so our vision can be built as a deterministic tool first with AI in the background but it's not you can call it but it's not always there and the second is like a what is already out there with codex and then on the left left side chat window right side tool window and then you're controlling the tools to the chat and also to the mouse if you want to because the reason this question is important because the user is the targeting is not used to work in that that used to working see the tools first and then call the scripting interface and they need to so it's not just about our product but it's also about change asking a human being to change how to use their tools so that's why this question becomes important is that it's a bit like this target is to make a phone and you wonder if people would be interested in using a screen, a screen, a touch screen because they're used to working so much with their buttons and the heat and they are messy so maybe actually interested so it's a question like that. When you mention you need the AI in the back end but not only when you want it and then you also mention the interface can be having the chat window and the window. Would it give a false or false pretense to the engineers that it is an AI tool but portray as only non-air or only air when needed. I mean it can be both right? So based on the requirement you can go with fully non-air. But also the approach to design, it's been developed in the developer for the 80 years, the CAD tools. I don't think we can change it or replace it for the environment. This is my vision, like the way it would actually start now. So you can have a chat, you can do this to operate everything here but if you don't want it, you can hide it. When you're here I cannot hide it but you will build something you can hide it or you can use it. Use them all. So I think this is the future. Both, both. Personally I think 80% of the tasks that engineers perform can be done just by this. But for the expert, 20% you need all the things. But the design creation is done in standards. My vision would be that design creation can also be shared here in the office, like you are sharing the screen or you are designing the data in the screen. Like you can look at it. So are there still the design takes place any door is going to open? I have been in that tool. But you can see here. It's open or you can use a patch mode but what about the modeling itself? The actual design that also takes place in the main tool. It's an interface question, right? You can call a high list mode of hypermetrics. So you're using their kernel but the display is happening here. That's totally worth it. So we are not replacing the design part. We are not replacing the after designing iteration. Not the radius. So you are just visualizing the design process in the window but not the actual design parts. Right now it's like that but in the future I think the design part can be. But for that we need to learn the structure of the design. Like the 4-step itself. If it's a arrow-quadde engineer who is which step to make it and then you follow those steps. So that already some people are working on it but I think it will take a few years. Yes, sorry, now the question. More discussing again. The screen of it? Do we still believe that the normalization of the domain is to do this a long term interaction model? Because we are changing the way of that when you are in the very form. Right. It's a fundamental question. Yeah, we can predict it but what we feel like a day. I feel that we can also replace it in a different sense as an augmentation to the standard traditional cat approach. In the traditional cat approach when you are creating your parameter design. You need to create a sketch first and then you need to name your remotely. And then create parameters based off of it and then you create an entire model. And then add more sketches, more planes and everything. And you need to make sure of naming everything correctly as well. So that it's representing certain part of the geometry. And that is a tedious process. We can also open something that quickly coded the domain right now. You can just speak up. Yeah, that's my vision. I think that's the future. In the media is this. For your research. This goes away. You just speak. You start. But you can use AI help. And then you can still take over. Yeah. The bad will take over is we cannot compromise on that. That the person can verify themselves from technical topic. I think that will be the vision. That will be the future. So we are aligned on this. I think it's we don't need to spend. Yeah. It's recording. And I think this is an important question. What should be absolutely not become even if customers ask for it for me. It's like the incentive. Even if you have to become a PM tool but not as soul sucking as a PM tool. People feel grateful. It can do a lot of things. But people are like. Yeah, but even mind the reason they are doing like that because they are concentrating on certifications. I guess you require certain things. I think the user experience is not the part of it. It's just because they are not talented. They are just monocles. They are not talented. I remember like very big players like the center from Simmons, where some of the hometowns, these two are like giants. What other. There are small pianos. Small pianos are also like shoes of friendly as well. I was going to like the PM tool. Very user friendly as well. But it's not focused for certifications. Documentation the way it does. It's not ready for getting the other foundation. So I mean there might be some growth to that. But at least when I use things under I felt like my mind why are going to have to click 10 times. I can understand a case of education with a requirement. Why do I need to click five times to attach a word to a part number like. Why can it be just one or two clicks? Sure. I think that there is some truth to the fact that itself not a deep use. Because they know that they are designing it for engineers. So they don't put effort in making it user friendly. I feel like that. I mean I will say one thing. I fully agree that whatever we build, it needs to be user friendly. I will be here. But the question that you are asking right now is why aren't you coming? I don't think this why answers this question. I don't know what this would be. 

Like a concept in the company. This is important. Yes. So this is an average of that. Are we also writing services besides a product like integration of the product for trainings. Providing trainings to the engineers. Are we doing that on North? Yes or no? You have to do that. To keep people educated of the new updates. The services are also part of our product. What is the service is company? Not only self-service. But can just be a service. We are telling engineers how to design things or basically that would be crazy. But there can be a market where we can look in the future. There is a good demand for it. Just designing using these tools. Yes. Providing some design as per that's not a notion. I mean right now I don't know what to do. Yes. People serve it. I have been working for service industry for a few years now. I have a feeling that this whole model of providing people is an obsolete model. People, A.I. will for sure, it plays at least this, that people are getting something. This is an order-school thing. And I don't see this as a future. I think our focus needs to be product. Yes, there will be some work packages with the product that will probably help you integrate and help you get it. You can use it in the best practices or whatever. But if we take service in itself as a filler and the work we want to have, I don't use on a B2 foot for it in that coming years. Because we are integrating with the existing tools. So there is no need, initial need to have a service. So this is how I was watching. I told my colleagues to become a service. So this is how I was watching. I told them to become a service. I had one thing in mind. We don't want to recreate something that already exists. Unless there is a good innovation point in it. Even if competitive violence, we don't want to recreate something that's... If it's simple, we can recreate it. But if it takes more manners and then if it already exists, and you are just recreating for the sake of it, that's just not good. And all you decide that because everything is almost like this. No, it's nothing unique. No, but you can have some part of innovation into the whole recreation. If there is no recreation, if there is no innovation, you are playing with rebuilding something. Okay. Some companies like some parts of something. And it might fit well. But if it's a big task, we don't want to take it out. We should not be focusing on something one company demand. If everyone demands for it, then there is a good need for it. That depends on the customer. It seems answers to the bill. And I said we will pay you so much. And why not? That's a bit incentivized work. For recreating something. But if there is one customer requesting to integrate a thing, then not just integrating, recreating something to be in the tool, which we can just integrate or do it in a different sense. Or they can just use it separately. That's a different question to all of us. We can go to the summit and they ask us to build something that we have not built right now, but they are willing to pay us good money. And we have to discuss it. No, definitely. The priority will always be incentivized. Okay. There is a little bit of it. Yeah. That's cool. But during the conversation parts, if there is a point that they make that, you rebuild it. No, they couldn't be that claim. But the underlying meaning could be, implication could be like rebuilding something else. We don't want to rebuild something that already exists. Okay. Okay, fine now. Good point. And just one thing I want to elaborate to what you said to, I think I just like point-wise, Lord. I think what we can frame it as our way of doing things. If we want to do something, it could have an innovation aspect or just how we see as school founders, as people solving this problem, how this should be covered. If we don't see it adding any special value to it, we don't do it. I think this is something we should be very concerned about. If we are going to do something, it will be our way of looking at this thing. What we think is the best way, or what a demand is basically. But it has to have an annual, a kind of like a standard implementation. That's one thing. But second point, I hope you see it warning by the way. Second point, the figure is, out of the box solution, works as customizations. Because you know, like you're trying to get a double of the type of the source system PDX, the source system releases all of the box solution. However, Airbus implements it in a very customized way. Which is also the same thing. Next, S&P, everybody in all the customers. So I think here, we also need to be very aware of already going to work towards customizations as well, or already going to stick to our box solutions. This is our solution. This is how you use it. No customizations. The initial stages, we don't have any choice, but to keep some customizations right. We'll have to adapt to the way the initial pilots are working. But once we reach a certain point, then we will give an absolute or minimal customizations. We can give some customizations, but if it's reasonable, we can't give a fully customized tool. It can't be a drab of block base building to a modular deck. It can't be too customized. Then it has to be a different kind of product. But in the initial stages, this is exactly what I've also asked you in this last question. Absolutely not to become a customized tool for everyone. In the initial, yes, I can understand that, but medium, long-term, you know, long-term block solution is a solution. Then it would have also, you know, the apple way of doing things, so to say, as they say that this is how we see the things needs to be used. People like it, if we don't like it, whatever they seem, right? Yeah, for. The vision is going in the right direction. They see a vision and they want to take people there, perhaps for mechanical injuries, or also a industry, we can also be that company natural, shows the way, this is where you guys need to go. Yeah. So for that, less customization, more how our solution should look like from our perspective. But they have to be some leeway, some leeway for sure, they're different. The definition of that will be, will be more accurate, asking all along, as we have getting more riders, you can identify it right now, some points, this one, please. The initial stage, we have to be fluid, we have to be, I don't know what I'm going to do, but I want to get up and get a good shot. Will you be slimy, and then we go wrong? That's true. That's true, that's true. Okay, okay, nice, nice, nice. And then we have this in one part of this one, this discussion about the time frames. This will count in planning, and after we've made some sense. Okay, nice. All right there. I think the comprey vision we have discussed nicely, personal vision, we have also discussed product vision, as opposed to... But it's hard to decide on the product vision. We have to decide on the long term product vision. But we can only be, we cannot be very accurate. Yeah, on the product. We have to be quite adaptable to what time that's trading for us. Yeah. 

But honestly, on product vision, I want to hear your opinion, I'm like this, are you opinion of them? By the way, you know, I come to my gym, I'm going to work so this piece out. I want to understand what you guys think about this as well, because I feel that you guys have a right-thinking expertise to share how you are seeing it right now. I don't have a vision of product vision that I can give you, that is what I'm seeing right now. I only go with the vision that you guys have, not much to say here. 

So what bits and pieces can always be put to the right, good short, beautiful, short, short, short. At the end of the day, it has to be a lot of functional work. I give too much value to aesthetics. I work a lot on even of my personal things, to make it look good, and to make it look minimal, I have high-pung style. That's... My design for those of you. It needs more work, definitely. So I've not been able to invest more time. With some commitment, as it's also important point, but yeah, I fully agree with you. I know Shikar and Wigin were spoken a lot of other things, different things, different things. These days, I mean, the genius guy, of course, but also this love for art and mathematics and science. It's like since then coming in, even like, you know, showing his drawings on wheels or mechanical partners, but then coming with shading and how it needs to look and how it looks like. Like you're like, man, that's like the combination of these two things that possible as we aspire to be quite large as well. Now, it's been that way before these auto-cactools took over, a lot of mechanical engineering engineers were drawing by hand by hand. They are artists, they are. And they have that flare of having some style of personal style as well. For sure. These days we lost the artistic. We have solely mainly the better of these tools and the more artistic. But I mean, I hope in the product, we'll show the love for art, what we will have for sure. That's something that we can definitely do. Spong it, nice, nice. By the way, if you're getting tired, you can also chill a bit, easy-comfortable as well, or grab something, so just, you know, be comfortable. Good things. 

Now, last night, Oh, that's my philosophy. Keep calm, a question, everything, everything. I have a question, everybody. Yes. That's a great. Yes, a nice stuff for actually. I mean, these, the old-do ones, probably you can't wait, but also a very interesting thing. Probably. Definitely can't wait. But I can definitely understand if you speak it up. It's a ick. Yeah, love, love. Yeah, waiting wait. So, yeah, exactly. It's an anomaly, or there is, it was interesting to see that. This place is pretty artistic as well. And now, right now, we look in the days of moving, something that a bit, here and there, but generally, it is a bit of a bit of a... Oh, moving out. Yeah, he's moving out. He's moving in the middle of the circuit. Right. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. And we have some quite a few fun 90s, or so on. It's a part of my... You want to do art as well? I am not an artisting person, I'm not all, unfortunately. I can like, you know, like this is this question, whether you are creative or analytical. I always mention myself as an analytical person, not a creative person, but I appreciate art quite a lot. Like, I'm saying, ours is looking at beautiful things, paintings, design, music, really appreciated, love, very good museum. A sculpture for a novel that never lighten, I thought it was important, I don't care. But last several years, also appreciating it so much, you know, a little... A little... A little... A little... A little... Is it recording? Yeah. Oh, yeah. It recording. Why? So, I've been using the effects of... Yeah, I was using... No, but, yeah. Coming back to... Yeah, you just missed one topic. I mean, it was... What trigger was saying that... In my case, customization was one thing, I suppose. What that means, one more thing. What we should not do is... Have our own way of doing things, like innovation, have our vision to anything that we're doing, but I was also saying that we need to... We need to be careful about customization versus our robot solution. How much will customize our solution to the needs, versus that the shared solution that we will provide, what we think is the right way of doing things, the best way of doing things. So, we should never point out in the beginning, obviously, we'll be flexible, we'll do whatever customization people are asking, or to gain traction. But at some point, we will clear this... And make this public, that we'll get this, the solution on the box, and least about customization. Maybe some small customization, where mainly our vision of... How somebody needs to be done. So, that the question, what it should not be done, which should not be a solution that's customizing, customizing everybody, but rather an hour of work solution, that everybody needs to start with. Okay. Very well. Yeah, you need a diverse set of users, so they can capture the large cross section, or area of the problem. Yeah. Okay. There was one more point about the product vision, in a little bit more detail, how you see the product to be indicated, and how you see the users interact with it. Not too detailed, but in a general sense of anxiety, interaction with the product by the users. So, you should be discussing now, or is it saying that, would it be a point that fits now? I mean, for me, part vision, I want to understand, from both of you guys, on a soft level, but on a hard level. Yeah, I think we'll have a hard to fetch, and the whole, we can make the user flow, like it's a mechanical engineer, but in this field, it's an electrical engineer, and then we can ideate about that. You know, we can go into detail now, I think. Okay, so we give highlight on the product, which we've already done, I suppose. Okay. All we can, you know, make a break, and go into that, but that, I think we'll just continue to our, the more, if we are talking on the, the ideas and how the real world is. Yeah. So, for me, what I really struggle is the second question, how do we balance product ambition versus focus product launch? We call it, I think recently, with the AI coding, and, I think I've unlocked, like a child skill, you know, like you're just, you will have, you can build everything. And it's, and you can combine that with your idea, because I see, I have always had a lot of ideas, I think you do, but I will always, always grab a little bit, that my coding skills, I understood code, but, like writing code, I would not always like finding it, it's, it's pleasure. So now that has gone, and I can just do whatever I want. So, for me, when I see it, there are so many things we can do, we can become like a collaboration platform, we can become like a review platform, and I, when I talk to people, like everybody wants something different, one person told me to focus on the review, one person told me, it would be interesting, within a collaboration platform, my holocopter friends for like review, and drawing review, are useful for them. So, each one of those things can, take all the time that you have, and that's what I struggle, these days, that what do I focus on? And in addition to that, you also have to contact people, you also have to apply for incubators, apply for page, apply for other things. Look, always, look what, look out for opportunities at my high-end startup. So there are so many things, and this is what I struggle with. I don't think we can answer it, as well. I think finding customers and then just aligning your, for the direction of the customer, is what everybody says, and at the same time, I think it would be nice if we could all take a moment to think about it. Like, you have a vision, and then you go step by step from that, you're like, oh no, I go there, I go here, but like, you're always moving in the direction, but the steps are not the same. Sometimes you have to go in one direction, for one product, for the other product, a direction for the other product, and then hope that they're all convert. If we have a large thing, then yes, each one of us can focus on one wish. And then it's fine. Do you also think about individual products as separated or integrated? No vision is that they're integrated, but like, now I'm thinking more, talking more about the amount of time you get to. No, I guess. So which product? Which product? Which product? And I think it should come from the customer so we are with the right thing, they're approaching companies, and they can tell us, but still, no, because they can also deform it in a way, if they know we want to become this, this is our origin. So then we change our company's art strategy, and find companies where we believe the signals are coming that they would want this solution. Right now, the companies that are selected, I believe they will be more interested in designing the views and change tracking, and then maybe collaboration. But if we want to say, we want to become like a collaboration to first, then we might have to change our first credit rate. Right. So, do you need to change your service to find the right signals? We can approach this in a very structured way, in a sense. We can look for the sectors which have, business money, maintenance space, or these types you can also say, railway, it's an defence, defence is only on the aerospace base, right? No, and as we were mentioned, defence includes the language, and a lot of it. But then you can go with the money. Money goes to sector, sector goes to companies, you reach out to those companies, and you can look what the common point is, further responses with it, and then based on the common points, you can curate the tool, and then start, that's an ideal approach. But at the end, it's always going to be about the money, right? Why not just approach it from that target? Normally, we will say that we should think of the problem. Like, if you go to start and start and say, what's the problem? Probably you want to solve the problem and what is the problem? But the problem is you're trying to make it in different sectors. Yeah, so that's why you should start, like, okay, this sector, what's the problem? Exactly, I'm saying to choose the sector, go for the biggest money where the sector is making the biggest money, and then go to that sector, and then search for the company, and then we can go over reach out to those companies, and then contact about what the main channels are. And if these challenges are already there, they are facing. And what kind of solutions steps they are taking to mitigate those challenges. Then the proposal comes. So it's like a top-down approach. I think this makes more sense, but also one thing we need to be careful about, let's say if we say defense as a sector that we want to go in, we have to be aware of the constraints a defense sector will have, and it comes with my strategies where I'm aware, it comes with how my access data we can have. So this also, like, these kind of challenges that will, for sure, come on some segments or all, but for some, every way of that. But do we just say one thing on this topic of my point of view? So I can't say much about this question right now. I think once we talk about a technical product vision, then we can discuss the topic of which part do we product, how do we do it? I think, yeah, I put it there so that it encapsulates the discussion we have in hand now. So that we have it in the back of the way, and we have so many things to do for sure. And we keep thinking about it. Yeah, yeah. This question is very, very important. I also had a minor as well. I think for a technical product vision, this will be the next question after discussing the technical product vision. But all the solutions that all the products will have already built, it caters to individual type of manufacturer product, a company design type. So if a company has iteratively, progressively growing product, then they will have to deal with design users. If a product has a lot of collaboration, that goes into our main big assembly, then they will have to collaborate a lot. Their collaborations will be over. So if you try to reach out to companies of different fields, they all have different problems. And we can cater to all of those problems. Yeah. But then the one that you have to search for the company, where you believe that our tools, for instance, in the search part area of the company, if you have correct specific, if they show on their website that they are really to do center or 3DS, then they don't want to focus on that. Because they are already 3DS, especially as so many of these features. So if they are already listed in this, then I don't know, like, like, far as approach companies are like small, they have iteratively, but they don't show signals of BLM on their website, for so many parts of the social performance, I guess, opportunity for us to capture them before they go into Siemens for this way of environment. That's all I have to search right now. For collaboration, we can also change the search right away as a company which are more design studios, especially design studios, so they rely more on talking to each other and having. For instance, like Google Drive, you can see, okay, very good Google Drive is more useful. That's where you have a lot of designers, working in different niches, and they have to interact with each other. But maybe a company that has just two designers and one or five designers, and they already have the machine shop underneath, maybe they don't need it. So like these, this is the way we need to define our search right away. Google Organically happens as well, because we cannot always be correct. The company is regarded, and we can make 100 companies. But it just helps to keep people finding their value. Now I'm thinking of also within Startup, for instance, I went to do a career fair in the Startup list, also in the talent hour, there were mechanical startups, so we would, but we like there, I also would target as well, because some of them are at the start, so change management there is also very important. At the end of the day, we don't know that as a budget tool, I already started to be a them tool. So maybe it's a target, and so that's how I'm taking myself. Focus comes in search, like the way I described the wasommet, no B&M, signals, and the second is Startup. These tools are the new lists that I created. There's a lot. The previous one was the one we were on the actual work that's like manufacturing companies, with this many people, and they make CNC or get more than mail. So I found those, but then I identified it. But are you limiting the search to startups only or prioritizing startups? I mean, we are not doing it now, we're only two. It's like send, send, send, send, send. Scan and done. Scan and done. I think with startups, it can be more focused if you guys know someone, startups will be willing. It's like, okay, I'm going to be cool. But also we have to target some startups where they have some good links. It could be good. They are funding. Not exactly funding, but relation to the industry, we can use the startups as a way to get attention to the real issue with the company. 

Let's take a break. Sure. Next one. I have all the course I have course that I'm doing one-on-one at range. They get it for people who cannot understand I range and I'm going to look in for data. You're like, what's going on? I'm looking for data. I'll take the technical drive. But you're like, you know, message me or like, you're like, what's up? I'm having no questions. I'll just buy the thing and buy the data. I'm not looking at the start, But is it good? What? The course? Yeah, it's good for that. I am just listening, but they are for Pakistani standards. I think it's really good for them. Because they are very well organized. They are like you do what they make. You push to do action coding and working on whole app. Can you push in so that you can do this? I don't know who moves so much. Yeah, I think it's like live. You have to talk. I think it's a nice move. Okay, the problem is the breaker. What's the next topic on the window? So we have two options. Either we talk about equity and our commitments, vision, goal, whatever personal time. Or we already have the technical topic coming up. No, I would propose that we finish the commitment equity and the ordinance. Government? Yes, government. Yes, government. Yes. 

And every dive into operation. Or technical. Technical. Yes. My operation is not technical. And I am using this.