Take Maslow's hierarchy of needs and you apply it to design in an ethical manner. So at its base, it's very base. We need to build things that are decentralized and private and open and interoperable, accessible. So not just fitting the needs of able-bodied white men, right? Diversity is so important in what we do. If we do not have diversity in these communities that are tackling this problem, then we have already lost. The only way to design solutions for a diverse audience, for a diverse citizenship, is to have diverse groups designing for themselves. Not studying another group, not studying the other, not being colonialists in their approach, but having diverse groups that design for themselves. Diversity is not a charity. Diversity is competitive advantage. It is one that we need to start taking advantage of. So we build things that respect human rights, but we don't stop there. Then we go on. We build things that are functional and convenient and reliable. Because again, it's about respect. This time, it's about respecting human effort. But we don't stop there. We build things that are delightful. Because that is about respecting human experience. And that's very important. That's what we overlook in the free and open source world. A lot of the time. We have to respect human experience as well. If you think about it, experiences are all we have in life and then we die. Whether those are experiences with people or with objects, they are like the grains of sand in the hourglass of your life. Each one of them deserves respect, our respect. And it's a huge responsibility on part of those of us who are building these solutions to respect the experiences, to respect those grains of sand, to respect the lives of the people that we are building for. And this is where we fail, though, at the very beginning in mainstream technology. That is where we fail. Because we're building things that do not respect human rights. And when you do that, you're not building things for people. You're building things on the backs of people. So that's the ethical design manifesto. We released it at the end of last year. And my little wins every day are getting things like this. Pictures showing a design firm where someone's printed it out and actually remixed their own copy because they didn't like that mine was all gray. And they said, let's remix it, put some colors in there. And hearing from them that this has helped them when they were negotiating a project with a client. It helped the person at this agency to not work on a project. Went to their boss and said, look, it violates that. And I'm not happy working on this project that we have as a client agency, which takes a spine. It really does. Seeing these put up in different agencies around the world is just lovely. I think this is from Phillips in Amsterdam. I got an email from two researchers who said, we want to use this as a basis for a talk that we want to give, a paper that we want to write saying, it made us reflect on the methods and practices we use within the human computer interaction community. And how can we translate that? Just yesterday on Twitter, I got this, Clemens Schuster from a consultancy hot frat suit. He said, thanks once again for putting forward the ethical design manifesto. It was so helpful today within the discussion with a high policy maker at EU in Brussels. We need these simple, easy to understand, accessible frameworks in order to make the case. At its core, the issues we're talking about are not complex. They're very simple. They come back to the basics, the very basics of philosophy before it was made into an academic pursuit. How shall we live? What is good? Right? These are very basic things. What are the rights of a person?