Hey everyone, welcome to peak performance perspectives with Mark Talukdar. Today's guest is Noah Healy. Noah, welcome to the show.

 

Thanks for having me here, Mark.

 

Yep. Same here. Do you want to tell a little bit about yourself?

 

Sure. I'm a recreational mathematician, and some research I was doing about a decade ago led me to patent work on a new kind of marketplace.

 

Wow. So our audience is going to ask, what is a recreational mathematician?

 

Basically you just find joy and fun in it.

 

So math is my vocation and avocation. When I work professionally, I'm either doing data science or algorithm development programming, that kind of stuff which is all computational math. And I love that kind of stuff enough that I research it on my own.

 

Oh, very cool. Very cool. Great passion to have.

 

I have a degree in math myself. But I think a lot of people are afraid of Math. Maybe they'll think we're crazy, but I find it super interesting and your topic is super interesting. So I can't wait to delve into it. You mentioned your project is about changing the financial marketplace.

 

What does that mean?

 

The markets operate on a fairly simple system that goes back hundreds of years. And effectively what it does is it creates two lines, the lines of buyers and the lines of sellers. And when the fronts of those lines cross each other they basically have a common interest in trading.

 

Then it. It makes those deals and records and publishes that they happened. And so the people who are standing in line can see the deals that are getting made and try to cut further ahead in the line by offering deals that would get them near the front of the line, or they can jockey back in the expectation that things will eventually catch up to them.

 

And that's was a very efficient system when it was all human beings dealing with each other. Unfortunately we left behind human interaction for computers last century. What we now have is a system where very large numbers of Independent computer organizations are shoving information into these systems at rates greater than they can actually process them, and that's led to a lot of dislocation, a lot of noise, a certain amount of fraud and all of that is causing pricing to become deranged, which leads to shortages and surpluses that Don't really work that well, as well as increasing costs that we are now seeing filter into day to day lives on a, accelerating basis.

 

Okay, so let's take a step back. This is the current state. Can you explain to the audience? How it all started, assuming that the way trading is done now is a more complicated version of how it used to be like a couple centuries ago, like you said

 

and then maybe we can talk about how we got here today.

 

 

 

Absolutely. Trading, economic trading has obviously been a very important part of civilization forever. And the city straight was basically the unit of trade. People would go to markets and cities after the fall of Rome. We had the dark ages and Mediterranean trade was being dominated by Constantinople because just the position of being between the Mediterranean, the Black Sea meant that's where all the market lines would converge.

 

But it. Just before the Renaissance started coffee got introduced around the Middle East and the Northern Italian city states combined the culture of Italians, of going down to the piazza and basically gossiping about what you were doing with drinking coffee and getting excited and voluble.

 

And that combination essentially created the modern pit structure that Then replicated around the world for four centuries, and because that situation led to more efficient pricing, suddenly Naples, Genoa, Venice offered better prices than Constantinople did, in spite of the fact that Constantinople was much better strategically located.

 

And so the central routing. Changed and Mediterranean trade came to be dominated by these states. They became extremely wealthy. They started investing in history and art to, to emphasize their Roman-ness, and that led to the classical revival and the Renaissance and, the early modern period and so on.

 

So that's where the ball got rolling.

 

How did that system create better pricing? Cause you said even though Constantinople was better located the Italians drinking their coffee, sitting in a circle, talking about it, formation of the modern day pit coming from there.

 

How did that create a better pricing model? It's

 

An interesting thing. So the problem of pricing is something that. Human beings by definition, can't be smart enough to solve because in addition to knowing your own personal economic interests, you also have to know the personal economic interests of the other people in the deal.

 

And so as more and more people get involved, it becomes harder and harder. To figure out what the right price is. The old style of doing trades where people would come together and make a personal trade with one another meant that information basically died. Every time a trade happened, traders were very insular.

 

They were very private. And so knowledge couldn't spread from. Particular trade to particular trade, and that meant that the best that trading could do was basically the second most intelligent person in each deal, because the most intelligent person can take advantage of everybody else. And the second most intelligent person in each deal isn't that smart on average.

 

And so you got a not particularly intelligent decision making. Whereas Once you started getting these groups of a dozen or three dozen people all in one room, operating in a system that encouraged that information to spread, you got decisions that were not as intelligent as the smartest person in the room, but were actually smarter than that.

 

So a dozen people get together and then what are they doing exactly? Is it still commodities training?

 

Yeah it's commodities trading. So they're making offers to buy and sell. They're getting themselves into these lines that, that were happening.

 

And the deal that happens is whatever the best deal that's being offered. But because you can see all the deals that are being offered, you can evaluate information that's outside of your deal as part of making your deal. And so that makes you able to make decisions more intelligently than you would normally be able to make decisions.

 

And when. Everybody is in the state where they're all making decisions more intelligently than any of them be able to make decisions. The decisions that wind up getting made are smarter than the decisions any of the people in there would normally be able to make.

 

Okay so next, what happens?

 

So the next thing that happens is Columbus discovers America and the Spanish decide to start pulling silver out of the new world and bringing it back to Europe because like many people, even today, they believe that money and wealth were the same thing.

 

Spain's deep water port at the time was the low countries. So Amsterdam becomes the new center of gravity of the financial world in Europe because they replicate these same kinds of models, but suddenly they have much cheaper money because the Spanish are putting them on boats and selling sailing silver across the ocean in enormous amounts.

 

And so for the next few centuries that becomes where things happen. They invent the joint stock company and figure out how to turn a business arrangement into a commodity. And that's where stock markets come from.

 

Interesting. Interesting. Okay. So that's the beginning of modern day stock market.

 

Very cool.

 

Yep. That's the start of the early modern period there. And then the next thing that happens is the British managed to take over by Coming up with a stable regulatory regime for the fractional reserve bank, which allows them to create money even cheaper than you can create it by stealing it from the new world.

 

And. To their very fortunate coincidence, they happened to invent the steam engine at the same time. And so the ordinary problem with fractional reserve banking historically is that it creates an exponentially expanding money supply and in environments where economies grew very slowly and exponentially expanding money supply would rapidly lead to widespread ruin and chaos and a lot of political strife.

 

But the British. Created the ability to create an exponentially expanding economy at the same time. And so while it was still very predatory and extractive to set up fractional reserve banking, it wasn't almost immediately suicidal. And so for the following 300 ish years that's been how we've been operating our economy here on planet earth.

 

Okay. That's super interesting. I am not a financial expert, therefore, a majority of this was new and interesting, and I'm sure the audience will find it too. So thank you for sharing that. So it's been going on for 300 years. You discussed the history briefly. You're saying this is not the best way to do it.

 

Why?

 

It's computers basically. So all of those things worked because people came together to make human decisions in light of human information. The ultimate thing that makes it all work is that economic decisions are based on human needs and desires, and we don't have any good way to translate human needs and desires into the machines, their machines, they don't have human needs or desires.

 

 Add computers to the mix, they can start making money by simply moving faster than the marketplace. And this, in the early days, back in the 70s and 80s having computer relays to be able to get orders to market faster than humans could call on telephones and so forth would make you extraordinary amounts of money.

 

The markets reacted to this by gradually replacing the humans in the pit with computer operators. But this, while it superficially fixes the problem, actually makes it much worse because in the old days in a room with 30 people or a pit with 30 people, the reaction time is on average about a 30th of a human reaction time.

 

And while there's. People that have faster reaction times and other people, nobody has that much of an advantage. And so it wouldn't be possible in the old school system for a single player to be able to outfox the entire marketplace because the market as a whole moved faster than any single player in the marketplace.

 

But computers move only at the exact speed that they move at. And so it now became possible for the individual players in the market to be as fast as the marketplace itself is. And that's the reality that we live in today. Most dedicated traders have computer infrastructure that allows them to process information At the speed that the marketplace processes information at, and in consequence, the primary driver of good behavior in the market, that is, if you intentionally behave badly, the market will use its speed and liquidity to basically cut your head off has completely disappeared.

 

And this means that a new strategy of putting noise into the marketplace has Lost its cost and the noisier the marketplace is, the more profitable it is for the people that are just trading. And that means that the financial. System as a whole can become more competitive and more cutthroat, but also as a whole more expensive.

 

And what we've seen over the last 50 ish years is the financial systems growing as a fraction of the total economy because they get paid more, the harder it is to do their jobs and they're making their jobs harder so they can get paid more.

 

So can you give a specific example for me to understand for the audience to understand what does it mean when you say the market needs to be smarter than us? What does that mean?

 

Sure. Here's a reasonable example. Boeing is making planes that are famously falling out of the sky and their stock has been going up for decades while they've been making planes of lower and lower quality that have killed hundreds of people.

 

A marketplace that was smarter than us should have been able to detect that Boeing's management was becoming increasingly disconnected from actually making quality airplanes and punish their stock values. But instead that Boeing management was actually able to use the revenues that it generated from those stock values to do stock buybacks in order to juice their own stock prices.

 

And the market just blithely reacted to that information by number go up and buying in to encourage that continued increase. So what's actually happening is people are. Basically just following this sort of herd instinct and until we get to this position where Boeing becomes effectively the only American airplane builder, except that they don't really build airplanes all that well anymore.

 

 In these cases, we see the markets delivering information that is clearly incorrect.

 

And

 

is doing so at the behest and the profit of small groups of people who are capable of manipulating it.

 

Yeah that's really good point.

 

So obviously we're going to talk about, the system that you have come up with. I'm really excited to understand that. If we did revert back to the old school system without going into the future system that you were proposing, if we reverted back to the old system, which is supposedly better than this one. Yeah. How would the Boeing situation be in, end up different?

 

Let me first preface that by talking about exactly what it would mean to go to the old school system. It would mean that people in the financial system, which would include regulators in government and because the regulators are under the supervision of legislature, legislatures in government could not be allowed to have access to modern communication or computer technology.

 

So everybody that was even attempting to run for office wouldn't be allowed to own a cell phone and none of their family would be allowed to own a cell phone.  We would essentially have to take the wealthiest and most powerful people in society and convert them into not even second class citizens but Basically pariah untouchables that could never participate in modern society in any fashion.

 

However, how does that work out in a future world? Not that great necessarily because the. Part of what made the old school system work was the people that were involved did have access to the best information, did have access to the most interest in the economy and so on. And yeah, and because computers and global communication are absolutely integrated into the way our civilization currently works, creating a class of people that are basically Amish bankers. And wholly disconnected from society won't magically be able to create. Knowledge that is useful to society it would perhaps be tolerable if we decided collectively that modern society simply wasn't worth the effort and that billions of us were voluntarily willing to die so that we could go back to the kinds of numbers that we could use to be able to keep alive with pre modern civilization.

 

I personally. Violently against that particular, direction, but that might be something that would be tolerable. But aside from things like that, going back doesn't look like a reasonable outcome. And it would be very easy to if you were trying to gear back to say, 1900 very easy to miss and wind up in, 800, for example which was a very bad year.

 

Absolutely correct, right? Because this is, we're talking two different things worldwide communication and knowledge accessibility to internet and computers versus a very small scale, 10, 20, 30 people managing a very small market.

 

Now, the only advantage of the modern way things are done is Internet and communication has made this widely. Information is spread wide and far, which was not possible in the olden days. So now what's the solution? Where is the future? What is the proposed system that you are talking about? Let's describe it.

 

Sure. So I call them Coordinated Discovery Markets, CDM, and they work by Combining a negotiation market in which people bring information about where prices are heading in their opinion with a sort of clearance trading structure where people can decide.

 

how much they want to sell or buy into the prices that have been pre negotiated. So that gets a bit dark poolish. Unlike existing markets, large volumes of trade don't derange prices in my system. Prices are published at some static value for a reasonable length of time so that human beings can, on their own schedules, Look at those prices and make decisions and that gets us our economic viability because it's things that cause humans to be interested that are economically viable.

 

And because we only need those prices at that long period people can put in their negotiated positions for the future Again, with this periodicity you could basically have a schedule trade, say wheat every day so there'd be a price for wheat every day.

 

Every day you can look at what the current price is with the projections for tomorrow and the day after and every day next week and next month and for years into the future, potentially the projections, 6 months, 12 months out are going to be pretty hazy. There's going to be a lot of different opinions.

 

They're going to change a fair bit from day to day. The projections for tomorrow and the next day are going to be pretty solid. They're not really going to change very much most of the time. And then, of course, today's price is rock solid. It's just, that's what's there. People can decide how much they want to buy, how much they want to sell.

 

They put those things in, the system aggregates them all together, and then trades off everything in bulk. So the idea is that every transaction is a joint transaction of the entire market. And that's where we get. Our security and stability from because we're averaging across all the transactions, not just one specific transaction that happened to happen in this particular microsecond.

 

Interesting. So the process starts with human input about. Where they think is the market is heading or where they think the prices are heading, right? Yes. How do we determine that?

 

So they determine it individually. If somebody writes an AI that manages to figure out how to predict the price of wheat for the next five years, they can put those that, that in there.

 

If somebody is speaking to God they can put that in there. If somebody is just a dedicated researcher that sits down and. Reads, reads a bunch of stuff and follows the news and is very careful. That's great. If somebody is the driver of a policy wonk and happens to know that the government's about to change the rules on how we, then they can put that in.

 

If somebody is a farmer that. Has been doing this for 20 years, and this is the best weather he's ever seen or the worst weather he's ever seen. He can pitch in a little bit of information if somebody owns a mill and they've seen, 5000 new bakeries open up and that they need a bunch of croissant flour, they can put in some information around that.

 

So anybody who has an opinion that they believe is informed and would like to be paid for it can participate in the system.

 

Interesting. Anybody that who has an opinion that they believe is informed will participate in the system. Just go with the human psychology, right? Everybody wants to make money.

 

What is stopping from everybody to just putting in favorable. Think that's just going to make them money other than the people who are trying to short stock. Right? Why would it really seems like it depends on someone's honesty and diligence. It's not something we can rely upon. Can we?

 

Not really, because remember, the actual money comes from the people engaging in trade.

 

And so finding prices that encourage people to trade is where the money comes from. So if you just go in and put in random noise, and your random noise gets integrated, that random noise will get integrated out by other people putting in informed knowledge or other random noise. Basically, informed knowledge will tend to reinforce itself, random noise will tend to dissipate itself, and so as the number of participants grows, and basically you're going to want 49 ish minimum participants, the amount of random noise that's in the system becomes smaller than the Cost structure of the existing system and at large scale again, regional continental global scales, the noise levels will be smaller than the increment of Of currency.

 

Basically, there'll be less noise than a single penny in a price.

 

So is there a mechanism to make sure this X number of people, 49 or whatever the number ends up being the minimum number? Is there a mechanism to make sure that group is not biased?

 

So that's where the tripart nature of the system happens. Let's say a biased group shows up and deranges a price because they're idiots and they don't want to make any money.

 

What happens? The price is deranged. It's either in favor of the buyers or the sellers. If it's in favor of the buyers are really going to want to buy a bunch of stuff. But the sellers are not going to really want to sell a bunch of stuff at this price that doesn't really make any sense for them.

 

So they're going to take their ball and go home. Maybe a few poor desperate sods will be forced to trade a little bit in the marketplace, but most people will basically just say tomorrow is another day and I'll just trade them. So volume drops enormously and the market says, Oh, I'm not a big, important market that lots of people use.

 

I'm a small, trivial market that very few people use. It must be very inexpensive to change me. Also. The money that you were expecting to make because of all the commissions that were going to be collected on all these trades that were going to happen at these crazy prices you came up with those trades didn't happen.

 

So those commissions didn't happen. So I don't have very much money to give you because you created bad prices. So here's not your money back. And the money that you put in is now stuck inside the market. To pay people to go fix the mistake you just made because you're delusional. And those people will get not only all the money you could have gotten because trading floods back in once the prices work, but they get your money too.

 

And so if you want to keep being delusional, eventually you'll be poor enough that your delusions won't really matter anymore.

 

So imagine A dislocation, like the third biggest wheat producer invading the fifth biggest wheat producer, wheat prices would go up, but because the security that was created by these fixed deals that the people could then not benefit from instead, wheat prices would go up much more modestly.

 

But to the extent that it would encourage the actual producers to expand their production to make up for the losses of other wheat. And so what we'd see instead of a sharp spike with sort of a long decline as it, it Tried to find the point at which things could come back if the invasion were to truly drop out of the sky and nobody knew about it.

 

Then what you'd see is a much more modest increase to essentially the final increase price that actually farm gates experienced because. You're negotiating the farm gate receipt reception price, and the farmers would be able to acquire that about a year earlier than they otherwise would. Of course, that in itself is a little naive because in fact, even in the run up to the war.

 

Those policy makers that were making those decisions about whether or not the war would happen would actually have access to the market and be able to understand the fact that their decisions being made independently of that would cause these actions and whether or not they were personally willing to invest and profit their chauffeurs or boot blacks or maids might well be willing to invest to, to spread this sort of information around.

 

And the more likely thing would be anticipatory modest increases ahead of schedule to build inventories and so on. And so the entire system would attempt to negotiate this circumstance in a way that actually maximized its economic value or minimize this economic impact. on the participants in the system that made this system as smooth as possible because smooth behavior is what is most economically valuable in the commodity space.

 

So that's really interesting. We talked about computers, we talked about speed with which things are moving. How does speed come into this model where it's dependent on Individual direction of X number of people to see where the thing that I should go.

 

In one sense, the speed hasn't really gone anywhere because the information is actually only relevant at human paces.

 

And there's a term that used to be a lot more current called real time real time systems. And real time came to mean Instantaneous, but that's not actually what it was originally defined as and what it was used as. Real time meant processing at the speed required for control of the situation at hand.

 

And not faster than that, and so what we've done is taken a system that used to be real time that was actually operating at the speeds of human consciousness and human decision making, and we've actually sped it up faster than that, and that's what's leading to breaking. Strain. What this does is it brings that back down to actual human decision making speeds, provides information that people can rely on and make decisions based on, and that lets us leverage collective intelligence again and actually get systems that are smarter than any one of us once again.

 

Very interesting. It's taking the best bits of The old world and mixing it with the technology and the knowledge and how things should operate in the new world and coming up with a better system. Very interesting. I hope so, yeah. Yeah. So tell us a little bit about how you came up with this idea, because it's revolutionary.

 

So I I was playing around with this notion about networked agents consensus. I'd seen, early AI research. I'd seen Internet of things research. I've been working on the Internet since 2000 and I saw this mass proliferation of data, most of which wasn't read, and some of which was very dangerous to have not read, and so this kind of idea Formed of what if there was like a communication protocol or something else that would allow you to extract information from these networks of automated objects that we're going to, continue and be much more important.

 

And if nothing else, just your, see a virtual hard drives that, that every business is spawning these days. And. I started exploring it with game theory and simple betting models and so on. And I came up with this technique that allows you to price transaction costs. And that's actually interesting.

 

And so I was telling a friend of mine about it and he asked if you could use it to buy stock tips. And I said, no, you couldn't, because the amount that it would cost to buy a, an accurate stock tip is. At the very least, the amount that would be worth to actually invest that stock tip. And so you couldn't make any money doing this.

 

You'd have to offer at least as much as the stock tip was actually worth to make it worthwhile to tell you. But that triggered an idea as I was walking back home from his house that The marketplace actually does pay for stock tips. That's how it works. It works by paying for stock tips, right? So what if you could.

 

Put my system inside my system in this kind of recursive thing and turn it into a marketplace. And I had this kind of vague visualization of what it would look like to have this recursive system inside the system thing. And I was like, I got to know what that looks like. And so that's, that's the recreational math side of things.

 

I started thinking about how you might be able to twist this algorithm into itself and make that work. And I started thinking about how to stabilize these things, who the actual players would be, how the system would work. And the big breakthrough was when I figured out that there was three players, not two.

 

I couldn't make it work with two, but with three, I could get it to work. And when I figured out that nobody cares about what the price is, because now is over instantaneously, people care about where the price is heading. They care about where the price exists in the time landscape of prices over time.

 

And that creates a stable object. People can all broadly agree On not where the price is right this instant, because everybody is going to disagree about that, but people can all agree about where prices are heading over the future. That's something that everybody can have a common interest in that.

 

We can create this information market about that. We can then measure that information market with a trading market and that. By combining these things through a set of integral equations, we could make the entire thing economically and computationally efficient.

 

Interesting. Proper eureka moment.

 

Yeah.

 

Yeah. I was actually walking past an apple tree when I had the idea.

 

Look at that. Love it. I just quick question because it wasn't clear to me. You said you weren't able to work it out with two players, but you were able to work it out with three players. What does that mean?

 

Structurally, For my system to work, you have to start with a coordination game, you have to start with a circumstance where any player deviating from group consensus harms themself.

 

And with two players, I couldn't turn the system into a coordination game, because it's a tug of war, and each player might be able to win by pulling a little bit harder. And with two They might lose, they might snap the rope, but they might be able to win by tugging a little harder. And there was an intrinsic contentiousness in the two player game that didn't work with my approach.

 

But by changing it to this three player game and creating this direct Market in knowledge, but this indirect knowledge, this indirect sort of effect of the knowledge incentive on the trading. I created a system where telling the truth about what prices will actually be would make you money. And then trading at price at the prices that will actually be, would make you money.

 

And so not trading at a good price for you would lose you money. And so that's bad for you. And not telling the market the truth about where prices are going would lose you money. So that's bad for you.

 

Interesting. Very interesting. How long ago did you come up with this?

 

It's been more than a decade at this point.

 

Wow. Wow. And what has happened other than you working on it, obviously finessing it, making it better, what other things have happened in terms of bringing this to light challenging the status quo and educating people as to how this is better than the existing model?

 

My early steps were basically like learning the lingo.

 

I, I. Read a lot of graduate textbooks on market history, which is why I can tell you it off the top of my head these days and got into studying existing market micro design which is a fascinating field. Although I think pointless particularly in light of my discovery and doing that actually really lit the fire to a greater extent because that's when I started.

 

Reanalyzing market structure in terms of my new knowledge about the value of information in marketplaces. And that's when these flaws that I was telling you about became highly apparent to me. But there's been a very long process of me figuring out how not to talk about this just in terms of pure calculus One of one of the early attorneys that I spoke to when I was trying to get this thing patented and he's a friend of mine.

 

I've talked to him before. It's a lot better now, but we had our first sit down. And this would have been in 2015. We sat down for about 2 hours. He asked a bunch of questions. We went over everything. We had pencil paper describing everything and he ended and he's yeah. I'm not the guy for you.

 

I think you're probably brilliant. I think that you know what you're talking about. I do not know what you're talking about. I could not write any of this down in any form that would mean anything to anybody. Yeah. But I will help you look for an attorney to work with. Yeah. And he did.

 

And that was very great that I got to my attorneys and got the patent in. So the patent's been a big part of things. And then. Getting out of my shell. Talking to people, trying to make connections with people and trying to find potential partners to work with. So I pursued VCs first.

 

That was basically a dead end. This isn't really what they're interested in doing. I looked for other kinds of partnerships. I've run across a few of them around the world. And that's how I got started. Basically, still what I'm doing is scouring the world looking for potential partners and helpers in searching for potential partners.

 

Interesting. Finding an attorney now it's patent pending.

 

Yeah so the patent was filed. The full patent application was filed in 2016, June. It was accepted in September of 2019, but then that acceptance was ignored which is not procedure, but it happened anyway. They finally, after prodding came back with an objection, which turned out to be Entirely nonsensical, and when they were challenged on its nonsense properties, they relented.

 

And in February of 2021 calendar years later they accepted again. We applied for the patent three weeks later, that acceptance was withdrawn, which is the normal procedure, except that a double withdrawal is rare enough that almost nobody's ever experienced one, and nobody has apparently ever experienced a, we're just going to ignore it thing.

 

The second time they also came up with a nonsensical objection, but this time the examiner and the examiner supervisor, who are the people who are in charge of talking to us and writing these things up, explained that they were under orders from people that they disagreed with and that they couldn't understand.

 

And so that the reason this particular reason makes no sense is because they couldn't make any sense out of what they were told. This might be the reason they were told, or it might be their misunderstanding of whatever the reason they were told is, but I can't tell the difference because I can't talk to, and my attorneys cannot talk to the people who it is about.

 

So we filed a, an appeal to the patent board. So if you ever heard the term patent court, the patent board is patent court. And appeal was scheduled to be heard it was scheduled in July of 2023 for July of 2025. In just over a year I will get to hear again from the federal government their, the case is that the patent office has made a claim, which makes no sense on its face and the people who are in charge of making that claim disagree with it and agree that it makes no sense on its face.

 

My case is that they've said yes twice, they've violated their own procedures And they have admitted that it's novel. Useful, and that there's no prior art. So it fulfills all the requirements of patenting. Plus there's a 2019 precedent where the patent board has stated that market mechanisms are patentable material when the CME group appealed a patent on market mechanisms.

 

So I've got, precedent and sort of procedure and law and the opposing officers on my side, but since I don't understand whatever is actually causing this not to happen, I don't know, I don't know how much good that's going to do me,

 

what a crazy situation. If listeners listening to this wanted to help you with your cause and trying to make things better, how can they do that?

 

So I have started a petition this year and that's on change. org under all caps CDM underscore all lowercase patent. And signing and spreading the word about that would be fantastic. It's it's a bizarre situation and trying to bring light to it the federal government can behave itself when enough people insist.

 

Yeah. Absolutely. Wow. Wonderful. Wonderful. Really interesting stuff. It's like I said before, this is not really my foray, but I was trying to understand it the best I can. I don't know how much I understood it, but, I did a good job and hopefully the audience listening to it, is there any place they can go read about it more?

 

Do you have a website?

 

Absolutely. So coordisc.Com is my website. There's a white coordisc C O O R D I S C. So coordinated discovery. It's the first parts of each of those.

 

Wow. Wow. Amazing. Amazing. Amazing. I thank you so much for being here. And why is there anything else you'd like to add?

 

Just one thing. I do also have a podcast. I co host with a former Reddit CTO, Marty Weiner, where we talk about AI from its current impacts to potential future impacts, mixing a little sci fi, its discussions, and also some interviews.

 

So that's called the fourth age, the AI revolution. I think we are 22 episodes out. Right now, and it's on Apple and Spotify and everywhere else we could find. You can check that out if you're interested.

 

so much for being on the podcast here today, Noah. I wish you the best of luck. And I will add obviously all the links that you mentioned here for audience to follow you and support you.

 

Thank you

 

very much. Thanks.