I’ll be liveblogging as we go today so keep refreshing this post for details.

14:25 We’re a booting our machines and logging on here.  Hilarious room configuration.  Tables are populated in accordance with powerpoint access.  Big hole in the centre of the room.

14:35 Mark Jones (Reuters) has just taken the microphone and left the room but we assume he’s on his way back to the stage.

14:37 All the journalists have just rocked up. Suddenly the room is rather full.

14:43 Mark Jones and Toby Moores are explaining how the day will be structured.  Essentially the structure is to consider the issues facing news in use of social media, beginning with questions, and then moving to localised, table-based debates on the subjects being raised.

14:46 Dominic Campbell is asked to act as a catalyst for discussion about politics and social media.  He notes that he started with this stuff 2 years ago, when he was described as a ‘village idiot’ to be using blogging and social media for political debate.  But in the space of 2 years, there’s been a complete revolution in the use of these disruptive technologies and politicians and representatives are now keen to be using these technologies for ideas and to engage.

Dominic says the new influencers arising from the social media sector is distributing power structures and policy making in the digital sector.  He says that authenticity is necessary for politicians in light of the expenses scandal and as a result of sites like ‘They Work For You’.  Twitter has provided some politicians with an opportunity to express themselves and engage in a manner that they have not before before – at least in terms of immediacy.

Dominic asks if the value of social media, the authenticity and the dynamism rising from the connected community is both sustainable and a good thing for policy.  That’s our topic for roundtable debate.

15:00 Our table are talking about the sustainability of information and opinion exchange.  Matt says that ‘we are becoming too fast for our own wits’ and the value of reflection is being lost in policies and decision making.  Mercedes says that users of the technology are aware of the time-limited participation in the medium.  The @stephenfry and @brumplum affair (Frygate) is raised.  Mercedes says that the private/public mix of performance online needs to be considered.  There’s a tendency for beloved figures to inspire vigilante behaviour among followers.

I’m sitting at a table with two cartoonists from Drawnalism and it’s very difficult to concentrate on the discussion as these marvellous pics keep evolving

Interesting question about whether politicians should be farming out the responses to their posts to a staff.  Matt says that there needs to be disclosure of  the fact that politicians are using staff to respond, it’s okay.  But does that reduce the value of the channel as an access zone?  Might be okay to use it as a zeitgeist. If you have a million followers, it’s almost impossible to respond with a duty of care individually to conversations.  So it’s then a responsibility for staff and politicians to work effectively with audiences.

Hypothetical scenario: a prominent politician decides to tweet all his expenses.  All is fine and we all get rather bored with the minutiae of his mars bars purchases.  Then on the day of a climate change conference, he tweets that he is using a cab to travel from Kensington to Brighton.  Rather large fare, and not very eco-friendly, but no-one responds to the tweet.  Then when election time comes, people question him about that cab fare.  Is he less ‘at fault’ if he has disclosed his expenses and yet behaves in an un-eco-friendly fashion?  Do we need better filters?  What impact does this have on regulation?  Will we become over-bureaucratised as a result of the sheer amount of data we’re collecting?

15:45 Quick break before the next discussion.  We’ll be moving around and swapping discussion groups if we can.

16:05 We’re back and we are moving the discussion into what microblogging is good for.  It’s good for eye-witness responses, basic info, providing links to items of interest, as an early warning system and facilitating access in repressed regimes.  We also know there are a number of shortcomings.  Very hard to disentangle truth from rumour, real info from deliberate misinformation, can be information overload, moral issues associated with appropriate behaviour in traumatic events.  Information is not the same as journalism.  Journalism requires discipline, investigation, analysis and has a responsibility for accuracy.  News organisations risk reputation by increasing speed of the news cycle.  Real time conversation very difficult to filter.  Jeff Jarvis has said that twitter is temporary.  Our experience of media is about to become dispersed and most things come and go in a matter of minutes.  Hard to find the space for reflection and analysis.

Question to consider is: how can we use real time dialogue to curate journalism rather than just feed it?  How and where do we compensate for any loss of depth or analysis with the use of these tools?

16:15 I’ve moved to table which is populated by a range of journalists.  One journo asks why there has to be an old media and new media divide.  It’s a matter of presentation.  If there is an opportunity to frame content presented via social media then some of the weaknesses can be at least acknowledged if not overcome.  The responses considered include the question about what journalism is, and who are the journalists.  Concern is expressed about the adoption of misinformation proliferating through (perhaps gullible) networks.  Some speakers believe that the notion of new media destroying old media is absurd.  But there may be a move among audiences to be less interested in analysis and more interesteussion I’m witnessing in raw facts.

[JJ's comment: must admit I'm a bit concerned that the current discussion I'm witnessing is focusing entirely on delivering content. No indication amongst those present about the notion of engaging an audience.]

16:20 Interesting scenario is described.  If you’re a journalist curating responses to an issue, and you use twitter as a vox pops for content, it’s possible to do a background check on the posts made by independent participants.  So you tend not to retweet or cite posts made by people whose twitter history indicates they are ‘inappropriate’ sources, even if they make some intelligent or valuable contributions as single comments.

16:30 It is agreed that the history of all speakers on an issue adds to the possible credibility of online sources.  Twitter lists may become a form of de facto credibility filters among journalists for identifying useful resources.

16:35 One response is that transparency rather than accuracy is key: must cite all sources and must check as much as possible.  Question is raised about whether you should have a regulation for citations.  Does the immediacy and and debate implicit in the use of the tools affect the value of the content being presented.

I interrupt, saying it’s not just about presentation anymore.  It’s about listening and responding, not just about presenting.  The incident of the Gordon Borwn misspelling the letter to the mother of a soldier killed is raised.  Question is raised whether journalists and the media were being fed by the community which was generally supportive of Gordon Brown.

16:49 The microblogging channel is better to challenge rather than analyse, but it can direct to blogs and longer analysis, or an aggregated series of responses which provide better analysis.

16:58 Toby tells us we have a chance to select topics for the next session.

17:25 We’re back and now voting on session topics.  The choices are:

1. The psychology of twitter – games ppl play in 140 characters

2. The potential for arts and social media as a tool to collaborate and create (how art represents new ways of communicating)

3. How twitter can or has helped cross boundaries of age, gender, countries, professions, competencies and politics.

Toby is asking for a bit of hush but not very successfully.

17:29 We’re finally behaving and now voting. The psychology of twitter wins!

17:45 I’m at a table where the value of the conversations in twitter is being debated.  One person says the conversations had are some of the most meaningful and in-depth.  Another says the conversations they have had are meaningless and glib.  One says that it’s a disservice to describe twitter as superficial.  The value is not necessarily implicit in the conversations but the other resources linked from tweets.  One person notes that the value is in discovery and connections between people and ideas.  What you are is what you write.  References and citations – an informal articulation of academic practice – are essential to defining a twitter personality.

Twitter is just a medium.  If you’re talking about big ideas, you can do so by crafting your tweets thus. And if you want to tell jokes and play games, there’s latitude for you to do this.  Tower Bridge, Big Ben, telescopes, and houses can tweet for entertainment value.

Question raised: would people tweet differently if they regard it as traceable and lasting forever?  Do people treat twitter differently as a resource for sharing content when compared with Facebook in terms of acceptability for playing games?

[I've always found @brentspiner's account completely bizarre but highly entertaining.  It's a narrative, and a series of responses rather than a place for sharing ideas.]

The example is given that status updates on twitter being broadcast into facebook can be problematic for people who see themselves psychologically as ‘different people’ in these different domains.

There’s a sense that we are still negotiating identities in various channels.  Because we’re working in this space, it becomes necessary to self-edit (rather than self-censor) their personalised responses in social media channels.  It is noted that living a personal life online are actually doing a form performance art.

The psychology of radical openness is partly to generate a sense of trustworthiness, but will have consequences.  There is also the point raised that when people change their behaviour from public to private that it’s going to have an effect on reputation.  Audiences may feel they are entitled to private information.

18:11 We’re wrapping up this session and moving to a panel.

18:35 The panel are looking at ideas posed by useful tweets.  The panel are:

richard sambrook – director of global news at bbc
benjamin ellis – redcatco
kate arkless-grey – radiokate
christian payne – ourmaninside
hannah nicklin – blogger, playwrite, academic
sue thomas – professor of new media at demontford

The challenge from a journalism perspective is in finding that analysis role of journalism.  While twitter provides a great opportunity for information access, there is not the technology which is facilitating the same level of deep attention and analysis.  So @sambrook says that twitter is skewing the sense of value in fast access to information, and to some extent at least, deep thinking is being devalued.  @benjaminellis says that there are instances where we need information quickly, but we also need the space to deeply understand stuff.  @radiokate says that this situation isn’t new.  @sambrook says that with the death of diversity in printed press and reduced long-format radio, there is less analysis.  @documentally says that he is blogging more and feels he’s part of something significant.  @suethomas notes that when DMZ broadcast the death of Michael Jackson, it was all over twitter.  It took 2 hours for mainstream media to confirm, because they were fact checking.

[Does this matter?  Isn't the doubt and tweeting of rumours online just drawing attention to mainstream media?]

@hannahnicklin says the rate of change has always been fast.  What, if anything, has changed is technology.  There’s a fear in change and in technology.  It’s a bigger participation barrier than ever before because there’s no time space to get it wrong and to learn.

@sambrook says the impact of technology is not as important as the shift in thinking about participation.  We’ve had tech shifts before; what’s new is how much is visible.

@documentally says as early adopters, we are happy to make mistakes in order to learn.  This kind of stuff – from audioboo to twitter should be taught in school.

The twitterfall is now up behind the panel and the panel are completed distracted.  PANEL FAIL

@hannahnicklin says that one of the values of twitter is the sens of community.  Collective responses feel better than individual responses.  X-Factor voting = at least a small amount of participation.

We’re wrapping up here but the general consensus is that twitter is important for inciting debate, but perhaps ironically, the opportunities for face to face meeting arising from twitter are vital.  Community is who you will migrate with, learn with and, perhaps, procrastinate with.  Social media has helped us regain a lot of what we lost in the media age through the reduction of focus in villages and communities.

19:05 Toby thanks everyone.  He concludes with an opportunity to generate a considerable amount of money using an equivalent of a million dollar webpage in a 140 context.

Drinks! Thanks for reading.  Hope this has been useful.
Cheers, Joanne

I’m on my way home from the Birmingham Social Media Cafe “Data, Mashups and APIs” event, sponsored by The Guardian.

The purpose of the event was to present a range of ways that open data is being generated, processed and implemented, ranging from maps showing live data on where trains are on a map based on train time information, to lists of how many times the police use tasers in different parts of the country, from the Guardian Data store.

Here’s Christian talking to Michael Brunton-Spal about the Data Store:

Most of the data being showcased at the event was in some way being used to improve accessibility to useful information by the general public, and to advance the democratic process by presenting data in ways that makes it easier for us to hold our various elected bodies to account for what they do on our behalf (particularly, the MySociety suite of sites and services).

Christian talking to Matthew Somerville of MySociety about data, government and FOI requests:

One of the pleasing things about being there with an Amplified hat on (both Christian Payne and I went along) was that the language used about data information was similar to the way that we approach the sharing of ideas at Amplified events. The pooling of intellectual resources in this kind of way can only be a good thing, and it’s great to see The Guardian leading the way in making the information in their data store available for anyone to mash-up, remix, and visualise in whatever way they like (with proper accreditation, of course).

Amplified events are all about digging deeper into ideas, tossing them around, building on each other’s thoughts and processes and documenting those so people outside can benefit and maybe run with a particular project or find collaborators, or inspiration. When people from different networks are exposed to the ideas that have been percolating within each of the groups, all kinds of collaboration of fresh thinking can ensue. That’s what we hope to continue to facilitate.

So many great ideas have come out of the various Amplified events so far, and we’re looking forward to seeing what comes out of the £1.40 conference that we’re holding in November in London – more on that soon!

Alex from Central Office for Information introduces Rheingold.

12:49 Rheingold says he’s here to enlist the audience about new ways of getting things done. We’re all taught a story about how we do things together.  Over the last 10 years there is new knowledge emerging in various sectors.

12:50 In spring of 2000 Rheingold was in Tokyo and was surprised to see lots of people looking at their phones all the time.  Now it’s common everywhere, but then it was unusual for Americans.  More recently Rheingold was in Finland and in a place where the name given to the cellphone has a literal translation of ‘little hand’, he was aware that kids were shing screens to one another but not to the older members of family.  When he asked what was goign on he was told “oh kids these days flock together”.

12:54 In the Phillipines the Estrada administration fell after the people power demonstration in the main square when after a flashmob of people all wearing black, indicating the death of democracy.

12:55 What Rheingold had observed was that text messaging had lowered the threshold of political engagement.  These smart mobs are able to do things together that they have not previously been able to do before.  The outcome of those engagements could be positive or negative, but the opportunities to harness these technologies are real.

12:59 Increasingly there have been instances across Asia and Europe, where text messages have been used to organise collective action and leaders have been acknowledging the value of these participants and ignoring mainstream media.

13:01 Rheingold notes that kids in California didn’t join MySpace for collective action – they did so to socialise and to share music.  But when the time came to act against education policies, it was logical to use MySpace.  Same thing happened in Chile with the use of PhotoLog to protest against government policies.

13:03 One of Rheingold’s own students created a site which mashed up two other platforms, inviting students to upload short videos about the Obama campaign and the opportunities arising from an Obama leadership.

13:04 Until this moment, politicians worldwide knew when the camera was on and when to appear ‘presentable’.  Now you cannot.

[JJ's note: like here, liveblogging]

13:05 Unfiltered content through twitter may be frightening – let the reader beware: not all the content on twitter is true/accurate.  But the community itself is delivering more and more filters to ensure the accuracy of information being reported.

13:09 The more Rheingold learned about these changes in communiction, the more he realised this is a natural evolution in human communication.

[JJ's note: If so, it would appear to be pointless for the civil service to resist immediate and responsive reporting from the citizenry]

13:12 Rheingold notes that the emergence of record-keeping and written language was a huge change in communication.  The production of the printing press massively increased the distribution of ideas and learning, and literacy went from being a skill of an elite to a significant proportion of the population in a very short period of time. People could build knowledge collectively.

13:17 We haven’t finished finding new ways of disseminating information. We are now finding that major (traditionally proprietary) technology firms are generating income in consultancy services based around open source code.  Major drugs firms have posed problems online in sites like innocentre to generate answers to complex problems by inviting feedback from those with the skills.

13:21 We have to think about what is going to happen in the future when people have the power to crowdsource policies and investigate appropriate process and practice in the public service. UK is ahead in providing access but need to design better services to assist public service job with the help of fellow citizens

[JJ's note: this is likely to encourage both cohesion and engagement/participation in communities to.]

13:25 Regardless of your objectives and activities, understanding the opportunities of collective action can multiply your effectiveness.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/jamin2/3704175956/

The chat was pretty wide ranging, and I’m not sure I share all of Rachel’s fears, having seen far more ‘useful’ info via social media channels than I have through mainstream media, but it’s great to hear the DH talking about the issues, and heartening that they are in partnership with the COI (Central Office Of Information) over how to contribute to and influence the online conversations about pandemic.

Here’s the conversation, in 2-parts:

09:35 The prerecorded message from PM Gordon Brown is played (same one from Tuesday). O’Donnell begins with note that PM is at G* and says this gives himthe capacity to be here.

09:38 O’Donnell talks about his history at state school and Warwick Uni and Oxford.  he readin economics, and his first choice career was to be a pro footballer – he had everything but talent.  But did get to Wenbley as a post-grad at Oxford.  Lesson is if you have an ambition, go for it, even if you have to go about it in an alternative manner.  After Oxford (1973-75) the best went on to become Uni academics, the average students went on to civil service and lowest went in to industry.  Bizarre attitude.  O’Donnell went on to academia and taught at Glasgow Uni.  He was given advice from his senior professor that his talent as an academic wasn’t going to make him in to the next John Maynard Keynes.  He was told to get out – this was good advice because he was more interested in real world problems, issues about growth in the east, and every day problems. Sometimes best advice is from people who understand that your skills lie elsewhere.  So he joined the civil service as an econometrician in the Treasury, even though he wanted to get in to the Development unit.

09:45 He was able to work in the Treasury in economics and to consider how to assist Development anyway.  After a while he was given the opportunity to become an official in the US Embassy.  He was ranked #4 for the role as he was considered too narrow as an econometrician.  But his skills were specific, and he was fortunate to be selected for his specialist skills.  He went to washington and saw things from a very different dimension.  He was made to think how the Treasury should change the way it operates.  he was able to see some tough sections of the US and was fascinated to see just how irrelevant the UK experience really was.  Eventually Nigel Lawson came out to Washington and asked him to be his principle private secretary.  Didn’t want to devote as many hours to PPS role. So he did a deal with the Press Officer to take his job while the press officer became the PPS.  He thought it would be a less demanding role in terms of hours.  It didn’t work that way.  What he learned was feedback was crucial to improvement.  As a press officer he was thrown in to the deep end.  Was very difficult but within 2 months Lawson had resigned.

09:51 Eventually John Major came in and after some time Major was made PM.  He then had a chance to tarvel with Major to Number 10 or to stay with the Chancellor.  He took the risk and went to Number 10.

09:53 O’Donnell said the Press Secretary role is addictive but it’s 24/7.  His family asked him to get out of the role.  In 1994 he went back to Washington and went on to the Board at the World Bank.  Learned a great dea.  Finally moved back to the Treasury and finally back to the Cabinet Office and became Cambinet Secretary recently.

09:55 In his role as Head of the Civil Service O’Donnell feels the challenges we face are phenomenal.  In terms of climate change, he’s trying to ensure that the ‘greeness’ of the technology they use as well as the travel used is maximised.  We also need to operate at an individual level to truly bring about change.  If you look at the projection on obesity, ageing and service responses (such as health services, drug treatment, etc) we have an enormous responsibility to plan ahead.  And in light of the financial crisis, we’re going to have to do more and more with less and less resources.  People are going to expect that the civil service are going to be accessible 24/7.  You can match the challenge but it will be harder than in the private sector.

10:00 This may be where Oxford got it right.  It’s harder to deliver services in the civil service than in the private sector, because it’s crucial to ensure that all citizerns have access to the interfaces for civil services.

10:02 In the next 5-10 years, civil service needs to innovate, to think differently and to share information so that these services can continue to be developed and accessible when and how citizens need them.

10:04 It’s important to consider the preventative opportunities – to prevent people from ending up in hospital, to prevent childhood obesity, to prevent climate change.  The civil service understands the diversity of the public thus better positioned to implement strategies that will promote useful outcomes and prevent negative outcomes.

10:07 Civil services values of honesty, objectivity, accuracy, impartiality hugely important to show that the civil service work for the elected government of the day.  need to be prepared for whomever is elected to work for that government. The thing O’Donnell likes about the civil service is the positive things that it can do for local and global improvement – reduction of global child poverty, saving the planet, making the UK a better place for our children.  Civil servants need to be objective but can be passionate and proud of the work they do.

Hopefully these’ll give you a little context about what we’re doing here…

14:46 Getting started 5 mins late as the doors opened late.

14:50 Alan Sugar being introduced.  Purpose of today being stated: why small businesses are important to economy, society and to civil servants.  We are not here to ask Sir Alan about The Apprentice. [titters] We will finish promptly at 3:45pm

14:51 There are 4.5million businesses of which 99.9% are defined as SMEs.  These businesses employ more than half of the people employed in private sector.  the sort of thing govts can do well is to produce systems and frameworks for regulation and to ensure that businesses perform better and are compliant.  The other thing govts can do is fund enterprising culture.  Sir Alan joining as an advisor to govt is part of that mission.  Bob Jones introduced to describe Business link

14:52 Jones says great that Business Link packs a house.  [laughter] Good to be sharing a stage with Sugar because he generates interest among young people in enterprise.  Jones’ Kent-based service is to assist individuals in placement and workng in SMEs.  As a kid Jones’ father worked a corner shop.  Jones says businesslink website is profoundly useful service.  Offline workshops for entrepreneurs and assistance programmes for initiating growth is his business.

14:56 Sugar says that he visited businesslink last week and found it quite impressive but wants to reserve his judgement until he sees the rest of the enterprises.  He agrees the website is informative, but probably complex.  he’s going to have a better look at it later.

15:00 Sugar is asked about his new role in govt.  He responds that his task is to review what the government is doing for SMEs and to develop a new strategy.  Sugar says it’s very easy to blame the banks for the current problems in SMEs.  However there is evidence of increased investment in small businesses.

[JJ's note: so far Sugar has been responding much like a civil servant.  He hasn't expressed much of an opinion about anything.]

15:04 Sugar is asked about how you support entrepreneurship.  Sugar responds that you can’t go to Boots and buy entrepreneurship tablets.  He says it’s born into you. You should not call yourself an entrepreneur; this is something that others observe.  However there is a need to inspire young people in enterprise work.  Sugar goes on to promote the next series of the Apprentice for young people.

15:07 Sugar says not everyone is going to be a Branson or even an Alan Sugar.  We need more of the small business leaders out there.

15:08 Moderator returns to the topic: how can policy learn from small business?

15:09 Sugar says you have to think small. He started his business on his own.

[JJ's note: Yes. And?]

15:10 Sugar says regulation is just another hurdle to overcome.  It’s not something you should use to moan about productivity. He goes on to tell a story about his production line and the various paperwork and customer demands for standards.  He says if you want to stay in business you need to be compliant.  It is a pain in the arse but not for small business people to argue about.  The customer will have to pay the price but it’s not in anyone’s interest not to be compliant.

15:13 Services like businesslink might be able to provide the information you need to be compliant, but at the moment the information is tough to understand and access.

[JJ's notes: Probably need to address the interface then.]

Question time: taking 3 questions at a time.

[JJ's notes: YUK! I hate this. So disrespectful to people asking question.]

Sugar responds to question about tendering for govt.  He says it’s tough but it’s good because it’s fair.  he adds, however, that once you get qualified to be a supplier it pretty much is a cash cow for life! [laughter] Trouble is that as a small business, you need more assistance to develop an application for tender.  It’s boring and it needs patience and support.  Product needs to be good, as does delivery and service.  Jones says the 2012 process has opened up to the south of England predominantly the opportunity to be a new supplier/provider.

Sugar says huge advantage for small business to take on apprenticeships.  There are something like 189 apprenticeship schemes.  It’s not cheap labour but it is a chance to grow and nurture a loyal staff.  Two types of person – drivers/innovators and workers within an organisation.  Apprenticeships tend to support workers.  They may not facilitate innovators.

At this stage some civil servant rabbits on for some time about tax collection and there not being sufficient employees to collect tax in the area.  She never gets to here point and exemplifies everything the media and private sector hate about the civil service.

Question from the floor about discrimination against small business for supplier contracts. Sugar responds saying that for complex delivery systems it can be too hard for govt to rely on small business where there is risk involved.  Easier to sue bigger businesses.  But for goods that don’t change – stationery and the like – no reason why small business can’t be suppliers.

Question from the floor about posibility of too much regulation for small business sector.

Questions from the floor about how we can be sure that the support given matches their needs. Sugar says Jones should respond because it’s about the people providing the support.  Jones says you have to have empathy.  Need to mould businesslink support agents to the needs of the business. Sugar agrees.  He feels the people he met at businesslink community were sufficiently experienced to advise effectively.

Question from Ministry of Defence.  Always been difficult for small business to access MOD.  What can businesslink do for MOD? Jones says businesslink can support because there are shedloads of small businesses who are already providing through the supply chain.  So businesslink could directly link small business in innovation to MOD.

Question from floor on lessons from South East Asia. Sugar says if Britain had the work ethic of SE Asia in Britain, then we wouldn’t be in the position we are in now.  Sugar saw Taiwan move from a dictatorship to a robust manufacturing economy over 30 yeasr – and saw Britain failed over that time.  Taiwan now rules the world in technical production.  All major brands use their products.  They never turn away an order.  They regard orders as challenge.  Everything – every part of the supply chain and every resource for goods – is produced locally.  Sugar says that Britain has an intellectual property advantage but now has lost its manufacturing base because it didn’t own the supply chain.

Question from floor on NHS.  Great work done inside of NHS but we give it away or order it in from elsewhere. Lots of innovation going on in process but never kept.  Sugar says you can’t patent a process.

Question from floor about job centres and posting of jobs tripled over last few months.  Need a link with businesslink so that jobs can businesses can be established.  Sugar asks whether there are people who are prepared to accept lower than their normal salary level.  Jobsite guy says there are a lot of people who are prepared to be lenient.  Particularly in industries where reskilling is necessary, this practice is acceptable, even in executive roles.

Here are a few of the audioboo interviews – a fascinating cross section of the opinions and experience levels with social media tools amongst the delegates here:

And here’s a video interview with Selvin Brown and Michael Liburd of http://www.be-utd.org/ about the amazing work they’re doing using social media tools:

More coming soon. I’m having a lot of fun. And also managed to fix a bus. Don’t ask…