They got into, uh, uh, okay.
They got into, uh, they, they were where that, uh, has bola, uh, wanted to be more secure, because they, they were told, hey, cell phones.
They're super weak.
Let's, uh, uh, uh, let's not use cell phones.
Let's start using beepers, because there's much simpler and less, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, easy tooaid to break.
And then they ordered it in a place that actually swapped out the batteries, inserted
four grams of undetectable exposives, took the firmer, changed it so that it could be
listened into, and so while people were thinking that they were doing a security measure,
actually they were getting significantly less safe.
They were delivering these two capacities to an enemy, first they could take them out, physically
exposed them, and second until very point where they were undiscovered, they could just
listen into everything.
Now, if we look at our software supply chain, I explained in the beginning, we have this
fast creation that we've made, and this involves hundreds of thousands of packages, millions
of packages, and they're distributed with a maintainer ship that runs into the millions
of people, there's no way that we can look at that.
But on average, I believe, every company, at the average company in Europe has something
like 25,000 software dependencies that they depend on, and probably any one of them
can be used, even if they're left bad, even the simplest application can be used to break
in, and it's all a matter of just quietly executing, and it's even worse than the case
of the pages, because the pages were built at one point in time, people could just, you
were in there at that point in time when it shipped, or you weren't, but with software,
any update that we make draws in new dependencies, draws in new frameworks, draws in security
of days that we must do, but a security update can at the same time be a security downgrade.
So by, by virtue of being a living object, the software, and a firmware field is intrinsically
more difficult to defend.
So we can put in payloads at any moment in time, as long as the user touches the software
on their device.
And if we put in a complex attack, obviously, we're not going to storm the gates and insert
a backdoor that is that execute right now, like a stupid implant, now we execute this
over the course of years.
This is what you've seen with the exit attack.
You slowly trickle, you build confidence, you add smaller mistakes, and they look like
real mistakes, and they might.
If they're discovered, you can just give them up, because you have plenty of time.
You're not doing this for now attack.
You're doing this for an attack five years and now, or ten years and now.
So it's all about building trust and slow execution.
But of course, the impact of, well, you can get this warning, but what do we do?
If we cannot trust new people, we're also screwed.
And, well, intentional mistakes and mistakes that people make for an affairs purpose,
or they look almost exactly the same.
But we don't want to scare away our new contributors.
So how do we deal with this?
And I don't think we have a good solution on how to deal with this, because everybody's
been trained to be nice and inviting, and fixed things for people.
And then at certain moment in time, people graduate, and they can do their own stuff.
But if it's an attacker, you're inviting you to risk into your ecosystem.
Of course, the supply chain attack that the Green Beeper did was completely in-house.
So that's even worse.
But for our ecosystem, the fear and certainty endowed is going to be a very difficult thing
to deal with.
Now, you all know this picture.
It's very commonly shown.
If you think about the dependency that we have here, and you now realize that somebody wants
to, well, they can kick any of the blocks, and any of the blocks will tear it down.
And this is not a drawing that inspires confidence in how robust we are against supply
chain attacks.
So because the person in Nebraska, that's now a US state.
We don't know if that person still has their job.
But also, the fact that if you're malicious, all you need to do is tumble one thing.
So we were playing Jenga with our software stack.
And that is a very disturbing idea.
If you look at it from a systemic point of view, if you think about managing not just
your project, but entire ecosystems.
So my expectation, or I think, is playing to see that the false community will be a major
battleground.
And I don't think we're ready for that.
Because we don't want to change.
We don't want to ruin the culture that we have.
We, I think we all value the friendships that we get from strangers, all the good ideas
and creative ideas.
But can we, can we, can we afford to?
Now, this is of course the queue where the AI comes in.
Because at the horizon, we see the horses coming in.
And the horses are, well, it might be, it might be that it's the cavalry.
Finally, AI is coming to save us.
We could really trust these things because they're just machines.
They don't have politics or do they.
There's been some recent very interesting research on the knowledge bubbles inside large
language models.
And it turns out that if you use certain words, for instance, if you use specific language
terms, say, israeli, Hebrew recipes, and you insert that into your prompt, that puts
your code, that put, we look at it as a gigantic corpus that is one machine.
But in, as essence, it's sort of a mini search machine that is vectorized.
And so people can position themselves, can position others in a roster where specific
attack code is plugged into.
So if you only know what the person you're attacking is coming from or what, where they
originate from, you can, you can seed words into the, into the LLM's.
And obviously, these, these, these gener of pretreat transformers, they, they, they come
to the rescue, they, they, they take all the cumbersome work.
Okay, I don't want to refactor this thing.
I don't want to, they have the burden of boilerplate code, and this responsibility that
that they take for offer, for hands allows us to do faster, to do, to focus on our core
business.
I think that's the thing that we've heard before, and it's, it's, it's a liability.
Because the, the product framing is super good, it, it, it, it, it feels as if what
we can trust these things, they, they sound so legit, they sound, and they're big companies,
they're all on the TV, and the, the terminology just goes down way too easy.
Obviously, I don't, as you, as you, probably gather, I'm not a big fan of that.
I've suggested to, to call these things Lala models, and it's, because I think we need
to make them a little bit more ridiculous, and a little bit more silly, and it's actually,
it's what they do, if you ask them to, if you give them half a lyric, and they don't
need a lyric, and they have to finish it, they will just finish up with something.
So it's the same, but we would finish up a song when we, when we don't know.
And of course, yeah, we realized about there is no cloud, there's just other people's computers,
there's no cloud, there's just other people's code, and obviously there are a lot of
visionaries, and they see their opportunity, they saw the internet coming, maybe, as kids,
and they felt like, I want to be, I want to be a pioneer, so let me be an AI, AI pioneer,
and they're eternally forgiving, and there's always a new version, it's going to fix it,
and there's always something better, but yeah, that is, and take it from a cheering award
prize winning, AI expert, LLems, do a really good job in very simple manipulations,
but it's in LLUTION, it's a delusion to think that we can scale them up from where they are now.
They're just fundamentally impossible to do the things that we expect them to do, they never
have, and they never will be, and we need other AI worlds, few AI's, like, young lacuners working on,
to actually achieve the thing that we want them to achieve, and if we do anything less,
that we see, we get crazy stuff, and this is something that I call literalism, if you're saying,
I'm the best president that the United States ever had, and people ask the question,
who's the best president, they will get the answer, because that's the predictable answer that
the victors will point to, if you ask who's the most powerful rapist on the planet,
you would expect the same answer if the machine would know, because that is a thing that,
if you can logically infer all the lawsuits, all the payoffs that were made,
however, it will never give this answer, because it's not literal, so unless we get a world
few into these models, and it won't be these models, it will be different models,
we cannot expect them to work. Now, this week there was a nice little scandal to illustrate
where this goes, so CloudFlare, a big company, I wouldn't ever do business with them,
but they made it very exciting announcement, because we all know that the matrix ecosystem is a bit
vulnerable in terms of the software that we have to run. It's a very limited amount of
service, so they announced that they had a full-on post-quantum ready, no infrastructure needed,
it's super easy to set up infrastructure, and it turned out that the whole and it was
turn key, you could deploy it from off of GitHub and it'll work, and it turned out to be a fake,
it turned out that all the hard bits of the interoperability bits were not implemented,
and that the users, essentially, were they to use that, they would be insecure?
No, okay, well, I think it's hard to to expect from people that when they make when they order
a post-quantum ready server, that is easy to maintain, and the machine says this is the post-quantum
ready easy to maintain server, that they don't get that, because you can't order it, so
where the world and reality meets the thing that you instructed it, that's where the pain I think
starts. Now, one of the problems that I see is that people probably know, but these models,
they don't chat, there's no concept of chatting, it's a model where you put in input,
and this input is comparative, so it launches a mapping inside a large vector space,
and this mapping is static, if you do the same thing, with the same model, you're supposed to get
the same results, if you do something slightly different, it might fear of somewhere else.
Now, we have a term, if there's a saying, suffers eating the world, and now these LLM models,
the harvesters have actually been, you could accuse them of bulimia, they have been eating
everything left and right, I think there's people that have been, whether the website,
their repositories were harvested multiple times a day, sometimes multiple times an hour,
and so there's a form of bulimia, they're overeating, and the problem is, how do we think about
what they then spawn out? If they just eat anything that comes to it, they basically whether it's
dead or not, whether it's alive, but it's garbage, they will just eat it and inject it and send it
back to users, and so the terminology that we in the real world tend to use for that is barfing,
we throw up stuff that we've previously eaten and throw it back into the world, and obviously,
I think it's a problem if we start using that into critical infrastructure.
Now, at the same time, it's clear that a lot of boring tasks is software,
for instance, writing tests, monitoring output from commits and so on, there's a lot of
janitoring that we can do, that humans are really wary of doing. Now, I'm not saying that we should
delegate all of these tasks without any eyeballs, because even a test runs on your CI infrastructure,
and your CI infrastructure, guards or secrets, and your secrets are ultimately the key to your
operations, so we need to be very carefully thinking about what we allow these machines to do.
There are people that are skilled and are capable of manipulating these machines to do something useful,
as long as we keep all the security in our minds and keep the containerized
asked for proofs, and so on. I think the risk can be contained a bit, but I'm personally enough
convinced that we have a problem that needs to be solved, because if I'm thinking that we have the
large attack surface, then restricting ourselves, shrinking back rather than growing, keeping
this continuous growth of yet another library and yet another language, and then trying to see
if that sticks in production, that is a liability. I think if we can convince people in the military
who are seeing huge budgets to spend time on real programmers looking at code to defend the
common infrastructure, to defend a false, we have billions and billions of investments upcoming,
and these billions of investments are all going to go into exploding things. We have things
that sit quietly, but there can be just as deadly, there can be just as psychologically
devastating if people cannot communicate, if people, if your device is breakdown, it makes
for a terrible weapon, and I think looking at our history, we have been overcomitted.
The Nebraska picture is a real thing. People are in danger of burnout, and at the same time,
we are spending a juice pile of money. I would say that in a time of war,
the open source ecosystem shouldn't build stuff per se, or probably not to as weapons,
but we should get money from the people that need to defend us, because we are actually
there, we are there infrastructure, and if we don't have their budgets, I'm afraid that we will
all suffer. I guess the scarcity in time, the scarcity in resources that we experience as a
community, we should look at not just politicians to say we need digital sovereignty, but we also need
defense. I'm sorry that my presentation sucked in the technical sense.
This goes with the territory of trying out and dog fooding on the stuff that you believe in.
Yeah, I would thank everybody for attending. Everybody have a super-nice false
them. If there's about a thousand talks that you can listen to, there's about 10,000 friends
you can make, there's about 300,000 stickers you can get here, so have fun.