00:00:00.880 — Intro Kumar The most interesting work on today's hardest problems can't always be distilled into just bullets and books. I'm Kumar Garg and in this podcast I talk to some of my favorite operators about how they work and how today's biggest problems really get solved. This is Tacit Knowledge. All right. Welcome everybody. I'm excited that you're going to get to meet more folks on our team, and especially as part of our community. So today we're going to be talking to Joshua Elliott. Joshua is our Chief Scientist here at Renaissance Philanthropy. And that can mean many things, but it means a couple of different things for us. One is that, you know, Joshua just had this incredible career across being one of the most prolific program officers at DARPA. I went to his exit ceremony and the number of programs he had started and completed. DARPA, I think, broke a couple of records. A lot of his colleagues said, and just has just been an engine of ideation. So one thing we love about Joshua is just that he's constantly coming up with ideas. Second is he actually just makes other people's ideas better. He's constantly being sought out for, if I'm going to design a program, how do I make it the most ambitious while also technically strong? So he provides that as a capability. And then he's deeply passionate about the future of our climate. And so he's been building out a ton of our work in the energy and climate space in particular. He's like a strong member of our nerd community and brings all of that energy and passion. So I'm really excited that you're going to get to both hear from him, but also see how his journey really can help shape how we can do the most good out there in the world. 00:02:06.200 — The Pitch Kumar So, Joshua, whether it's on building more ARPA’s around the world or climate stabilization, what's something you're working on? Joshua I'll start with, you know, as you know. Um, you know, one of the first programs that I built, I kind of think of as a nonprofit venture studio. It's called Advance Research for Climate Emergencies, or ARC Initiative, which is really kind of a program of programs. We find experts and ideas and we help them build into programs, and then we launch those programs. So one that we're just in the process of we're into, like the launch phase now, we've been incubating it for a while. It went from like a very small, what we call seed grant to now a, um, what we call a build grant, which is where we actually bring the program director on full time. We really build the roadmap and, and start to, to do doing the fundraising. And so I'm really excited about this program and it's, it's it's a bit it's kind of a harder one to pitch in my opinion in many ways. And so I've worked on it. I've worked on thought about it a whole lot. And so the program in its stealth name, we're working on it and it's launch name now, but the stealth name is the Sulfur Tracking Program. And the background here is that according to to NASA CERES data - CERES is a set of NASA satellites that have been observing the the Earth's, uh, um, radiative balance, uh, the Earth's energy imbalance, as it's called for the past 25 years, since 2000. The Earth's energy imbalance is is a function of two different things. It's a function of how much infrared radiation, i.e. heat, is escaping into space, which cools the planet, and how much solar radiation shortwave radiation is getting is getting absorbed by the planet. And the difference between those two things is Earth's energy imbalance. And so for climate change, we have focused all of our policy and almost all of our discussions and almost all climate action for the last four decades has focused on the fact that as we emit greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, it reduces that amount of heat that radiates out into space and therefore warms the planet. Much less - much, much, much less attention has been paid to how and in what ways our Earth's reflectivity has been changing, and how that contributes to warming so that sunlight that's coming in, not all of it gets absorbed. A substantial fraction of it gets reflected back into space, by ice, by snow, and by clouds. The recent evidence coming out of the latest reconstructions from the series satellites, and some of this, is still very state of the art knowledge, and there's still a lot of science that needs to be done. But the recent estimate is that it may be that the amount of reflectivity that the planet has lost since the year 2000 is contributing about 2.7W/m² to climate forcing. To put that into comparison, the amount of instantaneous climate forcing from all the greenhouse gases we've emitted since the Industrial Revolution is contributing about 2.7W/m². So it is fair to say, and again, these numbers are still being finalized, peer reviewed publications are expected in the in the coming year. But it is it is possibly fair to say that the amount of reflectivity we have lost in the last 25 years is contributing just as much to the rate of warming today as all of greenhouse gases. And yet we we you will not hear this mentioned basically anywhere within any UNF triple C conversation. So so okay, so then the question is why. About 30% of that is because of how much ice and snow we've lost in the last 25 years, largely the Arctic ice caps, but also just snow cover, mountain glaciers, etc. And basically all the rest of it is because of changes in clouds. Less clouds means less bright white reflecting things that that are that are blocking light from getting absorbed by the very, very dark ocean which absorbs, you know, almost all the the photons that hit it, right? And there's probably two dominant reasons why we are losing those clouds. And at this, at this time, we do not have the observational capabilities or the modeling capabilities in a number of different ways to be able to disambiguate those two causes, or one reductions in anthropogenic aerosol emissions. So when we burn, um, fossil fuels, we emit not just CO2, but we also emit aerosol precursors, primarily sulfur dioxide and and others, but primarily sulfur dioxide, which then turns into aerosols that just happen to be pretty perfectly sized to nucleate clouds in the troposphere. Um, and that means more clouds and brighter clouds. So ironically, the the pollution from our fossil fuel emissions has actually been increasing the Earth's reflectivity and thus reducing the rate of warming. It's estimated that this pollution layer is quote unquote, blocking the these cloud layers, quote unquote blocking. Kumar Yep. Joshua About a half a degree of global warming. So it's fair to say, and I regularly say it, that we don't just live in a near 1.5 degree world. We actually live in a near two degree world. We've just been masking geoengineering the planet in the most dirty and inequitable way possible as a result of the pollution from our fossil fuels. And the other half, and actually, even more scary, half of that cloud factor is how the warming itself has actually induced changes in the atmosphere that are making it harder and thus less likely for clouds to form. It's called a warming induced feedback. And if that's the case, and that continued warming continues to reduce the amount of cloud cover, then we could rapidly end up in a very bad feedback loop that could dramatically accelerate climate change. We know the basic physics of that, but we just don't have enough actual data and knowledge to be able to to figure out how the effect will manifest and where. So the program we're doing is to put up to put up some satellites to do some new in-situ balloon based measurements within within clouds and within aerosol aerosol emission clouds to try and once and for all solve the aerosol cloud interaction, observation, knowledge and modeling gap so that we can address this this distinction of where this loss reflectivity is coming from. And I personally think that this is probably - it's probably the most important question in climate change. And I am not saying that this is I, this is this is not hyperbolic. I mean, a paper came out last year that compared all of, um, the, the CMIP models, the, the global climate models, the 40 something global climate models that contribute every, every seven years to the big archive of climate simulations that then feed into the IPCC. They compared all the models based on how accurately those models reproduce the observations of of changing reflectivity and emissivity so that Earth energy imbalance stuff from that, from that NASA data and the ones that get closest to accurately reproducing what we have seen in the observations are also the ones that have roughly one one and a half, sometimes two times more climate sensitivity. That means that for the same level for emissions, they predict twice as much global warming as the other models. Now, the way we currently say, here's the standard, here's the amount of warming we expect in the future, is we take all 40 some out of those models and we average them together. We don't weight them. We say each one is equally likely to be true, but there's actually a huge range that comes out of those models. And if, if, if it turns out to be that predicting this very, very important change actually is an indication that that those models are more skillful. Then the two and a half degree to three degree world that maybe we're heading towards now might in fact be a four and a half to five degree world. And that's a very, very different scenario. And it changes everything that we need to be doing right now. And so we have to answer this question. We have to answer it urgently. We have to answer it quickly. And we're also in a fantastic position to answer it now, ‘cause the cost of all the things that we need to answer it have fallen by 5 to 20 times in the last 5 to 10 years alone. The sensors that we need to be able to answer at the balloon platforms and most importantly, the satellite platforms. So we believe we can generate a high resolution sub daily global data set by launching just four small CubeSats. Ten years ago, that would have - those would have cost like $80 million a pop, including launch costs. And now we think it's more like 3 or 4. I mean, think about that. Like that's how much the Space revolution has driven down these kinds of costs. Kumar All right. So that was awesome. It was nice and nerdy. Okay I'm going to say this back to you. So despite what you might have heard, the phrase the climate science is settled and we just need to get to solving the problem is actually not true. The past 25 years have shown that our basic understanding of the largest drivers of climate change was an under - like - we underestimated some of the big drivers. Potentially as big of a driver of climate change is not just net super pollutants in the in the air, namely carbon, plus a few other things, but also the loss in Earth's reflectivity might be equivalent to total amount of net emissions to date. Comparison to all the work that's happening on super pollutants like carbon and others, where we are building massive industries of clean energy and adaptation. The amount of work that is happening on this second pillar, which might be just as big, is minuscule when it comes to the amount of money. The amount of performers, the amount of science and everything else. And we just have an inkling based on some of the things as to what's possible. So we as Renaissance Philanthropy want to put our foot down and say, we think there should be a program that actually allows us to now start to get first a sense of the size and scope of this pillar. How big is the interaction? Because if this is a really big deal, it could potentially mean that we're in a very different climate future. And what we don't want is policymakers, investors and others to learn about this on the wrong side of history. And what we think is that this is also a good philanthropic moment because compared to five, ten, 20 years ago, where there's it would require an incredibly large philanthropic program to bootstrap this first step, dropping launch costs means we can get the satellites up there to start to build this evidence. That starts the flywheel so that then we actually understand what this other pillar, how big it is to our climate impact. And then second, then of course, that leads to a bunch of follow on things that need to happen on what are we actually doing, whether it's, you know, snow cover in the Arctic or anything else. Um, but it's a very big but important bet that can be in the 25 to $50 million range. And so that's why it's worth betting on. So what did I get wrong? Joshua Nothing. No, that was that was that was a great summary. I mean, I think you I think you you totally understood it. The only thing you got wrong was like 2 or 3, I think, compelling points that I forgot to say in my pitch. So that's really not on you. 00:14:00.580 — Origin Stories Kumar A big part of the Tacit Knowledge sort of frame is that, uh, I sort of think of the world as these this Venn diagram between smart people with interesting ideas and smart people with interesting ideas, with money. And the the overlap is only a Venn diagram. And the big thing that holds people back is just like, can you actually talk about the thing you want to work on, the opportunity in front of us in a way that somebody who has the resources to support it is ready to support it? So part of the game is just we play act these things so that then people can learn what is a good pitch kind of sound and look like. Um, although I think you had all of it. So let's, let's use that as a way to sort of unpack some of these ideas that might just be useful for folks to learn from. I guess one thing that would be interesting for me to know is, you know, at this point, I think you've been building a number of programs in the climate space, but, you know, this is not your technical background to start. I'm always interested in how technical people get pulled into something where they find something and they pull on and pull on it, and then they radicalize themselves to be like, oh my God, this is the thing that needs to get work done. Especially because I feel like a lot of your ideas in climate are, you know, running ahead of the crowd. So just give me a little bit of a sense of like, what was that for you? On thinking about climate stabilization. Joshua Well, I'd say the biggest thing historically was was my time at DARPA, not surprisingly. Right, which which gave me this permission that I'd never had an academia that told me, you are allowed to cast yourself 20, 30, 40 years into the future and imagine, you know, what are the biggest threats or opportunities and and then design big, ambitious, large scale programs to either avoid those risks or tackle those opportunities, right? I've been trying to do big, ambitious things in academia as well, but the scale was just completely and totally different, right? Um, I suddenly it was given that permission, and I built up this muscle that said, like Chase, follow everything. Right. Chase every idea. Like chase every chase down every rabbit hole. Right. If you. If somebody tells you. I always used to say. We used to say DARPA, you know, you're on the right track if, like, at least 30% of the people you talk to tell you that what you want to do is impossible. Right. If everyone if everyone you talk to is like, yeah, totally. That's that's that's we can do that, then like, you know, you're not you're not being ambitious enough, right? Um, and so I also got very used to people telling me that things were impossible. Kumar Right. Joshua Or that things were undesirable or no, you can't do that. That's not the way things are done. And and I was given permission to continue to chase those things down anyway. So I think DARPA gave me the biggest opportunity for me personally to say, if I have conviction in something, then I then I will do it. And then I think the other, the other like skills that I again, largely learned at DARPA is about is, is about like exploration and discovery and like and especially like the, the network effects of talking to one person who, who was brilliant about one thing and then, you know, having them introduce you to, to three other people that you should talk to to talk about, you know, and then having each of those people introduce you to two other people you should talk to. Right. And just doing that, exploring that network. And it doesn't actually it doesn't actually take as long as you might think - it sounds horrifying. Oh, God. I got to talk to 50 people about, like this, this problem space or something. You know, sometimes it's 20. Sometimes it's 100, whatever it is. But, um, it ends up, it ends up just being like, amazing how much information you can get in an incredibly dense time, and you get exactly the kind of information that you're trying to get out of this podcast. Right? You get that tacit knowledge, right? You have a conversation with someone, and you actually get the subtleties of the actual things that they have learned. And you are able to ask questions and like, dig in on, like, how did they figure that out? Why does that? Why is that the case? Rather than just reading their polished publication where they, you know, where they're only printing the kind of final outcomes. Kumar But I guess the…. this still is like a thing that I think you're - you push on in ways that are still like one of your superpowers, which is that it's one thing to get into a technical topic, you know, talk to a bunch of experts. But there's another thing to then say there's like a tractable thread here. Like, if we pull on this piece, whether it's like, you know, your DARPA program around subsurface maps and critical minerals or, you know, building climate programs where you're like, oh, if we can figure out this thing about the Arctic or this thing on that. So I feel like there's a type of active listening, Joshua Yeah. Kumar …that you're doing when you're trying to, like, have those 50 interviews. That isn't just I'm just going to like, keep making the problem more. Yeah. I think there's a version of like, talking to people where you're just like, okay, well, the problem is like even more complex versus I now have found threads to pull on. Joshua Yeah. I have a section in my, in the curriculum for the, the BiTS - the Big If True Science Accelerator. I have a section in there with a number of these like thinking tools that I've, that I've used over the years from like wireframing and scaffolding to, um, I would have to go look it up. I can't remember what I called it, but it's basically like a it's basically like a why tree, right? Like ask the question. Somebody tells the answer, But why? And then they tell you that you know the reason why that thing is the thing. And you're like, oh, but you find the key thing and you say, but why is that? And then and then you get down to like that fundamental area. And it's related to, I think I called it blockers and bottlenecks or something, where you have certain things that are like key technical blockers that you need to overcome in a program, and you have to be able to identify those and, and then really develop like a deep analysis around them and ensure that you can you do believe with some reasonable probability that you can overcome those those technical blockers. Kumar So if you were to think about this sort of skill set applied to climate stabilization more broadly, what is there a piece of homework you'd want to give people who are listening for like, what's the way they can be thinking about both how to get smarter, but potentially if they've got technical talent to contribute, what's the way they find, you know, they do their walk around and they find the thing that they should double click on. I mean, I'm sure we've put out some stuff that they should start reading. Joshua Yeah, yeah. So the BiTS playbook and the BiTS curriculum, which is which is open source, is a lot of fun. But it's also the curriculum is also like 80 or 90 pages. So I'm not suggesting that the homework is going read at all, but there are some great BiTS in it. I that was Kumar I love that. Joshua …pun was not intended I apologize, I love I love a really simple like it's basically a how my wireframe. So for those of you who are not familiar with the Heilmeier Catechism, which is a very, very fancy name for like a list of seven mostly obvious questions that a DARPA director named Heilmeier came up with in the 70s. And it became like the thing, the contract, the way everything is, is sort of communicated at DARPA. And it's one thing to say, okay, I'm going to answer these in a 2 or 3 page document. That's one thing to do, but that's not where I like to start. I like to start with a very tiny little wireframe that just looks at the four, basically the four big questions and gives you just the tiniest amount of space that you can possibly manage to answer them all. So you are forced to be like so succinct. And so the first one of those questions is what are you trying to do? I've never I've never loved the way that's phrased. It's more like, what impact are you trying to have? What problem are you trying to solve? The second question is who is doing it now and what's wrong with what they're doing right? So why do you need to do this right? Ask yourself that question and sit and answer it right. God, I hope I don't screw up the ordering of the Heilmeier questions. That would be really embarrassing. Uh, the third question is what is your big insight? What are you going to do differently? What is the thing that you have realized and discovered that's going to unlock this space? And then the fourth one is, um, Heilmeier called it who cares? Um, it's really like, what is the impact that's going to happen? Who is it going to like positively affect? How is it going to change the world, basically. And those are just four relatively simple questions, right? Kind of like the what, who, how and why basically. Kumar Yeah. Joshua And forcing yourself to answer them in the most concise way possible has always been my favorite just first exercise. Oh, you got a big idea. Okay, let's let's boil it down into the into the simplest form you can. And I find that, like, simplicity breeds creativity. Forcing someone to just, like, get to the heart of what they're trying to do and why they believe they can succeed. 00:23:02.310 — Tacit Knowledge Kumar Part of the whole point of the Tacit Knowledge frame is, what are the things that, you know, it's hard for us to write down, but it's just a huge part of what makes us effective. And I just would be curious, what are the BiTS of tacit knowledge that either you feel like you're constantly imparting on others - that you're like, oh, here's the thing that I want you to really focus on, or the other way around, the tacit knowledge you're trying to seek. Joshua Oh, man, that's a hard one. Um, I could probably answer that at multiple different sort of, uh, levels of abstraction. Um, the one that I've noticed most recently. So in terms of, you know, program design, I think probably one of the most important skill sets that I've, I've developed over the last decade is how to really design an effective, um, program, you know, stage gated milestones and, you know, really clear technical areas and really clear rationales and etc., etc.. Um, obviously, I tried to encode as much of that tacit knowledge as I could in the BiTS curriculum. That was kind of the whole point. But I recently I continuously discover new pieces that I have not yet encoded in the curriculum. And so I have a list of things I need to go back and write new chapters on. And, uh, someday I will like, you know, find, uh, find, find the time in my in my schedule to do that. But like the most recent one, I have a lot of programs now, and even external programs that aren't even RenPhil programs, but that I just I support and provide them sort of a set of kind of mentorship and advising, because I just think that they're amazing and high impact, where they've gotten to the point now where they're ready to like, do their first what we used to call PI meetings or, you know, kickoff meetings, bringing together the community of experts and like moving the field forward, sometimes creating like the roadmap for the program, you know, because one person, one expert will sit down and do all of this careful design work. And that's fantastic. But at some point you need to bring in the 30 or 40 people that are the most important in your field and give them an opportunity to also contribute to all this design, because you learn things, you discover, oh, my timelines on this thing were impractical. I need to shift this milestone. I need to shift that. Oh, I didn't realize that this one technical thing that I need to make sure to do, or this new opportunity… And you and you basically like collectively update with, with some key subset of the field of experts. So call it an expert workshop, call it a PI meeting, whatever you want to do. And, uh, recently I've, you know, I think in the last like six months or something, I've, I've been working with 3 or 4 different, uh, people to help them design their, their, their first PI meeting, kickoff meetings. And I found that I'm basically saying, uh, most of the exact same imparting most of the exact same set of tacit knowledge, like in terms of, like, how do you how do you like set up a proper shared mental model amongst a group of experts without like over indexing and like over constraining them because you want them to be able to be creative. You don't want to go in and say, your job is to answer these four questions, right? You want to go in and but you need to establish a sufficient shared mental model so that you can be effective going forward. How do you design breakout groups and questions around specific topic sets? How do you like, make sure that like everybody, like within, you know, within a workshop, within an ecosystem has a chance to like respond and be effective, like how do you how do you effectively facilitate like good collaborative, um, you know, knowledge building and stuff? I don't know if, you know, forming, storming, norming, performing, which is, uh, which is an old, an old like, um, DoD saying that when you bring a new team together, the first thing, you form a new team. Stage two is storming. They basically are useless. They just talk past each other and like, you know, argue and think. But then they start norming. They actually start like creating some, like, standards and languages and figuring out how to communicate with each other. And then finally they're performing and they're just at like, um, how do you make that cycle as quick as possible? That was something that I spent, like, learned a lot about at DARPA, like how to accelerate that. So you spend as little time as possible storming, um, and as much time as possible performing. Kumar I will say this is, I think, like a really deep, tacit skill set of yours. Like, you're – in a way that's, like, just really fun to watch. Like you're widely sought out like, everyone is like, can I get 15 minutes with Joshua so I can make my program better and my program design better? Life is about people voting with their feet and the amount of demand that gets on, like Joshua, oh my God, I talked to Joshua and now my program is so much better. So I do think there's like a design element. But then I also think a lot of this implicit coaching, there's a big part of building strong programs is you're trying to get very motivated performers in the world to work together. And it's not about like saying to them, oh, you don't get it. Because like, obviously the reason why you want to work with them is they have something really valuable to add. But how do you create the dynamic where people, very motivated, sometimes very opinionated. People can work together. Yeah. Like there's a magic to that, that like you have to kind of learn because otherwise, you know, you just have to like, okay, well, I'm just betting on that one performer that's like, you're going to get way less than that. So and I think people people are used to like, Well, now I'm in charge. I get to tell you what to do. And actually, that's actually the totally wrong frame. So I do think this is like a. They should definitely check out your writing so far. But then I do think this is like a real skill. I mean, part of the whole BiTS model is program development as a skill. Joshua Yeah. No. Exactly. 00:28:42.390 — Asks and Offers So just to close out, we always want to do asks and offers. You already put out a bunch of offers. You know, you've got the BiTS curriculum on our website and a bunch of other sort of things you've already put out. But anything else you want to sort of put out as an ask, you know, if somebody is listening and you're like, hey, if I would love help on X or an offer that you haven't covered yet. Joshua Let me start with offers. That's always easier for me because I'm not good at asking for things. Um, I mean, you've already said this, but a huge part of my job is, is people, you know, usually internally, but but sometimes not, asking me to help them to design a program to achieve a goal they're trying to do, or whatever it might be. And I really love doing it. Um, I learned it from, you know, the first, the first like, BiTS programs we were doing, um, you know, mentoring people and helping them to, like, take this, like, amazing, raw idea and ambitious vision and, like, turn it into a structured and actionable and legible program. Um, and all I have to do is like, you know, talk to them occasionally and give them advice. And like, I get to see this like this, like beautiful, kind of like flower bloom out of it. Um, it turns out to, to be one of my favorite things. So, um, uh, up to the point that my bandwidth allows, I'm always happy. I'm always happy to do to do more of that. Um, um, so so that's one thing. I think, I think on the asks is, um, in some sense, I'm, I'm always on the lookout for really incredible talent. Of course we all are. I mean, it's kind of a huge part of of what we do in this, in this organization is we just find amazing people, right? But I think particularly in some of the spaces I spend most of my time working in, like the stabilization space, like our advanced research for climate emergencies work. This is a new field we're actually actively like. We're building the plane while we're flying it, right? We created a nonprofit venture studio to create the programs that we want to then be able to fund. Because the programs weren't out there, we couldn't just raise money and fund stuff. They didn't exist. We had to build them from scratch. So we have this pipeline from seedling to build to scale. We're now creating this like we've been testing out this thing called the Climate Emergency Forum, which is like a field building initiative for this field because there's nothing that even exists that that that's looking to try and build this field of climate stabilization. The thing that this field needs more than anything else. Well, it needs two things more than anything else. It needs more funding and it needs more people. Um, it needs more scientists. It needs more like just fantastic, ambitious nonprofit, like leaders and, uh, and people like that, that want to get into this climate space, um, that want to try to, to take on a really different and new and really difficult challenge in a field that's just emerging. And I don't know, not to get a little too dramatic here, but that want to actually that maybe have been working on climate for a while and have started to lose hope, as many of us have been working on climate for a long time. And they'd like to maybe go to a place where maybe there is still a little bit of hope left and, uh, and help that field, um, to scale and help that hope to scale. I am getting very dramatic. I'm sorry. Uh, um, you know, reach out to me because, um, we need we need, uh, we need more great people, um, that are really trying to ensure that we can, uh, you know, have a safe and equitable climate future for all that we can actually land this climate plane on the narrow, crumbling dirt runway, uh, that is, you know, falling apart before us. That was that was not my best metaphor, but I'm known for my terrible metaphors, so. Kumar You know, it'll it'll make for a good, uh, motif in a future..in a future pic where, you know, Joshua, saving, saving us all, I like it. Um, okay, so I think we'll share your contact info. Obviously, folks can reach out on our website, but then also I think you're active on LinkedIn and everything else. Joshua Well, share my, uh, our our Substack. Oh, yes. I'm really proud of the articles we have in there. And and then, of course, our Renaissance Substack. Kumar Oh, yeah. The Ark one is live with lots of good stuff. 00:33:15.300 — Outro Kumar So I'm like a Super Joshua fan. I have known him for many years, worked with him when he was at DARPA, and then of course convinced him to come, uh, partner up with me and build Renaissance together. So I say this with a lot of bias, but yeah, very few people just have the kind of mix of ambition, curiosity, but also just like a deep sense of mentorship that Joshua has. And he just like raises everyone's game around him. But a lot of what make Joshua special, I would say, is like pretty hard to write down, uh, because he just brings that precision and energy to everything from like, how do you structure a good program to how do you design the right meeting to, you know, how do you think about the most important problems to work on? So I thought it was great and give you like a sign of what it means to really care, but then also bring all of that energy and ambition into your work and how much you can have an impact with that. There's a bunch of things in there from program design to how to talk about your work and everything else. And, you know, he he left a bunch of breadcrumbs that I hope people will follow from the, um, you know, the curriculum we have on the BiTS program- the Big If True Science Accelerator program to the Arc, the climate stabilization program, Substack that we have. So, you know, you can follow all of us, all of our work at our Renaissance Philanthropy Substack. And I, you know, we're active on LinkedIn and, uh, and elsewhere. So I hope you follow along. Thanks for joining. Thanks for listening to this latest episode of Tacit Knowledge, hosted by me, Kumar Garg and produced by All Together Now for Renaissance Entertainment. Find out more about our guest and all of our work at renaissancephilanthropy.org. Until next time.