Life Math Podcast

#4 Responsibility Part 2: Snake Steak

June 05, 2021 Iskren Vankov and Iliya Valchanov Season 1 Episode 4
Life Math Podcast
#4 Responsibility Part 2: Snake Steak
Show Notes Transcript

Continuing their responsibility from last time, Iskren and Iliya complete the duology.

Here, they focus on shared responsibility.

This implies unclear group responsibilities, such as:

  • families
  • sports' teams
  • sometimes but rarely work
  • any group of people (be it the whole planet Earth)

In the spirit of 'two AIs agreeing', they do agree that shared responsibility is the death of everything nice.

But what is most interesting is what they learn on this path to agreeing.

And last but definitely not least: What is Iskren's fascination with snakes about???

***

Get on the email list and never miss an episode. 

Discuss this episode on Reddit.

Connect with us directly on LinkedIn: Iskren Vankov and Iliya Valchanov.

3veta
3veta.com is our startup. One platform to unify your client bookings, video calls, payments & more!

Iskren:

I was just thinking about something... before... While you were speaking and I lost it. So I'm trying to remember. Give me a second. We can cut this off. I had a really good point.

Iliya:

It's okay. Should I be responsible for his silence?

Iskren:

No. It's not a shared one. Exactly. It's my responsibility.

Intro:

Life Math. A podcast indescribably tangled. Unnecessarily complex. So bad, that it's good. Life math.

Iskren:

So I didn't remember what I was talking about... what I was thinking about before, but I thought of something new. Which is kind of surprising... connection. I just made to this book that I read many years ago, I must've been like 12 or something. I don't remember the book's name or author or, or much about it, but it was this, Saifai the main, the main plot tools about how these three people from part earth or chosen to. Somehow get their, their brains, their minds extracted from their physical bodies and combined into this one super mind or them three to be the mind of a spaceship that then goes into space for essentially Aternity. And don't remember much about the actual plot of the book, what actually happened. But I remember my. Fascination at a time of reading with this concept of how these three different people, three different personalities were just put together. And the way it works is that they couldn't, you know, hide, you know, to, so yourself more, you count the other two kind of brains. Always know what you're thinking. You're completely transparent because it's one, uh, joined brain now I and them three. I had essentially a joint responsibility about themselves because now it's one being, it's three separate brains blitz, one being, and they couldn't hide thoughts from each other. And so it was this, my memories from the book, it was this journey of how three separate entities kind of learned how to do. Shared responsibility properly and the solution that they leverage to the safely. Well, you know, if we become the same being, it's not really shared responsibility anymore, it's a single industry responsibility, but it's kind of what happens when, you know, people get very, very close. They become a unit, like for example, a family, uh, like if two people are married for 40 years, that their unit they're, they're separate people, but. A shared responsibility between them is essentially a single agency responsibility because they know her so well. Uh, same with yes teams. Yeah. What about team sports? That's actually interesting instinct

Iliya:

thought. No, I think it's, I think it's very relevant. There's one caveat though. It matters how many people are in a team. And what I've, I've seen this study before. I really don't remember how it went, but it was, it went along the lines of you have one superstar, let's say in basketball, it's LeBron James, and he's so good. And they're so few people on the pitch that he can basically carry the game, but you have, Michael Jordan has done this numerous times. He's famous for being. Like angry and he, when he's angry, he wins the game. Right. And he's one superstar is the team responsibility. It's shared responsibility, but at the end of the day, Paul's the boat, Michael. And he's going to win the game. Right. And then you have four bull or as the cause in the U S soccer. So you have this sport, which has 11 people. When you start on each team, And then you have a Macy or you have a Christiano Ronaldo or, or now the phenomenon you original. Now, I don't know if you're a football fan. Anyways, one person can rarely carry the team there because there so many people on the pitch that it's hard for this person to make a difference. And he could be the superstar, but we know that MSCI has never won the world cup. Although he has been considered the best player in the world for many years. And it was very fascinating to me that basketball has five players and Michael Jordan can make you work. No offense to. Um, Scottie Pippen and all the other people. I'm a huge fan knowing maybe for liking Jordan, shout out to Scottie Pippen, my man and all the others. Yeah. I don't hate you guys. I really like you. But at the end of the day, everybody acknowledges that. One person to make the difference between average Google grades, right? And in football, one person can make difference between average and good, but maybe not great. You need more than one person going back to our topic. You have this shared responsibility in team games. If a team consists of two players, One of them could really make a difference. If it consists of five, two airs, this guy has to be pretty exceptional and then he could make a difference. But if you're talking about 11 players, it becomes too many. Like this one person can not really make a difference. That's what makes football such a great game. Shout out for the football fans. You need a good team. You can't rely on one good player to make your game. And that's why basketball is such an American game because it's very super story. And this is very marketable. You can, you can really sell more. T-shirts more jerseys. You can. It's very capitalist to have one star in a team. They it's a very European, very football, football league to have a team. We have maybe, maybe the German team, you know, all from the German team in Navy sports, they are very good together, but there is no one superstar that. Everybody knows. Maybe nobody knows them and they win the world cup because they're are very good team. Maybe it's a bit cultural to share responsibility, being a superstar against being a part of the team.

Iskren:

Yeah. And those team leaves, maybe what we like about them, maybe what makes them so interesting to watch that they're kind of an embodiment of the core set of shared responsibility and making it work now what's interesting is that. Uh, at least all the, I can think of now sports with more than just a couple of players have the concept of a captain. Right. So they don't just say, okay, you 11 guys are the team. Make sure responsibility work. Even those very well constructed tightly knit teams have the necessity for a captain, which is essentially. Yeah, your social responsibility, but you share it more. You're the captain. Um, so on your original question of how, what strategies could there be to, to make sure it was possible to work? Well, it seems that appointing a captain works and that's, um, On a more kind of abstract level. There's just the cost of the breaking symmetry. You have 11 equal players. Sheriff's possibility is very symmetrical. You pick one to be the captain and you're broken symmetry and you've created a different structure of topologically because now this guy is different. The center of the circle of, of level players. Uh, well, for example, in team tennis doubles, There there's no captain, it's just two guys or two girls or mixed doesn't matter. And there's no captain it's pure share responsibility there, which is pretty cool. At least I don't think actually, maybe there is maybe I'm wrong, but I don't think there's a captain when there's only two

Iliya:

players doubles. Imagine I fell in about and some. Other Spanish guy in the team. Who's going to be the careful.

Iskren:

Yeah. Yeah. There's always like the part in that mix, but it's not that explicit. Her

Iliya:

make a cocktail. No, I'm just, I'm just vacuuming my Boco. I have this tool, with which I suck the air out of the bottle and it doesn't spoil.

Iskren:

Look at this champagne socialist, talking about share responsibility for the, for the earth. Wow. Of our communities per se.

Iliya:

Yeah. So, so it's, it's interesting what you're saying, because there's, this is Latin expression in Paris, which is first among equals and basically was as far as I remember, please guys, don't be too harsh on me in the Senate. I believe it was. Everybody's equal, but they're the first person to speak. First piece of a person who can open the debate. He was the one who, who was the first one equals and in Bocconi university, all the teachers knew Latin. So they would constantly like bombard us with these expressions. It was usually about countries, which you have, where you have a prime minister and it's a prime ministerial, Norman. And then the prime minister is the first among. So he is the fact the captain of the team, but they can get rid of the captain. Right. And they can appoint on our captain. Wow. As you can see in the us, uh, they tried to impeach Trump and then remove him from the, from being the president of the U S but it's a very, very hard procedure because he's not the first among equals he's the first. Yeah. So that's, that sounds interesting that you're bringing up because it's basically this concept. You have, everything is equal, but there is 1% with first of all, equals it's funny that you're mentioning it in the context of sports when the Romans have thought of it 2000 years ago, uh,

Iskren:

maybe they had it in their games as well. I watch a lot true team sports. There used to be at a time. I should. I've talked to Julie

Iliya:

about it.

Iskren:

Yeah. I don't know, actually, you know, for example, I don't know if this is a real thing or just some sort of movie plot thing, but imagine five random gladiators. We don't know each other get placed in the arena and some lions and stuff get released upon us. I don't have defender ourselves so immediately we're allies and have the shared responsibility survive and I'm okay. Suppose we know that there's more waves of creatures coming at us. I want the guys around me to survive so we can protect each other for the next one. So it's kind of immediate. Shared responsibility that that will probably work because it's in my best interest to make everybody else survive. And the threat is very immediate. That's kind of the issue with Ferris possibility. If the threat is not immediate, which it is in a war, for example, it's very hard to be real as possible. So with climate change and then saving the earth, et cetera, the threat is Nope. Um, it's a bit more abstract is not coming today or tomorrow. It's a more gradual change it's gonna affect us in a while. Uh, and so people find it hard to really. Commit to, to being personally as possible as part of the shared responsibility while say on the bottle phone to some war now that I've participated. And I hope never to book, I could imagine that it's much easier to build this kind of natural comradery with the soldiers around you to share the responsibility of winning the war because you don't want to get shot. And the more people in your team. The trials are you going to win? So the third is just much more immediate, so it's easier to build those. Um, we're supposed to be the two links. Let's see,

Iliya:

Who am I to argue with thousands of years of war? Okay. So, I really want to bring up this topic that we've discussed many times with you, but. Let's let's vocalize it. Let's verbalize, let's say it out to the world. How do you determine who should bear the responsibility for things and who

Iskren:

shouldn't? I was just waiting for this to happen. Like, since you brought the topic up, I knew you were coming to this point and I was waiting to see exactly how you're going to, you know,

Iliya:

approach it. Yeah. So I have many, many, I have many openings just for listeners. This idea that east Korea introduced me to. We developed it, um, a bit further and I'm really not sure. What is your current understanding of it? I think I've

Iskren:

Unchanged, I think.

Iliya:

What?

Iskren:

Unchanged.

Iliya:

Okay. So please, please, go forward. The question was, how do you determine who bears the responsibility for what? And is there a framework that you can use to always determine the person who should be responsible for something

Iskren:

In a... In a group situation. Yep. Okay. So the setup is that there's a group of people and a bunch of tasks to be performed or not performed. Maybe they can be skipped, but there's some cost, if you skip it. Like for example, we're going on a trip and if nobody brings water, you're going to be thirsty. Maybe you're not going to die, but it's unpleasant. Right? The question is. Who is responsible to remember to bring the water who's responsible to actually bring the water. Who's responsible to remember, to make sandwiches. Who's responsible to have thought to bring bread from the city, up to the mountains to then make sandwiches, etc. And so what we discussed before is that whenever we've thought about it, it seems that a pretty robust solution that just seems to get the job done is that whoever's going to suffer the most bears the responsibility to make it happen.

So for example:

Suppose that, we're going hiking in the mountain again, and one of us is allergic to snakes and there's some low, but non-negligible chance that there are snakes and you get bitten

Iliya:

'Allergic to snakes' Everybody! Everybody's allergic to them... to poisonous snakes. Some are... like.. deadly... You know,

Iskren:

like some people have a much worse reaction. Okay. Maybe a bad example, but the other ones are triggered or much of this one person who. Okay. Let's say, let's say somebody is allergic to pollination. You know, these programs are flying around and they're going to sneeze and cry. Yeah. Let's see. This one. This is very relatable and definitely a thing of like allergic to sticks. But snakes, snakes, tubes of me that, that kind of like move they're amazing calls for the Polish example. It's actually a pretty good one because in the whole group of friends, maybe everybody's. Slightly allergic, you know, get a bit of a sneeze, a bit of puffy eyes, but it's all terrible. And then one of those people is much more allergic and gets like a persistent cough and just some dry coffin streaming eyes with tears. They just very unpleasant. So to say that it's this person's responsibility to bring the, the anti allergy pills and prepare. And if everybody goes up and there's no such. Auntie allergic pills and then their argument, the curse. Oh, who was supposed to bring them, if nobody thought about it, then, well, everybody has failed for themselves. And then the person who is filled the most for himself is that person who has the allergy, same with, for example, if in the same trip, you know, we hire a nice house somewhere in the mountains. I'm thinking in particular, this trip, I did house in the Scottish Highlands for a week. Pretty cool. We do hikes. We also just stay in the house and chill, and there was this person who really wanted to play multiplayer PlayStation games. So since there is a possibility to bring the PlayStation because they will suffer the most, if it were there and they did. So if I don't particularly care about the outcome is not really my responsibility. Now, that being said, there's the asterisk that, uh, if somebody cares the most about something, Is there a responsibility to make sure it happens not to actually get it done because there might be a higher cost to do it. So for example, if I'm in a war we're going to, so yeah. Can you help me out with this? Like he's got a one split PlayStation. He does scale PlayStation, right? Yeah, yeah, exactly. And so it's, it would be their responsibility to make sure that there's a PlayStation now. If they don't have a PlayStation, they can either buy one, get off of a friend or something or ask another person who's coming to the same, um, week away. Can you please bring it? And once they've made this request, it's that other person's responsibility to either communicate that they don't want to or get it done. So, yeah, in, in, in short, the framework is that. In a group where there's tasks to be, to be done is the responsibility of the person who would suffer most. If the task is not done to make sure it happens not necessarily to actually do it, just make sure it happens in one way or another. I really liked this concept. We've communicated this to many people. We've had some good arguments about it. Some people agree, some people disagree generally. Since this frameworks so general, we can always boil down to this framework. In my opinion. Now we are exceptional though. They're these edge cases. What you've mentioned before is somebody can decide to do something nice for our guy. For instance, I know that you really like PlayStations. I know that you don't, but let's say this, this person who was waiting and I know I'm coming and I really want to make this person happy. So if it doesn't bother me, I can bring my PlayStation and be like, Hey man, I brought this PlayStation so we can play together and you can be extra happy about this trip. This is this gesture of Goodwill. I didn't have any responsibility about it. Nobody would blame me for all bringing the PlayStation. Nobody would even think about me bringing the PlayStation, right? Like I'm not the guy who should bring the PlayStation, but I can decide the just good person and do it. But then these edge cases will acknowledge this. We know that our initial framework, the one that is kind of described. There's no thinking about these because it's not about feeling extra good, but actually preventing some costs, preventing some pain in the case of allergies, in the case of, I really want to play the PlayStation two PlayStation. And yeah. Now in this context of responsibility, what I wants to ask you is. We should re assign responsibilities, right? The guy who wants to play the PlayStation, he's responsible for the, for making, making this happen. But, and then you have these other cases, which I pointed out that I want to make him happy and I'm bringing the PlayStation, but I'm not responsible for this. It's not a responsibility. So it's not related to responsibilities. Uh, to accountability is raised it to. Something else, like making people happy. Right. And my question to you is can you think of a time, second interview? Can you think of a time when you have taken responsibility for something or someone outside of this context? So you do not want to make this person feel better, but there was this very big problem. That was going to arise. And you felt the need to take responsibility for, I don't know, this guy was about to get these snake allergies that you're talking about and you took the snake anti-state yeah. There's, there's definitely feels like a, like a job interview. You know, what was the time that you did? You took responsibility.

Iliya:

Okay. Can you think of any time that you wanted to prevent this negative outcome in, in a way?

Iskren:

Um, I don't know. Off the top of my head. I can't really remember, you know, maybe I haven't done those nice gestures. I don't, yeah. I don't know. I can't remember.

Iliya:

I'm hearing a lot of these in my life because I'm trying to over-prepare for stuff. And if I know that someone. MI may forget about this thing, which is very important for them. I think that these are much more common in a family or at work you have some work to do and you know, somebody else should have done something right. And they're responsible for it. They're accountable for it. It hurts everybody. It's a part of the shared responsibility or something that is. And even though it's their responsibility, you have some stake in it. Let's see. So it's possible that you check the digital goods. They'll do it for them instead of them in this way. You're basically taking the responsibility, although it's not your responsibility to cover for your teammate or to help them out. I'm sure you've done something like this. All the situations I can think of are family related or work with our country. Think of any other context, maybe I understand that dynamic so well that I can make this decision.

Iskren:

Yeah. I dunno. Especially to prevent like a disaster. Cause with friends, for example, you do those nice gestures where you, you bring something as a surprise for the artist to enjoy. But it's not to prevent the disaster.

Iliya:

It is the title of this podcast episode, snake catalog space, snake snakes, put in space.

Iskren:

It's a, it's a, it's a tough question for particular things. I don't know. I, all I could think about is like, if I, if I get some, some, some sweets, some candy, uh, and I just get extra for everybody. And everybody's happy. Cause it's Cod, which of us doesn't avert a disaster. The other disaster is that everybody's hungry and there's nothing good to it because nobody remembered. Make sense. Yeah. We're going to eat snake out too, though. Everybody was thinking

Iliya:

about breaking stake. Yeah. It's against next. When you eat states, you have to build afterwards.

Iskren:

I don't know, man, in fact, yesterday tried eel for the first time motion sushi. Okay. But I just, the whole yield, it's kind of a snake man.

Iliya:

Trying to use sushi. This is extremely bougie. First of all. No, it costs, it costs like one, one piece of use. So she goes like, I have no idea, which was extremely expensive everywhere. I went. I must say he's the best.

Iskren:

I think I quite agree. Yeah. And this was, imagine like a full color stick. Sorry, a steak, but how can you describe this? A full snake and I'm actually not as good as the sushi is too much. Somebody had to say it just too much, or man, I feel

Iliya:

for you. Okay, man, I have one last question for you that prepared. So I figured eight questions. We'll be speaking for the soul, but the last question is, are you at times. When you can, you, you have to take responsibility for something it's not your responsibility, but you feel like you have to take responsibility.

Iskren:

We usually it's in those teams situations when you know, something has to be done. If it doesn't get done, everybody will suffer a lot. But I can see that either everybody's shying away from it. Or there's actually the quite interesting case when somebody is even willing to do it, but I know for some reason they, they're not appropriate for the job or they wouldn't do a very good job of it. There are, I don't understand their world, the problem, or they'll never express this particular thing. And for some reason I believe I'm better suited. And then even if I don't really feel like doing it, I'm like, okay, I'll just do it because I have to. And. Everybody will suffer otherwise. Or I don't know if it's going to take me an hour, it's going to take them eight hours because I happened to have done the same thing before. I don't know. And even if I really don't want to do it, I would still not where he said that a person's full day for something I can do in an hour, but I think that's kind of more work-related or, you know, group projects in university at our school. You just kind of think we're supposed to be towards the thing because.

Iliya:

You haven't defined anything. It was a bit too vague for me. I could imagine how many different situations. So would you say it's like you don't trust the other person, so you have to take responsibility for it for you, or you want to say. I have more knowledge than the other person. So I have to take responsibility for it. Or you're like, I will not relieve this other person from the burden of it because I know this person is going to struggle with it because of X, Y, and Z. Well, it

Iskren:

could be all of them, right. Because it kind of depends on the attitude. Basically. If, if the other person it's another two by two table, it's. Yes or no for whether they are a person can get it done well enough and yes or no for the other person thinks they can get it well enough. So if they can't get it done and they think so it's perfect that they'll just do it. If they can't do it and they don't think they'll do it. Okay. Somebody else, perhaps me we'll do it, but the two other elements are more interesting. What are they think they can get it done? But I know they come for some reason, then you kind of have to step in and either just be like, don't worry, I'll take care and not feel experience,

Iliya:

but do you, because you're preventing learning in this way. Like they have to face the problem, experienced the issue, and then you tell them. Like the holy grail of this problem is, uh, read on the internet,

Iskren:

lack of any other issue that, that sounds kind of like, um, um, baiting for savior syndrome savior syndrome. But, uh, yeah, I don't think I will do that. Like I would maybe tell them why I prefer to do it because I've done this before, know how blah, blah. Uh, but I don't think it really. Let them burn themselves. But again, I'm thinking about those kind of work-related scenarios where it would hurt everybody if it happened, if it would hurt them, how they learn, perhaps it doesn't hurt too much. If it's going to hurt everybody, it'd be hard to fix. Now, let them

Iliya:

learn on their own time. It's interesting because this gets into the realm of managers versus teammates versus something else. And I can remember many, many different situations in which I tasked someone to do something I know very well that I'm going to do it. And let's say an hour. I know that they will never be able to because X, Y, and Z, but I still want them to try. I want them to struggle with it. I want them to get creative with it and eventually. They may surprise me and they'd be like, yeah, I'm there like 10 minutes. And I'm like, oh, wow. Like, like my understanding of this has just shuttered. And I thought that I know what I'm doing, but obviously not more often than not, it would be reversed. It would be them struggling with it for some time. And I'm waiting for it for them to reach out to me or I reach out to them and I'm like, how is this thing going? What I'm looking for in this situation is I want them to identify what is the, the thing that they're missing. Right. I want them to realize what is the core of the problem? Why can't they solve this issue? And to me, if they realize why they can solve this issue, they've solved. Right? They tell me, I know the answer. Maybe some. Interdisciplinary thing they are missing, maybe some vital information about the business they're missing. Maybe it's some classified data they're missing. Right. If they can identify this to me, they've done all the learning. They've gotten everything out of the process and I can give them the thing also Republic. Right. And be like, well, you're saying what you're seeing is the savior. But being a manager, you're not the savior. You're basically helping me to learn and become better professionals. So I disagree with the savior thing. It's

Iskren:

interesting production. Yeah. I didn't really think about it this way that, yeah, sure. I mean that that's good. Like giving learning opportunities and that's kind of the viable, um, you know, university, when you do those projects as a undergrad project to them even. As a PhD to some extent, or then it gets a bit more professional. Yeah. As I was saying, like, I actually thought about it the way you just described it. When I was doing those projects with university professors. All those research projects, but as an undergraduate and their sole point is to just learn, like the professor knows that me as an undergraduate can't really produce something revolutionary, but I can learn and they give me those tasks. They even communicate with me, they direct me, but it's entirely about the learning. So yeah, the learning expert really, really changes it. But if it's just about getting the results done and we take learning out of the equation, I think to go back to my original original point. And if we think that learning is always a part of everything we do, which it is then yeah. Um, tasty, which means. And then there's the opposite then actually. So we're talking about somebody who thinks they can get it done, but they can actually, whether there's the reverse of somebody who, who can do it, but they don't believe in themselves enough. And then it's the best thing ever to, you know, allow them to push them a bit, maybe to get it done. And when they find it a new selves to get it done there. Probably won't be very happy that they realized that it was all inside of you all along. And you knew how to do it. You were just a bit shy or didn't believe in yourself enough,

Iliya:

you having been through whatever you've been through in your life or your workplace stuff and all your university staff research related stuff. When you see a new problem, do you think to yourself, oh, I'm not able to do this, or this is rarely the case. Um,

Iskren:

this just sounds like her book. Uh, yeah, not really, uh, like, okay. For example, it, it's very clearly colored for me in the sense that if it's anything that has to do with, um, how do I say this? There those fields in which, in your achievement is too much for me. You know, if it's anything to do with singing, painting, anything that's any task. And I immediately say no to a tree. It doesn't matter what it is. No matter how small I can't do it, I could try, but I know what to fail. But then if it's anything to do with. Software or, or

Iliya:

take programming,

Iskren:

even if it's something that they have no idea how to even approach. So they've never seen before. I kind of approach it from, okay, it's obviously sober given enough time. Do I want to dedicate that much time to it and solvable? I mean that at least I'll figure out, you know, whether it's possible at all. And if it's possible, how to get it done. There's no unsolvable problems. Right? So yeah, for me, it's either I don't even begin going in their direction or it's definitely doable. It's going to cost me that amount of time.

Iliya:

It's interesting. Um, what I will answer to this is that thanks for asking. Well, the answer to this is that I would never say something is global. I think it's related to confidence in things that you have achieved. At some point you reach the, you reach some state of yourself, you, which you're so confident. And by the way, this comes with taking responsibility, dealing with accountability and so on. So that's why I brought it up. Right. And after a certain point, you reach the state they've been feeling for some time, is that. I will never approach a problem with it cannot be done before doing X amount of research and being like nobody has that before. There is nothing about it from the internet, there is nothing, nobody is talking about this thing, you know, this is the point in which I'll be like, I cannot do these things. Right. However, if anything, it's just the slightest bit of stuff has been done on the problem. It will be very much interesting for me to go explore it, see if I can contribute and contribute with in some way, and then take on the challenge to do it or to give up doing. However, to me, this is very related to the concept of scoping, which we've decided to devote a whole session on. Anyways. I think we should end this session.

Iskren:

So it was like a big responsibility to now edit all of this footage.

Iliya:

All right. So I wanted to ask you this final question. What do you think about this podcast in terms of responses?

Iskren:

Yeah, actually that's exactly what I said about the responsibility of editing because, uh, It's a shared responsibility, two of us. Right. And for example, for the editing, which is a big part of it, it's a big task. You've been just taking the responsibility. It was explicitly verbalized to really discuss, to say, okay, well edited, but it's just a responsibility that it just sucks away, time and effort and just organizing it is a bunch of effort. So yeah. W what are the things do we split? So for example, Preparing the topic for a particular episode, you had thought about this topic prepared, these eight questions that you said, you kind of knew you were going to ask at one point or another. So this was possibility for each episode to make it interesting too, to have stuff to talk about. I guess, down the line, we're going to have the responsibility to popularize it to where there's possibility to. Make time for it every week to me. So there's many responsibilities, I think in general, so far you've been thinking more of the responsibility, like editing and you're pushing a bit more for the jingles and stuff like that.

Iliya:

Don't worry about it,

Iskren:

but yeah, exactly. It's this shared responsibility, but there's no such thing as real shared responsibility, you just took the. Our member was going to see all that time back. It was about those bounty cards, open the Trello, which is essentially a backlog of tasks that anybody's capable of doing. And I've put a bounty on them, meaning that anybody is free to do them. And supposedly if you do them, you get. Karma points, let's say like in Reddit. And I was thinking about those communities online, uh, like forums, like Reddit, where there's no, let's see very tangible gain that you get from, from doing the job, but people still do it and they're very serious about it. Um, No, it's my responsibility as a moderator for this group, for it to be on topic for it to be very out of support to its members, et cetera. So it's interesting how they get it up, I guess. Not really sure, because there's always the admin, but the group of elements. Um, but yeah, I don't know. Just online communities I think are quite, not just online, like small communities in general are quite good at share responsibility.

Iliya:

We all have our responsibilities here on the life math podcast, we have an extra responsibility to promote our product, pivotal.com. The go-to solution for meeting clients online. Now you, dear listener are a part of this podcast, so this is your responsibility as well. How can I help you? How can I help this podcast? How can I take responsibility? Well, very easily. Please tell anyone who requires a paid online meeting to make a living to check out through veta.com. Oh, sorry. I don't know anyone who provides services online. Oh, but yes, you do. Consultants, lawyers, physicians, yoga, instructors, fitness instructors, teachers, accountants, life coaches, astrologists, standup comedians, mock case interviewers, dungeon, masters, online team buildings, organizers. There are so many people that provide services. Just think about it. Take responsibility for this podcast.