Storytelling with Code
This is a modal window.
Das Video konnte nicht geladen werden, da entweder ein Server- oder Netzwerkfehler auftrat oder das Format nicht unterstützt wird.
Formale Metadaten
| Titel |
| |
| Serientitel | ||
| Teil | 86 | |
| Anzahl der Teile | 89 | |
| Autor | ||
| Lizenz | CC-Namensnennung - Weitergabe unter gleichen Bedingungen 3.0 Unported: Sie dürfen das Werk bzw. den Inhalt zu jedem legalen und nicht-kommerziellen Zweck nutzen, verändern und in unveränderter oder veränderter Form vervielfältigen, verbreiten und öffentlich zugänglich machen, sofern Sie den Namen des Autors/Rechteinhabers in der von ihm festgelegten Weise nennen und das Werk bzw. diesen Inhalt auch in veränderter Form nur unter den Bedingungen dieser Lizenz weitergeben. | |
| Identifikatoren | 10.5446/31561 (DOI) | |
| Herausgeber | ||
| Erscheinungsjahr | ||
| Sprache |
Inhaltliche Metadaten
| Fachgebiet | ||
| Genre | ||
| Abstract |
|
00:00
CodeProjektive EbeneMultiplikationsoperatorQuick-SortRechter WinkelTypentheorieAuflösung <Mathematik>ComputeranimationBesprechung/Interview
01:36
NeuroinformatikQuick-SortProzess <Informatik>ProgrammiergerätTwitter <Softwareplattform>Besprechung/Interview
02:57
Formale SpracheProzess <Informatik>Ordnung <Mathematik>Formation <Mathematik>Bildgebendes VerfahrenGruppenoperationQuick-Sort
03:27
GraphfärbungMAPQuick-SortRechenwerkArithmetisches MittelNormalvektorBesprechung/Interview
04:22
DateiformatQuick-SortOffice-PaketUmwandlungsenthalpieMereologieTermEinfache GenauigkeitProjektive EbeneSchlussregelGruppenoperationVirtuelle RealitätAusnahmebehandlungProgrammierumgebungMultiplikationsoperatorSoftwaretestE-MailDigitaltechnikZentralisatorTesselationTropfenBesprechung/Interview
08:40
FunktionalBildschirmfensterTotal <Mathematik>NeuroinformatikOffice-PaketInternetworkingE-MailRechenschieberMereologieComputeranimation
09:16
Quick-SortE-MailFunktionalMultiplikationsoperatorRechenschieberMereologieNormalvektorVerzeichnisdienstFront-End <Software>
10:24
Office-PaketEreignishorizontFigurierte Zahl
10:56
E-MailQuick-SortZweiEinfache GenauigkeitOffice-PaketVorlesung/Konferenz
11:26
AuswahlverfahrenE-MailMereologieTermMechanismus-Design-TheorieVerzeichnisdienst
12:29
SpeicherabzugE-MailQuick-SortDreiGeradeTask
13:16
KontrollstrukturTermMomentenproblemTaskQuick-SortMathematikZahlenbereichE-MailTabellenkalkulationWald <Graphentheorie>BitMultiplikationsoperatorFormation <Mathematik>Mailing-ListeSoftwaretestDeskriptive StatistikComputerspielClientBenutzerschnittstellenverwaltungssystemComputeranimation
15:38
Quick-SortSoftwaretestStatistikFormation <Mathematik>BenutzerschnittstellenverwaltungssystemPhasenumwandlungRechenbuchComputerspielErwartungswertDeterminanteBesprechung/Interview
16:17
DatenbankZahlenbereichE-MailMultiplikationsoperatorQuick-SortComputeranimation
17:21
CASE <Informatik>BitOffice-PaketSterbezifferMultiplikationsoperatorBesprechung/Interview
17:56
Office-PaketEreignishorizontMultiplikationsoperatorGrundsätze ordnungsmäßiger DatenverarbeitungQuellcodePhysikalisches SystemPunktMomentenproblemBesprechung/Interview
18:51
Kette <Mathematik>MomentenproblemEreignishorizontE-MailQuick-SortTaskGruppenoperationDatenflussSoftwaretestKreisbogenMinkowski-MetrikBesprechung/Interview
19:53
E-MailInformationSichtenkonzeptWeb-SeiteGrenzschichtablösungUmwandlungsenthalpieSchreib-Lese-KopfTermPunktMusterspracheMultiplikationsoperatorBesprechung/Interview
21:11
AuswahlaxiomBenutzerschnittstellenverwaltungssystemSichtenkonzeptComputerspielPunktVersionsverwaltungBesprechung/Interview
22:06
Quick-SortVersionsverwaltungMinkowski-MetrikAuswahlaxiomOffice-PaketHoaxE-MailMAP
23:13
DifferenteAuswahlaxiomMereologieLinearer CodeQuick-SortOrdnung <Mathematik>TaskBenutzerschnittstellenverwaltungssystem
24:21
Quick-SortProzess <Informatik>E-MailMaskierung <Informatik>DigitaltechnikZentrische StreckungMultiplikationsoperatorTaskKreisbogenOffene MengeMereologieMinkowski-MetrikTermRechter WinkelSpiegelung <Mathematik>MaßerweiterungInteraktives FernsehenMomentenproblemFormation <Mathematik>ModallogikPhasenumwandlungKrümmungsmaßArithmetisches MittelOffice-PaketAntwortfunktionWellenpaketPhysikalisches SystemKategorie <Mathematik>InternetworkingDatenmissbrauchSoftwaretestFigurierte ZahlSterbezifferSchaltnetzBitUmsetzung <Informatik>Zellularer AutomatAuswahlaxiomFormale GrammatikWort <Informatik>AggregatzustandDifferenzkernNeuroinformatikBesprechung/Interview
33:55
Computeranimation
Transkript: Englisch(automatisch erzeugt)
00:02
My name is Michael Rao, and I'm here to talk to you about storytelling with code. And I'm here because it feels like these days, storytelling has become the new hot
00:21
buzzword as a way to sort of solve problems, and usually it seems like a lot of marketing people sort of say things like, oh, well, if we could just sort of create a storytelling experience, this thing would be better. And I get the sense that a lot of people don't actually know how to tell a good story or what storytelling even really means. So I'm going to talk about a
00:46
project that I made last year, premiered last year, that relied on using code to tell a story to create a digital experience. And if you're looking for a
01:03
time to quietly exit, because I'm mostly going to be talking about sort of softer general concepty type stuff, as opposed to a really rigorous code review. So also, I just wanted to say right at the beginning, thank you so much for inviting me. This is my first time at any kind of conference like this before.
01:25
This is my first time going to like any kind of RailsConf, and I feel so welcomed by everyone. And so thank you all for coming here and being here. So my background and really my job, my professional work is as a theater and
01:45
opera director. I got my MFA from Columbia. I've been working professionally as a director for the past 10 years. I work mainly in New York City and in Europe. And so my job is in telling stories and specifically in finding the most effective way to tell a story. I code mainly as a hobby, as a sort
02:06
of way to relax myself. I've always enjoyed messing around with computers and sort of learning about how computers work. And only in the past couple of years have I started really trying to combine my skills as a theater and opera director with my skills as a coder. And I should be totally honest with you
02:27
right up front, my skills as a coder are like not that great. But I still made this thing in Rails that worked. And so I feel very proud of that. And I'm sure that any of you incredibly talented programmers here as you're
02:42
listening to me talk could write something that does the same thing and probably better. So while I don't have a tremendous amount of knowledge in code, what I do have a tremendous amount of knowledge and really experience in is in storytelling and specifically interpreting stories. I make
03:00
work for large groups of people to experience as a community. I direct plays and operas. And oftentimes when I direct an opera, it's in a foreign language and it's music that's complicated to understand. And I see my job as the person who has to create images that show relationships or images
03:23
that create meaning. So it often kind of looks like this. So I'll sort of get a story that's been written by Shakespeare or Verdi and find ways to position the actors, to paint the set a certain color, to have costumes
03:42
that look a certain way that gives people a feeling, that says something about a relationship, that creates some kind of meaning. And while, you know, the normal sort of basic, if you think about like when people talk about theater, they have like the happy face and the sad face. Those are the
04:01
two basic primary colors that I have as like a director. But really, I work harder to evoke other different, more complicated, more interesting feelings just by creating an arrangement of bodies on stage. So really, you could say that a lot of my work and a lot of my experience revolves
04:20
around feelings and how to evoke feelings through stories. But I started wondering in the past couple of years if I could start to challenge myself. What are the other ways that I could tell a story and what are the other formats that are available to us to tell
04:43
stories? And I was at a bar hanging out with actor friends late one night. And one of these actors, who's a very lovely person, but has kind of a big personality, was going on and on and on about how, you know, the central truth of theater is the actor and
05:03
the actor's body. And you could never have a performance without that. And I was a couple drinks in, I'll admit. And I said, I think you're wrong. And I started to try to think of a project to prove them wrong. And the project that I came up with is
05:21
what I'm going to talk to you about today. And the project is a piece of, like, I call it a piece of theater. Other people have called it an installation. Other people have called it like a sort of like a show that you read. But I was very interested in office culture and how we communicate with each
05:44
other with ourselves as a group, as a community now, which seems to be more and more mediated through digital technology. And what I started doing is talking to my friends about, like, I think I'm gonna make a show where you just do office work. I think that's gonna be the show. And everyone told me
06:03
this is a terrible idea. Except for one person who started collaborating with me. But what we eventually came up with was this piece that I called Temping. And so, yeah, so I was thinking about how office culture works, how we read way
06:21
too much into emails, how oftentimes voicemails become weird tools of passive aggression. And I started to like kind of make the gears turn. I set a rule that there would be no actors in the piece, that it would be a show
06:42
that would be entirely, that you would never meet a single living soul, because I wanted to prove this one actor wrong. And that I would instead use sort of the equipment that you would normally find in an office to tell a story. So I gave myself these sort of like four
07:04
tools that I could communicate with the audience member. And then I started building a, I think what I look at now is like an overly complicated back end that could send emails,
07:20
send voicemails, send printer, like things to the printer at specific times to sort of create a story. And then we also really kind of looked at the built environment like could there be a desk, could there be drawers, could there be a bookshelf, to also use as storytelling possibilities. The show was developed over two sort of
07:45
beta test runs, first at Dixon Place in New York City, the second at the University of Maryland in College Park, and then it premiered at Lincoln Center as part of the 53rd International Film Festival. It was not a film
08:01
at all, but the curator who found out about the project was doing a thing on virtual reality. And I was like, I don't think it's really virtual reality either. It's an actual reality. But, you know, he wanted it, and so he got it. So to sort of describe what it really
08:20
looked like when you walked into the room, you walked into a windowless room in a basement with like ugly institutional carpeting with a low drop tile ceiling. And at the end of the room was one of those old sort of fabric covered cubicles. And when you sat down in the chair, it looked like this. And that was the kind
08:43
of total beginning experience that you had. I opened up the door for you. I said, thank you so much for coming to work today. Here's your desk. And then I set up functioned perfectly as an office. The desktop computer ran Windows 8. Your phone and voicemail
09:03
worked. You could get on the Internet and goof around if you wanted to. But most of the show happened through emails and through actual work. So here's the part one of three slides of how the
09:21
back end worked. And I'm not going to talk about this at all. Other than to say you can see in the upper corner, the base of it was a Rails app. And then it did a whole bunch of other fancy stuff. It sent emails at certain times. It controlled Hue lights. It controlled speakers that were hidden throughout the room. And that's kind of it. So
09:43
that concludes the technical portion of my talk. The other thing, so my friend who I honestly love to death and is an absolute genius, he built the phone out of an Arduino Nano that also mimicked the functions of a corporate phone so you could
10:02
pick up the receiver and it was like you were using a normal sort of like boring corporate phone directory. But on the back end we could control and send like, okay, we need to send them this voicemail now. We need to let them do all of this kind of stuff. So that's the setup for the
10:20
piece. And we did all of that stuff first. And then set it all up. And kind of went, oh, no. Because we had all of this technology and nothing to do with it. But I knew one thing. I knew at the very beginning that what was
10:41
interesting to me was office culture. And so I started trying to figure out, okay, well, is there a way that I can make, as opposed to an audience sitting there and just watching these events happen, could I make them do things? So the first idea was, well, let's just treat them like a temp. That way they don't need to like
11:03
role play in the office. They can just be treated as themselves. And if any of you have ever worked with temps, I'm sure you kind of know that people treat them as like, hello, disposable person. And that's how the characters that we started inventing would treat our single
11:21
audience member. The second sort of major idea that we had was to use email as a vehicle for character. I commissioned another one of my friends, Michael Yates Crowley, who's a playwright, to create a cast of characters that all worked for this one company. So we had
11:42
about, I think, ten different characters who would interact with you and even more in a larger company directory. And what we really focused on there was to use text, to use emails to tell you about who these people were. And that part of the mechanism of the
12:02
show is that the temp would get cc'd on the wrong emails or would get forwarded something. And if you scroll down to the beginning, you'd really sort of see the relationships of the back and forth that would give the audience clues to who these people were and how they behaved. I particularly like this one for the whole
12:23
I'm going to miss you too. I really mean that. But in terms of the narrative experience, there wasn't too much happening because you were listening to some voicemails. And then we kind of figured out, all right, well, if we're really going to do this and we're really going to make
12:42
the show work, I think the temp has to do actual work. So we started giving them real tasks. And that became really, this was our third sort of major idea and revelation, because that became the core of the narrative
13:00
and started to sort of drive the experience of the show. Because the work that you did and how well you did that work determined your storyline. And at the heart of this experience was Microsoft Excel. I think my friends, when
13:22
they wanted to make fun of me, they were like, you're making a show that happens in Microsoft Excel? And I was like, yeah. And they're like, so like a first person spread sheeter. So this is how the show worked. You sat down at that desk. You were sitting down on the real desk. You get some emails from your boss
13:41
about like, sorry, I'm at an offsite today. Wish I could meet you in person. But I believe Sarah Jane has documented her work for you. So you just need to start doing that kind of work. And because you're sitting at this desk and because it's clearly not your desk, there's pictures of like her nephew up. You get the sense of like this is someone else. And you
14:02
really kind of, if you dig around the desk, you really kind of get to know who this woman is who's sitting at this desk. And then there's a couple, we do a whole bunch of like email jokes of like, oh, the printer on four is broken. Oh, there's stuff in the break room. So people kind of relax a little bit. And then they get introduced to this very simple data entry Microsoft Excel task, which you're working for an
14:22
actuarial company in the suburbs of Chicago. And all you have to do is update these client lists of who's alive and who's dead. And so it's a very simple task. And we thought this would be a good way to sort of like start people in terms of understanding what this, what their work is and if they don't know Excel or anything,
14:42
this would be easy for them to do. But this thing started happening. And I'm going to sort of narrate your experience if you were the audience member. Every time you would change the active status in that yellow column from active to deceased, the lights in the room would
15:00
slowly change. And this quiet music would start playing and your printer would turn on. And it would print out a picture of that person's face and a description of text from a moment from that person's life, a really personal moment. And we tried to find some
15:21
really human moments of like a father watching his daughter like learn to walk. And so you'd be kind of confronted with both the data, this like the sense that, oh, it's just a whole bunch of numbers and things in a spreadsheet to then immediately looking right into that person's eyes and
15:41
knowing, oh, no, they're dead. And then you would be sort of looking at that piece of paper and then the second that you'd finish it, you'd put it down, the lights in the room would return to normal, everything was fine, the music would go away, and you could continue on your tests. But it kept happening to you. And then the
16:02
next phase of the show was that then your boss emails you and says, oh, okay, we need you to start doing life expectancy calculations. And because of statistics, it's actually frighteningly easy to determine people's life expectancies. And so
16:22
you would calculate out how long these people in the database would have to live. And then same thing would happen each time you'd be like, oh, this person has 10 years left to live, the lights change, the printer turns on, you see their face. And now this time with the knowledge of, oh, no, they only have X more years left to
16:40
live. And then through like a really sort of sneaky, cruel thing that we do, we trick you into calculating your own life expectancy. So then you kind of have to live with that number. And then the show ends with, because you've spent about, if you've done the show, you'll
17:01
spend about 45 to 50 minutes working for this company, the show end, and really kind of getting to know the person whose desk you're sitting at, because you've kind of dug around in the desk, you've listened to her voicemails for you, you've read a bunch of her emails that you probably shouldn't have read. You find out at the very end of the show that she's been fired and
17:23
that you're being asked to take her place. So the whole piece was kind of a meditation on how much time we have left and what is the kind of work that we're doing and an exploration of both the weird ways that people communicate in
17:41
offices and also the sense of your own increasing mortality that might show up when you're working in a cubicle. So that's the show. I'm going to talk now a little bit about what I figured out or how I got to this point, because
18:01
it took a long time for us to really kind of work out the kinks of this system and to figure out how to make an emotional event. And it really was a surprisingly emotional event. I thought, like, oh, people will laugh at this, and they might have like one moment of like, oh, God, that's how much time I have left, and
18:20
that was it. But what really happened, because oftentimes I was the person to like get people out of the cubicle when the show was over, I would open up the door and they would be like weeping in this office cubicle. And I always felt really guilty and bad about that. I didn't mean to hurt you with my art.
18:41
So here are the things that I know or that I can be sure about that make an effective story that I kind of learned from doing this piece. The first was to have a really clear narrative arc, that because our story was based on user actions, we sort of had to figure out, here's the event chain that will lead
19:01
you down this certain path, and here's this event chain that will lead you down another path. And to be clear about where those moments would occur, and also the ordering of certain emails, depending on when they received them and how quickly they received them, that would tell them a lot, the audience, they would learn
19:21
a lot about that character. If you've got five emails in a row from a really grumpy person, you then had a whole different relationship to that character than if we sort of spaced them out or spread them throughout the show in a different way. So narrative arc, story flow, and really
19:41
structuring that and being clear about how to structure that was really important because we wanted to give both people a sense of freedom and then also bring them back to these moments where they had to do the Excel tasks. Characterization also became a really tricky thing to try and figure out because there was no visual information
20:02
about who these people were. You really kind of only got a sense of who they were through text. And that came in terms of, well, you got a sense of, you could hear their voices if they left you a voicemail, but most of the show happened through email. So vocal patterns, email punctuation, how you
20:21
would sort of like put it up on the page ended up telling you so much more about who these people were, what they cared about. And we tried to make them really distinct so that if you, because when you got introduced via email to 10 different people, you really wanted to be able to let the audience keep these things separate in their heads. So
20:41
finding distinctive traits to denote character became really important. And then also to make sure that each character had a specific point of view or a specific worldview, that they had wants and desires that they either wanted from the temp or wants and desires that they wanted from the world. And
21:02
that you understood because of their own weird distinctiveness, why they were acting in a certain way. And then along with that idea that if we could create a sense of you of the temp understanding their worldview so that you understood their characters'
21:21
wants and dreams and how they intersected or conflicted with another character's wants and dreams or conflicted with your own, like the audience's wants and dreams, that made for a really good story. It made for conflict, it made for a sense of like, oh, I can look at this person and their life choices and that can be a moral for how I behave or
21:42
a way that I can either be like, no, I would never behave that way or yes, that's how I want to be in this world. Um, and that's what kind of made that story much bigger, that if you understood the boss's point of view and also the person who got fired's point of view, it would become a much more complicated thing as opposed to like,
22:01
bosses are evil, don't fire people. And then the last sort of like chunk of things that we figured out was that we we started off in an early version of the show by explaining too much about who everyone in the office was, by giving the audience too much information,
22:21
and really what helped was if we started to hold back, to let the audience imagine more about who these people were, so that it became down to like, oh, what if we just punctuated in a weird way as opposed to having someone casually drop a hint in their email about why they're acting in this certain way. And that giving that
22:40
space, leaving the audience room to interpret something, made the audience engage with it more. It reminded me kind of how in ancient Greek theater, every murderer always happens offstage, and then someone runs onstage and tells you what happened, and they describe it in this really gory way, that
23:00
often is more effective than watching someone like fake stab someone onstage. So leaving that space became a sort of further more important design choice for us. And then lastly, to leave room for the audience to explore
23:20
in the way that they wanted to explore. Because we could, the story was pretty non- linear. If you chose to do the tasks in different order, the show could handle that pretty well, or if you chose to focus on one aspect of the story. Some people got really into the whole Excel death thing. Other people got really into
23:40
the sort of moral choices of
24:12
different people, that many people were interested in one part of it, and then a lot of people were interested in another part of it.
24:21
So this is the quick sort of like recap of the thing in terms of things that I learned. Think about the narrative arc when you're designing a story. Think about the character both in terms of how do I make characters distinct, and how do I make their motivations clear to the audience, and then
24:40
lastly leave room for agency, for choice, and for imagination. Cool? So that's my talk. If you have any questions, I'd be happy to answer some questions about it, and if not I'll see you around and please come say hello to me because I don't know anyone here.
25:10
Are there any questions right now that we can okay yeah it's gonna be it's going to Harvard University in 26
25:21
no in 2017 it'll be installed there as part of the like American Repertory Theater season of solo works so only in the way that I have like read some interactive fiction and been like this is cool stuff and I played around with twine and and
25:40
that kind of thing and I think there is something I'm really fascinated in text and how when as opposed to like a film where everything is explained for you visually I find text to be this like much more personal experience so I I like both reading books and like playing around with interactive
26:00
fiction stuff but that's as far as the influences that's an excellent question I did it a ton of times and oh sure uh the question and tell me if I'm wrong uh is how did you like achieve empathy for the audience and how did you know
26:20
what they were feeling and when um it I'd like to say it's years of professional training as a director that that's really my job is to sort of be like is this good or not um but I think it it was uh a combination of each time trying to
26:40
to forget everything that I knew and walk in with a totally open mind and and if anything even the slightest little twitch of like oh I feel uncomfortable in this way or I don't like this to note that we also went through like as I said like a really extensive beta testing phase where after each time we would let someone do the show we
27:00
would sit down with them and be like so tell me everything and also oh I forgot to mention this we like watch you on a camera as you're doing the show which uh I mean makes the show partially like a piece of theater and partially like the world's weirdest psychology
27:20
experiment and so you could kind of tell when people were engaged in that looking at them through the camera or when they were like not or yeah spinning around in their chair yeah um we would so Asa and I who's the guy who built the phone um and he
27:40
and I would we would be back we would kind of like have this conversation with the person and then decide whether or not we agreed with them and because it's art like we were just like well if you don't like this thing it's then um uh so it was mostly that kind of process but we were really attentive to making
28:00
sure that no one got upset by or that no one felt really uncomfortable by it um because there is something kind of weird about mortality and like i was worried that if like someone calculates their life expectancy and has a panic attack like i would feel terrible about that um so it was more about sort of uh making
28:20
sure that if the note was like i really felt uncomfortable during x that's what we would look at they are still my friends they so here's the terrible thing if you guys ever think about this never do a show that's only for one person at a time um it
28:40
just does not scale and you will be exhausted by the end of it so that actor never saw it um but i told them about it and they're still my friend i would say about like 40 percent is automated and
29:01
then 60 percent is us watching on the camera and just being like click um to send the email there's a couple parts like that moment where they put down the piece of paper we really wanted that to be exact and to be really right so that it feels like uh uh magic to people um
29:21
so we wanted so we needed to keep an operator but we're trying now to refactor the system to make it even more automated so that hopefully someday we could like scale it up a little bit more yeah well so we learned that having other people nearby or having people do
29:40
this show together doesn't work like they end up like critiquing each other's email skills or like like arguing about how to do the excel task right quiet sort of reflective space that i think is kind of necessary for really feeling the show
30:00
but if there was a way that we could get a bunch of offices all sealed off from each other totally we called it temping this is a snide answer no no it
30:20
was something that we worried about because like this is not a show that like grandma can come and and really enjoy and so because each show was like such a unique experience and so like personal and because we needed to like know your name and to know a couple things about you we in that sort of like signing up for the show process
30:40
we could kind of be like this is not nice old person and and gently kind of like send them on their way there's each show it's sort of dependent on how good of a temp you were like there were some people who like banged
31:00
through the show in like 25 minutes flat and then some people who would really take their time and it also sort of depended on the operator like when i operate the show i think temping should be a boring experience and so i like deliberately slow things down between emails
31:25
when i keep it so that it goes no longer than 50 minutes because we need about 10 minutes to reset the room and and um do that whole thing again um i i have never done and escape the room um and
31:40
uh when people when i was describing it to them they were like oh so so it's like an escape the room and i was like i think but it's like boring you could just leave like there's no you win like you walk out the door what what what was interesting to me and what i was
32:00
sort of fascinated by in the sort of like major impulse for the piece was this idea of like intimacy and and the way that digital technology oftentimes and i hope this doesn't sound weird because i don't mean it in like a sex way but oftentimes our experience of intimacy through the
32:20
internet or through technology is more intense than it can than it sometimes is when we're in person and i wanted to like figure out a way to capture that or to talk about that with people so that they understand that and i think that's so that's really what i tried to go for is like what's the biggest impact
32:40
what's the biggest emotional impact what's the
33:17
the the
33:20
experience as part of signing up for the show you have to fill an employee packet where you have to sign a privacy disclosure waiver that says like this company will be monitoring you all time all work that you do will be the property of the company, like one of those like really absurd things, so we kind of like wanted to play around with that idea as well, and yeah, a couple lawyer friends got really weirded
33:45
out by it. I think this is all the time I have. I want to thank you all so much for coming. Thank you.