What questions should we be asking about building and rebuilding?

Building something new sounds exciting. Rebuilding something after it breaks sounds exhausting. And yet most of us are living in a world where both are happening all at once. In this episode, Patti, Dan, and Lynne dig into the questions we should be asking when we talk about building and rebuilding and why these processes are never as simple as they seem.

Dan brings his experience as an engineer and technologist and admits that even in fields built on data and logic, most decisions are emotional ones. Lynne talks about coming back from a serious injury and how rebuilding a life and rebuilding a body are never separate experiences. Patti reflects on transformation and why rebuilding feels so loaded with history, memory, and meaning.

Together we explore questions about resilience, fragility, anti fragility, institutional collapse, community, collaboration, disagreement, and the emotions we attach to words like build and rebuild. We also look at what is worth rebuilding, what is better to build from scratch, and how personal rebuilding shapes everything else we try to create.

This conversation moves from sandcastles to frozen yogurt shops to democracy to the stories we tell ourselves about what should last and what should change. It is thoughtful, curious, and surprisingly funny in moments that remind us just how human these questions are.

If you are navigating change or trying to understand what should be saved, strengthened, or scrapped, this episode offers the questions that help you see the path more clearly.

Listen wherever you get your podcasts.

Listening for the Questions is where curiosity is our compass.

Transcript

SPEAKER_01 0:00

Hey everybody, welcome back to Listening for the Questions, the podcast with no answers. My name's Dan Ward. I'm an author, a juggler, and a punk. I'm also an engineer and a military technologist by training, and I spent most of my career building things. I am joined as always by my dear friends Patty and Lynn, and one of the things we are building together is this podcast.

SPEAKER_02 0:20

I'm Lynn Cuppernal, and I am a leadership coach, a facilitator, and an innovator. I'm also a mom and a triathlet, and I do know a little bit about rebuilding after injury.

SPEAKER_04 0:31

And I'm Dr. Patty Fletcher. I'm a recovering C-suite executive from Big Tech, a leadership futurist working at the intersection of people, business, technology, and data, and a best-selling author. And I have to say, you guys, I am so excited about today's episode. As you all know, one of my biggest themes in my life, personally, professionally, is transformation, right? It's taking something from its current state and either creating something totally brand new or acting all humpty dumpty and dismantling it and maybe building it to be something fresh and new that can serve the world better.

SPEAKER_01 1:08

And that's right. Today's topic is building and rebuilding. And then, of course, specifically, since this is the Listening for the Questions podcast, what questions should we be listening for when we talk about building and rebuilding?

SPEAKER_02 1:21

Oh my gosh, Dan, this has been on my mind over the, I don't know, past 100 days, maybe. Uh, one of the things I am wondering about is how long does it take to rebuild something? And why can something be dismantled or unbuilt? Is that a word? Um, in days or weeks and then have to take so long for it to be rebuilt.

SPEAKER_04 1:45

I want to spend the rest of our episode on deciding if unbuilt is a word or not. But I have so many questions. Who knew where that was gonna go? Um, but you know, Lynn, building on what you said in ha, did you see what I did there, Lynn? See what I did with the building? I've been thinking a lot about how we can rebuild in ways that address those root causes, right? When we only look at symptoms, but address those root causes of destruction rather than recreating, let's face it, vulnerable systems.

SPEAKER_01 2:14

Ooh. So, Patty, are you saying that the way we build or rebuild might have an effect on how resilient or how fragile something is? Like if we build our sandcastle close to the waves, it gets wiped out quickly. If we build it further up the beach, it might last longer. Is that kind of where you're you're going with this?

SPEAKER_04 2:31

It is, right? And and Dan, in that, I can't help but listen to you and go, and what does resilient mean anyway? When it comes to supply chains and systems, maybe that's a word we have to redefine. Because I think if we were asked, I don't know, six months ago, is our let's say democracy, for example, resilient, I think we would have had a different answer to the reality we're in today.

SPEAKER_02 2:59

Yeah, Patty, and I, you know, just hearing you say resilient. Um, I used to love that word, and now I feel like it's all we hear about. And it it makes me kind of tired just thinking about being resilient. And I've read a lot of people are feeling that way. There's like a little bit of a backlash against resilience these days. And that's why I love that we're talking about rebuilding instead, um, at least today, because I feel like rebuilding is a more active thing that you can do to demonstrate resilience.

SPEAKER_01 3:35

I love that perspective of the emotional response to words like resilience. And yeah, resilience can feel fatiguing if we're having to constantly be resilient against some sort of stress, some sort of destructive force. And, you know, we were talking at the beginning of before we started recording the show, uh, comparing notes about the difference between building and rebuilding. And I was thinking like rebuilding sounds exhausting to me, but building sounds exciting. Even though the behaviors are kind of the same, the amount of energy it takes are the same. And so as we talk about rebuilding or building, I think the questions we should be asking ourselves are like, well, how do we feel about these terms, whether it's resilience, rebuilding, or building? And what does that say about us? And how does that feeling shape our engagement with it? And how might we reframe it so that we do bring the energy that we need to either build, resiled? Is resiled a word? I think resiled is my new favorite word. Build, resiled, or rebuild.

SPEAKER_04 4:34

You know, Dan, it's it's so interesting. And and I love that thinking about you know what we we talked about right before recording and and build and rebuild. And isn't it interesting to have such an emotional reaction to rebuild whatever we think? Lynn, you had an emotional reaction, Dan, you had one, I had one. Dan and mine were pretty similar in terms of exhaustion. Whereas Lynn, you were coming, it felt like you were coming at this from almost like a revival, uh, you know, just something to make it better and respecting and giving nod to where we came from. And it does make me wonder about, you know, people are having an adverse reaction. The word build and rebuild is an emotional word. And we can't help, right? When I think of rebuild, I think of the baggage that came along with the need to rebuild. And I'm wondering if that's why it's so exhausting. And then I'm wondering, maybe I should be asking myself why I felt that way, because maybe rebuild doesn't have to be so exhausting. Maybe it's an opportunity for each of us to look at our own root causes as to why we think that way. Because building and rebuilding, I think it's a reality.

SPEAKER_02 5:48

Yes. Oh my gosh, Patty, so many more questions that just made me think about that looking internally to how we react to these words and words that are similar. And yeah, we were talking before the podcast, and I think about rebuilding, I don't know, as a hopeful thing, as a way to build something back stronger than it was before, better than it was before, informed from whatever trauma caused it to break so that it's stronger.

SPEAKER_01 6:21

You know, when I was uh studying engineering as an undergraduate and all the emotional intelligence courses that we had to take, where we learned how to no, we did not learn how to tap into our emotions in engineering school. Um, but why don't we, right? We like to think human beings are data driven. We don't make decisions based on data, we make decisions based on emotions. And engineers make a lot of decisions about what to build and how to build and when to rebuild, when to tear down. All of all of those decisions are not fundamentally driven just by the analysis of the circuit diagram or the you know stress and and dynamics uh calculations that we do. A lot of the decisions are emotional decisions because humans are emotional creatures. Why don't we teach that in engineering school? That it took me quite a while to figure that out. What would we how would we build differently if we did teach that to our builders, to our engineers in particular?

SPEAKER_02 7:16

Dan, I love that. I and you know what? I think you've hit on something I was thinking about before this podcast too, which is institutions and the fact that in our world today, it feels like they are being dismantled either systematically or one at a time. Um, and and what opportunities does that offer to us to do things differently, like teach engineers differently, like teach physicians differently. I think there's maybe a lot of possibility in some of the institutional destruction that we're seeing happen.

SPEAKER_01 7:53

Yeah. So how do we turn those possibilities into realities? Where are the levers that we can pull to nudge the building and the rebuilding in that more positive direction? That that's a big question.

SPEAKER_04 8:06

It is because why? It takes other people. And I think some of us are ready to build or rebuild, but not all of us are, right? And so we have to ask why. And, you know, what do you do about that, right? What do you do if you can't find a catalyzing nudge? And what does it take? Like, does everyone have to agree on the build and rebuild? And, you know, Lynn, when I was when I was listening to you, when I was hearing about institutions, it's kind of the fragility component, right, that comes in. And I know we talk a lot about white male fragility. And thank you, Dan, thank you, um, for letting us talk about that, right? But it's it's essentially a system that cannot accept criticism, right? That's kind of what we're talking about and can't be questioned. And so when I think about the building and rebuilding, and I wonder kind of, is is something too fragile to rebuild it? Like at what point in time do you say the what the institution was there for and its purpose were great? But is it still great today? Is it needed? And if you look at it and there's everything so fragile that there's no foundation, like what must be true to rebuild versus say in this new world order with how people are? Here's what education as an example means, right? We are in a misinformation world, it's only gonna get worse, global versus domestic, blah, blah, blah, kind of living. At what point, given human beings, feelings, right? Institutions of varying ages, it how do we know how to answer if something is a build or rebuild? What have you two seen? Like, what are the questions you ask yourself around when is it worth it? And when do you have to build versus rebuild?

SPEAKER_01 10:05

Yeah, Patty, I think you're really putting your finger on the social reality of building and rebuilding. That, you know, as much as we might ascribe to the, or as much as some people might ascribe to the great man theory of history, that building anything of substance, building anything that's going to last is a collaborative exercise, and we don't build in a vacuum. And this reminds me a couple of years back, there was a summer where suddenly my town had six frozen yogurt shops that all opened up in the same like week. And it was crazy.

SPEAKER_04 10:35

One card interrupt, but that sounds like a great problem to have.

SPEAKER_01 10:38

I was so excited. I love frozen yogurt, and I did my best to keep all six of them in business. I'm sorry, I couldn't do it. I could not possibly eat enough frozen yogurt. And what happened is they all went out of business. So we now have zero frozen yogurt shops. That doesn't mean that this town doesn't like frozen yogurt. We would have loved to have had frozen yogurt. We just didn't need six. So when we think about building and rebuilding, we should ask questions not just, does anybody like frozen yogurt? Does this town need frozen yogurt? We might also ask, does this town need six? Is somebody else building something similar uh nearby? Are there ways to sort of join forces or ways to distinguish ourselves? Because I couldn't tell you the difference between any of these six frozen yogurt places and what we ended up with was zero. So when we try and build in isolation, when we try and build without awareness of what's happening in the larger space, yeah, 10, we end up with no frozen yogurt. And I'm very sad about that still. Uh so how do how do we avoid that? How do we ask the good questions and pay attention to what's happening in the space around us and take a more social approach to our building?

SPEAKER_02 11:42

Yeah. What does it even look like to build collaboratively? I mean, going back to the question we started with about where to build the sandcastle, I think about when I see kids building sandcastles, the ones that seem to be last longer are the ones they build together. There's just more hands putting work into it. They seem more energized about rebuilding it. So that's children. What does it look like for adults to build collaboratively?

SPEAKER_00 12:11

I still like building sandcastles, and I'm I'm with you. It's more fun when you have somebody else building it with you.

SPEAKER_04 12:16

It is. I think, you know, for me, it's reminding me a bit of abundant leadership versus scarcity leadership, right? Abundant is and scarcity is or. And when you're bringing something together, it's different. I read this really good article this morning in the Boston Globe about the marijuana industry. And it went from this, it's a gold rush, right? It's gonna be amazing, and it's not gonna be like the tech industry. We're not gonna be a bro culture, and everyone's gonna win, and we're gonna get minority people in here, and we're gonna get all this stuff, and life's gonna be amazing, and we're all gonna be super happy, you know, for the rest of our lives. And instead, it is a case study in what not to do when you're building an industry from the ground up. There's the local government, the federal government, they're working in silos. So, what exactly are they building? I'm not sure. There are people entering to business who are not business people, who do not know the right questions to ask when it comes to is it worth the investment, right? And what is all those things? And what's it like to work with a government agency that's literally making up the rules as it goes along, right? What does it look like, Dan, to your point with you know, frozen yogurt? There's like 15 dispensaries within a one mile radius, nobody, right? So they have a billion-dollar inventory problem. And so when I see that from the ground up, you know, Harvard needs to get its business case people onto that, but they weren't building the sand castle together. They were building, some were not even building castles, right? Some were building other things. And so maybe that's one of the questions that we ask, whether it's building or rebuilding, how important and is everyone on the same page of what at least what the charter is or the impact, if not the what, then maybe how things should be different.

SPEAKER_01 14:11

So I came across two really interesting phrases in a political context that I think have applicability here. Uh, the phrases were hostility to criticism and contempt for disagreement. And I thought, boy, what a toxic mix to be hostile to criticism and contemptuous of disagreement. And it's easy to point to certain political actors and say, oh my gosh, that describes them so perfectly. And yet, how often does that show up in our own businesses, in our own projects and in our work? And to use a question that I asked in my latest book, Punk, how do we avoid being that kind of asshole? You know, it it's it's fine to say someone else is hostile to criticism, someone else is is contemptuous of anybody who disagrees with them. How do I maintain something other than hostility when I'm criticized? How do I maintain openness? How do I have appreciation for disagreement rather than contempt for disagreement? Yeah, that's that's kind of the the deep work of of maturing, right? The deep work of growing up.

SPEAKER_02 15:09

So I'm thinking about what's so the opposite of hostility to criticism and how that connects to building. So if you are open to disagreement and open to criticism, are you more able to build something?

SPEAKER_04 15:29

It it makes me wonder. I think it's important. And it goes back to what Dan had mentioned with the nudge, right? The catalyzation. And it goes back to why are people being hostile? So, number one, what I like that Dan said is asking yourself the question about ultimately what you can impact immediately. And that's your own behavior, right? The things I learned in kindergarten kind of thing. And one of the things, maybe is part of that we should be asking is not just checking our own openness about are we open to criticism, but check our own openness about being aware why someone may be not open to it and ask them some questions, but really like, is it about asking them questions to understand, accept, and maybe do what I would do as a marketer, which is manipulate the crap out of it? Or is it really because it should feed into the rebuilding or a net new build? Right? So maybe if this is just a new toolkit of questions, because I don't know about you guys, but it feels like everything's up for grads now in terms of what we build and rebuild.

SPEAKER_01 16:35

Yeah, and yes, absolutely. And so if if nobody is allowed to disagree with me, what do I miss? Don't I miss alternative perspectives? I miss other data points, I miss anything that doesn't reinforce my own biases and preferences. If nobody is allowed to criticize me, what do I miss? What do what do I leave on the table or what do I overlook? I probably overlook stuff that I should have some awareness of, whether I agree with the criticism or the disagreements or not, but just that experience of having those disagreements and having those conversations. How does that help us build better? I think it does. And by exposing us to things, you know, aspects of the of the thing that we might have overlooked otherwise.

SPEAKER_02 17:16

You know, these these questions have made me really like I think about what's the root of these sources of disagreement? Where does where does it go back to? And and I know it goes back so much farther than this, but it feels like we really started to see it during COVID, right? I mean, I was thinking about how fidelity and beliefs, including in things like science, that always seemed like so unquestionable, how could you question science? Became something that you could criticize and that that you could just say, you know what, I don't believe in that. And I'm just wondering like, what would it look like to rebuild science and how we think about science? Could we make scientific processes more transparent and accessible?

SPEAKER_01 18:03

Yeah, and I think you're asking a really important question here when we think about critiques of science or critiques of results. You know, one thing that drove me crazy with people is the science keeps changing. The science was actually not changing. New data was coming in, but the science was still science, there's still the scientific method. So it does make me wonder how do we make sure that the criticisms we offer and the criticisms that we receive and accept are our good faith criticisms, our valid criticisms, are criticisms in line with a scientific approach and not the uninformed bad faith actor type approach to criticism and disagreement. And so learning to tell the difference between those two, how do how do we how do we make sure we're we're telling the difference between those two? How do we make sure we are giving credence to the good faith argument and not giving too much credence to the the bad faith argument?

SPEAKER_04 18:54

I wonder if the the questions then, right, become has this person been down this path? Has this person made these decisions or lived with these decisions? Because there are opinions and then there's informed responses. And look at the business you two are in around innovation. It's part of who you are. If you simply just took a course and wanted to teach my team and I about innovation and the question we asked, I probably wouldn't hire you. So I think, right, we want people. So I'm a I executive coach for women, right? All my executive coaches have been women because our paths are in the things that we talk about are highly relatable. So, you know, do we set that table? Because you can't back to the sandcastle analogy, right? You've got to have other people because other people have not just the hard skills and all of that, but they to Dan's point have different ways of thinking for blind spots. Hopefully they're you know differently minded, like valued. But maybe we start thinking about building, rebuilding, whatever the answer to whatever question that might be, bringing those people in sooner who are being very thoughtful and intentional, right? Is it one of the things we should do is really think about, you know, here's where I am, here's where where I think this thing needs to be. And therefore, let's assemble a team that represents not only different knowledge, but different ways of thinking, but they already know that either some part of the topic or or something not. Like, Dan, you talked about engineering school, and that's a lot of planning and tech, and you need that because you don't want bridges to fall down or buildings. But what about the people piece? Shouldn't that be phase one?

SPEAKER_01 20:45

For sure. Yeah, go ahead, Lynn.

SPEAKER_02 20:47

Well, Patty, you're making me think again, back to the this educational question, and something that you said earlier made me realize is some of this questioning that people are feeling at risk because they don't know that much. Uh I think there's so much anxiety in our in our world right now because people are feeling less than uh undereducated, not as educated as someone else. And so, what if we could reenvision education, uh, for example, to foster scientific literacy as a civic capacity rather than just specialized knowledge?

SPEAKER_03 21:26

Okay, I wish people could see us on video because Dan and I, I think our heads just blew up.

SPEAKER_01 21:32

Lynn, you're a poet, and that was brilliant. Say that again. Scientific education as a civic capacity?

SPEAKER_02 21:40

Scientific literacy literacy as a civic capacity, yeah.

SPEAKER_01 21:44

Yes, that is oh my gosh.

SPEAKER_04 21:46

I think we can end the podcast.

SPEAKER_01 21:48

Yeah, thanks for coming, everybody. That's amazing. That's amazing. I love the way you frame that. The the combination of scientific literacy as a data-driven decision mechanism, but as a social capacity with an empathy built into it. I think that's the thing that's missing in so many places is this lack of empathy. We we tend to be self-centered rather than other centered. And Frank Turner is one of my favorite punk musicians. He's got this terrific song called Pandemic PTSD, going back to the COVID discussion earlier. And one of the lines toward the end of the song, and it just knocks me out every time, he says, it might not be you, but God knows it's us. And I think that is such a brilliant observation that you know, any given individual might not feel the weight of the of the pandemic's trauma. But we as a society, God knows, we as a society feel that weight of that pandemic trauma. So, how do we get beyond that self-centered perspective? How do we adopt a broader us-centric perspective? Is listening to punk rock the secret to all of this? Yes. Yes, it is. But also what Lynn said, and asking questions about how can we bring more empathy and scientific literacy into the work that we do? How do we, how do we make sure that we are doing our part to bring those things together?

SPEAKER_04 23:02

I love that. And I think, you know, we can't, and I know we're coming up against time, you two, but I can't help but think about the word that we talked about a little bit, which is the fragility of it all. And, you know, I think when we ask those questions, and and he's right, it is us, we have to also remember and be able to hold somewhere that not everybody is you, not everybody is us, not everyone wants to build or rebuild. And just because they don't, does that make them a bad person? Does that make them against you? Or are they simply on their own path? And going back to that, you know, ego-centered, we have to be willing to accept other people just might not be where we are. So I right, we're all there, right? And I don't know about you guys, but it's more than once a day. I got some judging going on, right? For other people who are maybe in a different part. But I think those are things, Dan, that that when I hear you, we have to add those questions and ask ourselves about those biases because we might be part of the problem and not even know it.

SPEAKER_01 24:10

Yeah. And Patty, you use the word fragile. So that reminds me of uh Nassim Talav's book, Anti-Fragile. And he sort of describes a spectrum from fragile on the one end, so things that break under pressure, like a teacup, to robust, sort of in the middle of the spectrum. That's things that don't break under pressure, like a rubber ball. And then if you keep going along that spectrum, you get to anti-fragile, which he admits is an awkward word. It's kind of an ugly word, but that describes something that gets stronger under pressure, like your muscles. And so I think one of the core questions in his book is how do we make things anti-fragile?

SPEAKER_02 24:43

I really like the concept of anti-fragile. I had not heard that until Dan, you just said it. And then getting back to, I guess, my my sort of allergic reaction to resilience these days, maybe anti-fragile is just another way to talk about resilience. And you know, as what now feels like a former athlete, so much of working out is about being anti-fragile, about not breaking under pressure. So yeah, I think that's a really I don't have a question. I just am left thinking about anti-fragility.

SPEAKER_04 25:17

I I love that, and I'm wondering, like, you know, resilience I've redefined as being successful because of, not despite, but the anti-fragile is so interesting. And I'm wondering, is that ultimately the goal here with building and rebuilding? Are there cases where to that, maybe fragility is also a virtue? I mean, an unbreakable teacup, like, is that really a better thing, right? Or is the fact that it is breakable, right? It is precious. And no matter what you do with the glue to put it back together, it will never be the same. Like, couldn't that be beautiful and valuable as well?

unknown 25:57

Yeah.

SPEAKER_01 25:57

And similarly, like, do we need a rubber ball that keeps getting stronger every time we bounce it? I think they made a movie. I think that was called Flubber. Or is it enough for the rubber ball to just keep bouncing? And it's just robust to stresses, it neither breaks nor gets stronger.

SPEAKER_02 26:11

Yes, yes. Is there a cost to making something anti-fragile? Maybe sometimes, right? And I'm not talking about just the financial cost, but the experiential cost. Like the unbreakable teacup, Patty. Maybe that makes tea time less special because it isn't something that you have to hold lightly in your hands.

SPEAKER_04 26:30

Oh, I love that, right? So, look, sometimes being anti-fragile, it might be the goal, right? Lynn, going back to your questions around things like government institutions, for example, do we actually want them to be unbreakable? Do we want to have the unbreakable teacup there? Or do we want them to be resilient instead so that they're standing because, right, or on top of large and small disruptions? Like, is that even possible? I think unbreakable is, I'm sorry, anti-fragile, excuse me, is is resonating better. And I'm already hearing myself ask different questions because of it. But what do you two think?

SPEAKER_01 27:09

Ooh, like what are the costs and what are the dangers of an unbreakable government institution? If it's shaped in a way that doesn't do good things, like what dangers are we introducing to the to the overall society?

SPEAKER_02 27:22

And I'm not sure anti-fragile and unbreakable are the same. They are different. Yeah. So I think as we rebuild our government, our democracy, our institutions, maybe we do it with a lens towards anti-fragile, but not unbreakable. Ooh.

SPEAKER_01 27:41

Because anti-fragile, like the exercise, the athletic when we talk about anti-fragile, like the athletic example you gave, Lynn, there is something to breaking down and then coming back stronger as opposed to not breaking down in the first place. And I know you had some personal uh experiences you could point to as well as we come to our ending here.

SPEAKER_02 28:00

Right. So I'll just share those as we come to a close. But working on this episode really got me thinking about the rebuilding that I've done in my personal life and most of it in the last, gosh, 10 years or so. I mean, from coming back from a serious head injury that I got while cycling to being able to do an Iron Man just four years later. It's the same four years that I got divorced, and I I had to rebuild my life. And oh my gosh, the questions that came up. So many questions, right? Is this the right thing? Who will be my friends? Will my sons be okay? How am I gonna run a marathon after I rode my bike 112 miles? Just a few of the questions in that personal rebuilding.

SPEAKER_01 28:40

Yeah, that is so much rebuilding on so many levels. And I know all that happened before I met you, but I am so glad to be one of your friends now. And you know, it's just a great reminder that when we talk about building and rebuilding, it's not just about the future, it's also about looking to our past. So, you know, what lessons or what skills, what resources or or what friends from our previous rebuilding might we want to bring forward into some future building or rebuilding?

SPEAKER_04 29:04

And you know, I know this is the listening for questions podcast, but I am never gonna question how happy it is to be building a relationship with the two of you. And, you know, that brings me to the how might, right? Because Lynn, that was such a personal story that is so relatable in so many ways to probably everyone listening here. And we all know this disruption starts with the person in the mirror, and we can't divorce to Dan's point. What questions are we asking and answering about ourselves first, right? In our kind of role in things. So, how might our personal rebuilding relate to other forms of rebuilding? Is that where we start? Or let's face it, is it all personal?

SPEAKER_01 29:47

Well, that's our time for today. We hope today's episode has sparked lots of questions for you and gotten you thinking about rebuilding in ways both large and small and all meaningful.

SPEAKER_04 29:56

And who might you share those questions with and Who do you want to build your next rebuilding project with?

SPEAKER_02 30:04

Thank you so much for coming on this journey of rebuilding and discovery with us. Be sure to join us next time when we'll ask questions about misinformation and disinformation. And is there a difference?

SPEAKER_01 30:15

Ooh, what are the questions we should be asking when we talk about misinformation and disinformation? Stay tuned, everybody.

SPEAKER_04 30:21

I can't wait for that one. Today's episode was sponsored by Sandcastles because isn't that how we all learned about building and rebuilding? Our music was composed by Jake Cuppernal.

SPEAKER_01 30:33

Our cover art was created by Mads Graham.

SPEAKER_04 30:35

Catch y'all next time.