Wiki/Report of Meeting 2024-12-12

Report of Meeting 2024-12-12

Present: Ed Gottsman, Raul Miller and Bob Therriault

Full transcripts of this meeting are now available below on this wiki page.

1) The meeting began with Bob asking Ed about the missing categories that Ed had wondered about. Ed said that it was not a big issue. Bob feels that the categories were very much a first pass and that some categories may not have been used. Ed may do a flat list on the "grab all" categories that are not part of the lists.

2) Bob then talked about the point that he had raised regarding the documentation of the Foreign Conjunctions in NuVoc. https://code.jsoftware.com/wiki/NuVoc Henry had felt that the Foreigns were better documented than Bob had suggested and Bill Lam pointed out that the documentation was there, but was difficult to access due to the length of the page and the links position in NuVoc. Ed pointed out that they are also accessible through the Ancillary pages. https://code.jsoftware.com/wiki/NuVoc#bottomrefs. The Foreign link might be put up on a higher position. Raul found that the edit that had taken the Foreign link out was done by Bob on June 11, 2023. Bob thought that that was just a formatting issue, but will review to make sure that content was not lost. (Note: Bob has since reinstated the introductory information) Bob felt that the Appendix A of the old dictionary was an easier format. https://www.jsoftware.com/help/dictionary/xmain.htm Raul had liked the format of the page as well and wanted to copy the dictionary into the wiki, but that was not acceptable as the dictionary was to be kept as a historical document and evolutionary changes would be done on NuVoc. Raul wondered whether the length of the NuVoc page might be done by using transcluded pages for the individual tables. https://code.jsoftware.com/wiki/Vocabulary/Foreigns Raul wondered if a Return to Top button might be put in and Bob said that he had done this in the Wiki Contributions page https://code.jsoftware.com/wiki/Category:Contributing_to_the_J_Wiki_W.2#How_do_I_control_the_table_of_contents_on_the_page.3F Raul wondered about a floating Return to Top that might show up in the SideBar using CSS. Bob wondered if it would be used as an overflow off the current page. Raul felt that it could be put on every page using the common CSS page that we were going to use for the Jcode search bar https://code.jsoftware.com/wiki/J_Code_Search_Bar

3) Bob showed what he had done with the Category Table https://code.jsoftware.com/wiki/Category:Add-ons_R.2.1 with respect to the Add-ons so that instead of going to the category page that they go directly to an anchor point on the Add-ons page. https://code.jsoftware.com/wiki/Vocabulary/Libraries#demos This decreases the number of clicks and avoids having multiple points of information. Ed does not want to shape the wiki according to the J viewer, but he does wonder about the extra click that is necessary to expand the grouped Add-ons. It all depends on the path that you took to the Add-ons page. Through the Category Table you would want the open tables, but browsing would have them closed. Raul wondered if there was an opportunity to transclude the Add-on tables with individual pages for that table. Raul believes that the approach would work, but it is debatable whether it is worth the effort.

4) Bob has followed the same approach with the Database section of the Category table https://code.jsoftware.com/wiki/Category:Databases_R.2.2. Whether the choices made on the page are appropriate would be subject to future opinions and the wiki can be changed over time to become more accurate. The other framework sub categories such as Labs, Open Gl or Sockets would still be left as Categories, but Essays may be another area that would make sense to directly access the essay itself. 5) A further discussion of the "Q and A for J" opportunity for a weekly recording of J experts answering J questions. It looks promising and will continue toward development. Bob will contact Devon McCormick regarding this, as Devon has already explored some of this with NYCJUG meetings and we don't want to undermine that valuable resource. Labs were also discussed and the difficulties in in creating them because of the difficulties in creating good teaching content. The previous lab author in J 602 addressed the mechanics of assembling labs, but the difficulties of creating good educational content remained. 6) There will be a break over the holidays and the wiki meetings will return on January 2, 2025

For access to previous meeting reports https://code.jsoftware.com/wiki/Wiki_Development If you would like to participate in the development of the J wiki please contact us on the J forum and we will get you an invitation to the next J wiki meeting held on Thursdays at 23:59 (UTC)

Transcript

Okay, so I had a bunch of stuff that I put on the, I think the first thing, Ed, was something that you asked me about was missing and empty categories.

This is a number of weeks ago.

He sent me an email.

Did my reply satisfy you at this point?

Yeah, it made sense.

And more than that, I'm still not sure how much of it is my own fault.

So before, and I hope I made that point in my reply, before you get too exercised about it, just wait until you hear from me.

Okay.

I will come to understand who's, you know, who's bailiwick the situation is in, but I don't at this point know.

It's entirely possible it's entirely in mine.

Yeah, well, there are certainly things with the categorization, the way it works, it's really been done on one pass.

So it's not complete.

It was a cursory look at it and to divide stuff up in any of those categories.

If somebody's got, you know, any depth of experience beyond which I have, which is quite possible in a number of them, inevitable, they would be, it would be good for them to go down and decide what particular categories apply to what their interests are.

And that hasn't been done because it was my run through.

But I would be surprised if there are categories that were never used, but it's possible.

I also haven't decided what to do with the gravel categories.

It seems to me there's value to them.

I call them gravel categories, the ones that don't participate in your hierarchy.

I think something just as simple as a flat list with a filter on the name of the category might actually be kind of interesting.

That would just be a way of poking around in whatever it is, hundreds and hundreds of categories of gravel categories.

That's another thing I probably should have mentioned, in the back of my mind, I haven't decided what to do about it yet.

Yeah, anyway, that was the first item that we were covering, so that's good we got that one.

The next one was I made a comment about the documentation of the Forins on Jay, on Nuvok, and Henry pushed back a bit on that, which I can understand having gone back and looked at it again.

I'm going to share my screen.

Speak categories, but I'll take it back to Nuvok.

Bill actually gave, I thought, a really good answer to Henry.

One is that it's kind of hard to find them, because if you're looking for the Forins, you have to look all the way down to here to even see them.

They don't really stick out, although they're kind of a monster category with what they hold.

Then, when you click on this, it actually tells you that for detailed, the detailed for vocabulary forms.

Now, what I'd forgotten was that that's not the dictionary.

That's actually these pages that I think you were working on as well, Raul.

I think that link should move up to the top of the previous page.

The link to this page should move up to the top of the previous page, because there's really no reason for that.

There's enough detail here that it should be right above generates entities.

Yeah, you're probably right.

This whole, it's indented.

It'll stand out there.

It'd be fine at that point.

That would improve things greatly.

That won't fix the fact that you have to click twice to get there.

It won't fix the thing that you have to, that's not the top of the previous page where it probably deserves to be, but it would be an improvement.

Yeah, that would make it a little more obvious.

I guess the thing is, do we actually want it to go through this page, although this page does kind of explain sort of the way they're set up and what- Is there a problem with it being on this page?

I think that if we go back to the NuVar page, though, scroll up to the top, I could see maybe the parts of speech thing, maybe have a little addendum on there that's a link to the Forens page, or maybe, I don't know.

Historically, the NuVar page had more up there at the top.

Could you put all the same options that are sitting in JQT, that's Forens, WD, there are a couple of others, just as button next to the NuVar title or below it?

These are the common documentation sources that people consult, judging by their inclusion in JQT.

Yeah, it's a little bit hidden.

I just clicked on this adverb, which took me down to the glossary.

The other place that Forens are is in the ancillary pages at the bottom of NuVar.

Yeah, exactly.

Yeah, that was the other thing.

I was thinking they're down here.

They take you right to that page.

You see, that takes you right to that page.

If you go back to the 2022 version of the page, it definitely had more up top back then.

So it would be up in this area here, we might add extra information.

Yeah.

I mean, it's nice that it's clean.

Maybe it should be.

There's various ways.

We should probably look at the edit that removed it and see what the comments on that edit were.

The other place I could see it happening is you could narrow some of these columns here and you have x, y, u, v, m, n, and then you could actually have a foreign button here as well.

Because the Forens are external, so they don't really fit into the x, y, u, v, m, n.

They're another thing.

But as a result, they might be able to be on that line.

Although they do have m, n because they're dyadic.

I found the revision that pulled it out.

It was the 11 June 2023 by Bob Thoreau.

I took it out?

Holy smokes.

Huh.

The area of New Block suggested by UbiDrew.

Well there was a real messy thing that was happening up there.

But I didn't think it would reduce the information.

I thought I kept the information there.

I'll let you take a look at that.

Yeah.

Yeah.

It's kind of embarrassing when the smoking gun points back at you.

I'll have to take a look and see what it was.

I do remember going in to do something with it and having to really struggle with the formatting because there's all sorts of tables and things that are going on with that.

I'll take a look at that for sure.

Yeah.

Yeah.

Yeah.

Anyway, so that was sort of Henry's pushback is there's actually a fair amount of documentation with Nuvoc and the only other thing that, or sorry, with Forinzen Nuvoc.

And the only other thing that I'd kind of thought about or I'd originally been thinking about is if you go to the dictionary, that's the old way of Forinzen being explained.

I found that actually a lot easier.

I think it was appendix A, wasn't it?

Yeah.

It broke down that way.

And often when I'm trying to go back, I mean, obviously it's out of date in some areas, but when I'm trying to go back and try and figure out something, to me, a lot of times that's a much easier format to figure out than the tables we've got.

I overall prefer the dictionary format.

I prefer it all along, but I asked for permission to update a copy of the dictionary to be current and that was denied.

I have respected that decision.

Yeah.

Yeah.

No, I get it too.

You don't want to have people doing, you know, as soon as you got two places you can get information from, you can get conflicts and that's not what you want when you're trying to provide information.

That wasn't the rationale, but I can see that too, I guess.

Was the rationale they just didn't want you spending your efforts that way?

No, it was historical.

They didn't want me messing up Ken's work.

Ah, okay.

Yeah.

Because you wouldn't be recreating it.

You'd be going right back into the original documents.

Well, what I was, remember when I made a copy of the books into wiki?

Originally, the whole point of that was to bring the dictionary over.

Yeah.

And that was the first thing I'd done.

So anyways, I did everything else and left that ripped out.

Yeah.

Anyway, I think your idea of moving that link closer to the top of this page, so moving it from here up to the top is a good one, above generates entities, or do you think above generates or just below it?

I guess above it.

The original stuff was all on top.

And there was more stuff besides there as well, which is part of it.

It was kind of books like in character.

The only thing I would say is I'm not sure this page carries its weight when you compare it to this page, which you could take some of the same information, put it on this page, and you've got everything there.

You don't have to click again.

Right.

Yeah.

The table.

The other thing that might make sense is we have all these individual tables and this whole, and this is, I broke it up so that it could be, they could be edited, but we don't, we have a mechanism where we can embed another page as content on a page.

To actually show up within the HTML.

Yeah.

There's a way, it's basically the same mechanism that's used for templates can be used for page construction.

Okay.

And so I was thinking it might make sense to make, to break out of each of these pages individually and then recreate the whole new box summary page as having embedded copies of each of those individual pages.

I'm not sure if that's the best of both worlds or worst of both worlds, but something I was thinking about.

The other way to approach this is with these broken out scripts, like for M equals zero is to make them expandable or contractible.

So you would see the, well, what you would see is this would become one line.

It would be contracted.

You click on it, it would expand.

That would, that would make it more browsable.

Yeah.

That's what I was thinking.

So having the links up here makes it even better, right?

That's the advantage of that top page or that top table.

And you kind of, when you, if you click on like scripts, you want that to be expanded at that point.

You don't want to click again to expand it.

That's true.

Yeah.

Yeah.

And without JavaScript, you wouldn't be able to add, have that as a feature.

Yeah.

It might just be that you just have to give some kind of an instruction at the top.

I wonder if Wiki has a return to top widget.

Yeah, it does.

Definitely.

I've seen, I've seen that on other sites.

You know, it's really, really long.

They'll have a, once you start scrolling, they'll have a little return to top thing.

When I go here, maybe it's not this one, maybe it's development.

Nope.

It's not development contributing.

There we go.

So I've got these and then you can always return to top.

Oh, you have it as a bunch of individual links.

Yeah.

That's all they suggested you do it as you do that.

So I've just added something which would float in the left, in the left nav here when it's white.

That would require JavaScript, I guess.

Oh, you'd put it over in the sidebar, you're thinking?

Yeah.

But to make it, I don't know if there's a CSS that can float and stay visible like that.

It might be.

You should be able to do that.

It's just whether or not that CSS starts to get in the way of the content.

Well, it would be in the left bar, right?

It wouldn't be.

Oh, I see.

You put it over in the sidebar.

Yeah.

Oh, that's an interesting question.

I don't know.

I haven't tried to do too much with CSS in the sidebar.

It sort of has a different syntax there for what it's trying to do.

Like you've got a whole different way of setting up your breaks and your subcategories and stuff in the sidebar compared to anything else.

But it's a good question.

Anyway, that's what I was thinking about.

Yeah.

And when you scroll, the sidebar moves at the same speed.

So it's not like it stays and floats.

But you could have, what I was thinking is on the left hand side, put an element that's below the current stuff that 100% goes the rest of the page.

Inside that, put a position sticky return to top.

So that as long as you scroll down, you'll have a return to top there on the left hand side.

So it's not just useless.

I wonder if you can do it as an overflow off of this page and position it, say, down here.

So it's got a maximum vertical it can get to.

And then as you roll down, it would just follow you along.

Yeah, that's what I was thinking.

Yeah.

Well, it wouldn't be on the page.

I was thinking of having it be in the nav, so it would be on every page.

Right.

Yeah.

No, that's right.

My way of thinking, you'd have to put that code into every page.

You don't want to do that.

No, you're right.

Yeah.

Well, that's interesting.

I'll give that some thought and see if there's a way to do it.

I think position sticky on a div that's 100% height or something is sufficient.

And you'd be able to put, like, I haven't seen any place where I'm controlling CSS in here.

There's a common CSS page.

Oh, right, right, right.

And that's how we were going to get that little search bar and everything.

Yeah.

Yeah.

Okay.

So that would be the same sort of thing.

Yeah.

So that was Nuvoc.

Oh, and I was going to show add-ons, this is my add-on page.

And so of course it's got the usual thing.

It's got all these add-ons and everything, but this is what I've done with my links.

So if I go to API, it takes me up to API at the top and then it's got these contracted.

So expand gives you the API stuff and then collapse again, takes it back again.

And rather than go through the categories, like each of these pages would end up having a category attached to it.

Although I think these are all GitHub pages.

But the idea would be that the access would give you straight to the page.

So for instance, media takes me right to here and then I can expand that.

And I guess the question is whether I wanna have it expanded.

I could have it open and it's taking me right to that page.

But if you actually went to the page, then there's an awful lot of stuff to scroll through.

Although, yeah, just thinking the, the way the add-ons are, I'd have to move them up a heading to be able to have them show on a table of contents. - The feature I was trying to think of earlier, the, as a way of maybe addressing some of the strangeness of the huge NuVox forms page is the media wiki transclusion feature. - Okay. - And I think that might work for this kind of page as well.

Is if each one of these things, and it could be, you could have an individual page, individual pages that are also show up on a summary page.

I'm not sure how that, how that presents itself to people though.

I don't know if the duplication would bother, you know, that seeing the same content with two different URLs and two different formats, if that would bother people or if that would be a useful thing. - Yeah.

As long as I wasn't, like part of the reason I originally thought to come over to this page and do this link to the heading thing.

Actually, I think when I'm doing it, I'm not doing links to headings.

I'm doing links to a span, 'cause you can do that as well.

So I think that's how I've done it, is I put spans in all these, so they link to the various spots.

But the thing I was trying to avoid is having a separate page that you change that, but you don't get this one changed.

And so as a result, you end up with two sources of information, but transclusion probably gets around that, right?

'Cause you're only changing it one spot. - There is a caching issue. - Yeah, that's true. - So you can have a period of time when the page is cached and that can happen either on the server or on the browsers, since they both have caches.

But other than that, it does address that. - So are there thoughts about this approach of having these links go directly to these subcategories rather than to an actual category? - That gets into how he's building that thing, right?

Oh no, this is in the wiki. - Yeah, this is wiki, yeah, yeah.

Any thoughts, Ed? - I don't, Bob.

I'm reluctant to try to drive your approach based on what I'm doing.

I think I'd be more comfortable if you did whatever you thought was appropriate for the wiki and I accommodated that through more sophisticated crawling. - Okay. - Does that make sense? - Yeah, it does. - Do you think this is an appropriate way to approach it in the wiki, though? - Oh, sure. - Okay. - Yeah.

I have no strong feelings about that.

The one thing I do wonder about is having to open up the subcategory once I arrive.

It seems to me that if I've clicked to indicate that I care about that subcategory, asking me then to open it up is more work than I should have to do.

But that is a nit. - Yeah, that's a good point.

I'm just thinking, what was it that there was one, was it types?

Can't remember.

No, there's categories that don't have it here.

If it was graphics, for instance, what it does show you is a list of all the stuff that would be graphics.

And then you expand and you get them all. - Sure. - So you do actually, I mean, if you were just sort of browsing around, you might be just happy to see what was included in here, but I don't know. - Right.

Yeah, if you arrived at the page via another route and you hadn't picked a particular subcategory, you might then be happier if they were all those.

That's entirely true. - Yeah.

But other than that, I could go either way with it.

Because the way I'm getting access to these, if I'm using that category table, is I will take it to the right spot.

And in some ways, taking it to, say for instance, I move this up to the top, taking it to this opened up is exactly what you would want, like that.

Because you don't end up with this issue where you come up to this and you go, what was I clicked on?

Now I'm seeing all these other ones. - Yeah, yeah.

But if you did a transclusion, I guess, instead of the, here. - If you did the transclusion, they would all be open, I'm guessing, right? - Well, not necessarily.

I mean, you could still have the transclusion.

The structure of this page has nothing to do with the content of this page, other than the fact that the content fits in with the structure.

So conceptually, the stuff that you see when you hit expand can be what's on another page and it would still be in the container that you do a show/hide. - So it would show up as essentially within the table. - Right, if you hit, go to the general, go to the graph, yeah.

This table here could be another page which is transcluded here. - Yeah. - And then your R21 category page could link to there instead of doing a special link into this page. - Well, and that was one thing I looked at, is whether I just wanted to do a redirect off the category page to get to this page.

But I thought that's, I actually prefer to have a link that goes directly from the category table to this page and not mess with that category page.

'Cause there may be other things you wanna use that category page for.

And if you do a redirect, you lose control of it. - Yeah, no, I was thinking of a different approach there. - Yeah. - Is that if you just put the category on the transcluded page, then it would go, then it would just fall out.

It would just be a regular category link. - Yeah, yeah, no, I get you.

And then you just end up with, the extra pages that would be generated would be the pages that have this information that don't currently exist. - Right, yeah, it'd be a lot of copy and paste to make it in the first place. - Yeah, yeah. - And some patching in to make it tidy. - Yeah. - I'm not sure it's worth the effort, but it seems like if the effort was done, it would work.

And I took a similar approach with databases.

I just finished doing that.

Essentially, I did a main page, which is databases, which gives you the links to the different ones.

And then what I did for these here, these are actually the same buttons as you see here.

So they will take you directly to the main JD page.

And you've got all the information.

You've got your navigation at the top and you can go through things as you wish. - Mm-hmm. - And JD is a database native to J written by Eric is fairly straightforward.

For SQL, it takes you to a page which essentially gives you the J data driver or ODBC with a brief description of SQL.

I'm not a database wizard.

Is it useful for me to describe it the way I did or does that get in the way? - I mean, SQL has a whole history and you're not gonna go over all that history.

And it also has a zillion implementations that you're not gonna go into all the details on those implementations either.

And then there's even, you know, convincing that you could do critiques of the design and so on and so forth that might fit into the wiki, but probably doesn't go here.

I don't have a problem with it because it's such a huge thing anyways that-- - Yeah. - But I'm not, you know, I'm not, I'm not, I'm only one point of view and people tend to have strong opinions.

So you might get some other strong opinions but that are different from mine. - I would welcome other strong opinions. (laughing) 'Cause my reply to them would probably be, yeah, sounds good. (laughing) Until we get multiple contradictory strong opinions and then we'll open up a discussion page.

Anyway, that was the approach that I took with the database.

And I think I'll probably do the same thing with these ones is I'll basically do cover pages that get you to where you wanna go. - You might, it just occurred to me thinking about this a little bit. - Yeah. - On SQL, you might wanna make, say the SQL is a series of standards and that access to individual implementations, you know, you might wanna draw a distinction between SQL, the whole huge cloud and SQL, the reference to some, somebody's personal database implementation that they're using at the time.

That, you know. - So I'd say-- - It's kind of a jargon thing as much as anything else but that might be a distinction worth making. - So I could say SQL is a series of standards that can be accessed through either ODBC or the J data driver? - Well, you are gonna access the standard and you could say-- - Okay. - And then imputations of the standards can be accessed through ODBC or JOD.

Right? - Okay, yeah, yeah, yeah.

Yeah. - Maybe that's just, you know, grammar not seeing, I don't know, but that's where my mind would go. - So it would be SQL is a series of standards, the implementations can be accessed through either ODBC or JDD? - Yeah, something like that. - Yeah, okay. - Play with the grammar a little more maybe. - Yeah, yeah.

Well, you know, it's a wiki, you can go in and change it. - Yeah, it's true. (laughing) I think you've got more expertise in this than I do.

And what I will probably do with these bolder ones, which I think are just sub subcategories, I may keep those as category, unless I see areas where they are splitting out too much.

But I imagine I'll go into the same, hit sockets and didn't mean to, let's go back.

There we go.

Where I can see it happening again, maybe in essays, is you got into such sub subcategories that I may end up going directly to, putting links directly to essays, rather than think if I go to it now, look at all the essays I've got here.

I mean, this is, I have to come up with a way to deal with that to make it.

I suppose it is the, they are the essays that we've attached to this category.

So that might not be too bad to go through, but I don't know.

I can see an argument too though, to take this Schwarzschild or the tensor experiments and make them down to one link that goes to a page that gives you the sort of the general scope of everything. - But you're not gonna write a summary of the 24 chapters in the tensor experiments. - No, no, I might write, if I went to a table of contents, I might have a link just saying these represents a table of contents of various experiments in tensor experiments.

I might do that, but no, I won't be doing what every experiment was doing or what every page of Schwarzschild or the space time issues or any of those.

I wouldn't break it down that far.

Although the person who wrote them might want to.

I mean, I'd be fully in favor of that.

They could do that. - Sure. - Oh, yeah.

These are interesting ones, but they're beyond my expertise.

This is where I would probably do the, direct it to this essential and then just have the links here as they are.

So you could go through it from there. - I wonder if we could, I remember back when I was in college, I was doing, you have these equations to describe like an orbital for electron orbital.

And they're hard to read.

What you can do is you can pick a point in space.

You can define a simple model of the thing and then just pick points in space and say, what's the probability of this point succeeding?

And you just throw a bunch of points in.

And after a while, an image emerges of, a cloud of where those points represent.

And it seems like you might be able to do something with some of these representations too, of just kind of either do a, maybe a single image to give a hint, or if there's a wide variety of variables, put in a script that like a JTT script that would let you play with the thing and tweak things and show different renderings of what it's trying to talk about.

Just give you an idea of, simple idea of concepts.

But that would require more understanding of the math than I have right now to be able to pull it off. - But that actually feeds into the next topic, which is the other opportunities.

And I did get a chance to talk to Eric this week and bounced off him the office hours idea of a Q&A essentially, that you would bring questions on, then you'd have a panel of people, maybe four people and a moderator to go through the different questions and give answers and have that provided as a video.

And thinking maybe weekly for that and having a panel of four that changes.

So any one group of experts would only have to come on once or twice a month, depending on what they wanted to do.

And then just record that and see how it goes.

And so also adjacent to that, was we ended up talking a bit about labs and the fact that he was still wondering whether labs were too difficult to make.

And I think we came to the conclusion that the difficulty in making labs isn't actually putting the scaffolding together, it's putting the content together because you have to be an educator.

And that's a lot of work. - I think it's a little bit more subtle than that.

I think it's that it's two skill sets.

There's a skill set of putting the lab together and the mechanical side, and there's a skill set of putting the content together.

And people with the one skill set aren't the people with the other skill set.

And we don't have a good way of bridging those two skill sets.

I think that definitely there's people, there's plenty of content creators out there.

We got a good number of J programmers, but we don't have a good connection between the two. - The obvious thing to me is often what's done in colleges where you have a panel of people who are experts in creation of content, and then you've got the experts of the content.

So the person, the prof who's putting together the slides or whatever is working with another person who's good at putting slides together. - We might have like a lab for putting together labs lab. - Well, I brought up the old, there used to be a, I'm just trying to remember what the terminology was, but there was essentially a lab creation studio that existed with J 600 or six, 604, I guess it was. - And that's probably still available since. - Yeah, although it doesn't work anymore because labs aren't done that way.

Well, actually there are some lab, you could still do labs that way, but the archaic. - You could build a lab in version six and then put it in the absolute format here and have it work. - Yeah, and I think up until 805, the labs you could still put labs in and work that way.

So if you put them in the right folder, it would work, but you'd have to do some, a little work to put them into the right spots. - Anyways, that's an example of a skillset issue.

Maybe we don't have enough lab experts in the JSI.

Maybe that's something that should be tackled, but it's all obvious once you understand it. (laughing) - At which point you don't need to learn it anymore, right? - Exactly, yeah.

But anyway, he's quite enthused about that.

And I think that might be something that we look into going forward into the new year is to try and, probably using Zoom and possibly trying to, well, whether we start out going live or not, we could go live on Twitch or something like that, but at least record Zoom answering questions and going through that process and then developing it there for Jay.

And I still have to talk to Devin about that 'cause it's so much, I was saying to Eric, there's so much crossover in what Devin does every month and that, that although Devin doesn't record the video, so he doesn't make it available to people that way.

So you do lose that part.

It's all text by the time he's finished.

So you don't get the benefit of different points of view of experts really that can just be generated and captured on video recording.

Anyway, that's about all I had.

Does anybody else wanna add anything at this point?

We're probably not gonna have meetings.

Well, I know we're not gonna have meetings for the next two weeks 'cause one is boxing day and the other is the day I'm moving my mom from the mainland to the island.

So that's gonna be busy times, but it's all good.

Cool.

Yeah.

She's gonna become an island girl at 95.

Is that a term of art in Canada?

Oh, I thought it was, I thought it had more to do with Jamaica.

No, I guess you're right.

The island girls, yeah.

All right, well, thank you both very much.

And I guess I'll see you in three weeks or thereabouts.

Yeah, maybe next year.

Yeah, maybe next year.

Yeah, yeah.

Well, season's greetings to everybody in whatever way you choose to celebrate.

I hope everything is wonderful and family and all that.

Well, thanks very much.

Take care.

Goodbye, Roel.

Bye.

Bye-bye.