Editor's Note: This transcript was automatically transcribed, so mistakes are inevitable. You can contribute by proofreading the transcript or highlighting the mistakes. Sign up to be amongst the first contributors.
And particularly these days, in advancing the fundamental sciences, you really do have to have a multi decade time scale. The biggest problem we face right now, and one we're struggling with and trying to be as creative as possible with is knowledge transfer and.
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory is one of two national laboratories in the US, these national labs are tasked with a critical mission of developing the research technologies and technical infrastructure necessary to create new technologies. Many of the commercial companies and inventors you see got their inspiration and research from, you guessed it, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. The labs is hard at work protecting Americans and everyone from existential threats, whether it's pandemics, climate change, challenges with genomics, safeguarding nuclear weapons, new space telescopes, supercomputers or defense technologies, the labs leads the way.
Leading the labs is director Bill Goldstein. Bill has been at the helm for over six years and has overseen some of the world's most incredible projects. We talk about those today, including how he got his start at the labs and rose to becoming its director. Today, you'll hear many stories from Bill as he gives us a behind the scenes look at one of the most amazing places in the world, Lawrence Livermore National Labs.
This season of Hidden in Plain Sight is brought to you exclusively by our friends at Splunk. The Data to Everything platform Splunk helps organizations worldwide turn data into doing its time for data to be more than a record of what happened.
It's time to make things happen.
Learn more at Splunk Dotcom or by clicking the link in our show o'Nuts. Bill, welcome back. Thank you, Chad. It's great to be back. Round two is ready to kick off. Thank you so much for this present. I'm looking at a copy of The American Lab, An Insider's History at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory by former director Bruce Tarta. Can't wait to read this.
Really excited to dive in today. But first, how are you, sir? I'm doing well. I just wanted to get an update on you and see kind of put our pulse back on the l l l, l and L vibe and kind of see what's going on. So what have you been up to?
Well, we've been very busy getting busier every day. As you know, we have a primary mission in supporting the nuclear deterrent. The tenor of the times is becoming more and more strained in some sense in international affairs. We see a great deal of activity taking place in your competitor nations, the development of of their nuclear capabilities. And there's a perception in the country, frankly, that the US has been lagging. That's leading to very much a hurry up.
Right. Kind of like Gaist.
So we're caught up in that. There's a tremendous push to get things done and get things done quickly, be responsive to do it, frankly, after a long period of comparative quiescence in the US and in this area.
And are you referring to basically when we stop testing nuclear weapons in the physical world and just reverted to simulations, or what time period is that acquiescence kind of start in your mind?
Yeah, that is the right time period to stopping. Testing was only a part of that. That came along with a significant decrease in the amount of investment in all of the kinds of capabilities that are necessary to sustain a nuclear stockpile. The assumption at the time, which was I think an entirely natural one and a very aspirational one, was that we were entering a period during which nuclear weapons would become less important, would would become less a part of US national defense and and the international situation generally, and that there was no longer be a need to invest in the kinds of manufacturing capabilities that that were somewhat unique, that go into making nuclear weapons, as well as along with testing, not doing that.
That's lasted for some time. And the result has been we've allowed all of that infrastructure to fall into disuse and decay, and it's now requires moving very quickly to try to recover it and recapitalize it. Sorry to make that a long story, but it has been basically since 1992 that we have not done a lot of these things yet. Here we are 30 years later. Sure. Trying to do them again. Right. And there's a lot of activity around.
And with such a large industry, too, I'd imagine that, you know, lagging in manufacturing in the nuclear area probably has spillover effects and can't imagine all the other industries that the nuclear industry touches. Right. In the defense community. And so are there any specific examples of how you're going about hurrying up that recovery and kind of getting us back up to speed to be competitive there?
We have lost the ability to make a whole bunch of things that are, in fact, special to nuclear weapons. So you ask about the spill over into the general manufacturing sector. There are issues there, as you know as well, with manufacturing capabilities leaving the US and trying to rebuild those. But the manufacturing capabilities that are required for the job we do are actually very specialized. They involve special kinds of materials like plutonium and uranium and tritium or radioactive materials.
So the the manufacturing that is actually very specialized, losing the ability to do that. You really can't draw on expertise or capabilities elsewhere in order to bring those back up. You just you just have to do the hard work of recovering the ability to do those things. Now, what we are trying to do so you think about it, we stop doing a lot of these things. Twenty five years ago or so when we were doing it then we were using techniques that were twenty five years old, really manufacturing.
We were doing nothing like that in the complex. Now there's the potential to actually speed things up, do things more efficiently, do things more cost effectively with less waste and with better control and better yield in the in the manufacturing by using techniques like advanced manufacturing techniques like 3D printing. This brings up all sorts of questions about can you 3D print the very special things that go into these very special systems. And that's been an area of tremendous focus and concentration for us.
It really is state of the art. It's pushing these 3D printing capabilities right to the edge. Frankly, it's among the most exciting things that we're doing at the laboratory now. You know, you start to think about and by the way, the components that go in here have to go into these systems, have to last for 40 years or so. Wow. That's how long these systems have been have been lasting. And that's generally how long they're going to have to last.
So materials have. Be robust, they have to be compatible, they have to be special, and we're learning how to do these things at the same time we have to be actually doing them. We really are. I mean, there's an old saying about, you know, building a plane while you're flying it. I mean, that's really what we're doing. Right. So it's really hard, but it's very exciting. Yeah.
It seems like it's somewhat of a forcing function or those constraints are going to maybe allow for some new types of creativity. So, you know, you're a physicist by training with the state of the industry now with all these brand new advances and 3D printing and things, did you ever is it more than you could have imagined, say, like a decade or two decades ago? Are you optimistic about it or are you pessimistic or just is the verdict still out?
I'm very optimistic that new techniques. Advanced manufacturing techniques will have a major impact and and potentially revolutionize. The way we do this very special business, I'm sure it will happen elsewhere in the economy as well and is happening. But I think I'm very optimistic that this will have a large impact on the way on our ability to get this job done of modernizing our stockpile now in a short amount of time, in a constrained amount of time, let me put it that way, for what short means, but in a constrained amount of time, I think it's going to be instrumental in allowing us to do that.
Having said that, there are real challenges. We make plutonium parts for these weapons. We have not done that in at least 10 years. And it's a very specialized so it's a major priority right now is basically relearning how to how to make these parts. And frankly, our ability to ensure that that we can succeed in keeping the US deterrent effective and viable depends on our being able to. Bring back the art of doing this. Sure. I'm optimistic, but it's tremendously challenging.
Yeah, it sounds like it. And I think for listeners to hear this, as you know, this isn't a preoccupation with war. This is a preoccupation with deterrence and preemption. This is a preoccupation with peace.
I'll say that bluntly. The whole point of of having an effective deterrent is to make sure that nobody thinks that they can use a nuclear weapon.
Definitely. Especially it's important to remember that, you know, all of the consumer technologies we have and stuff we're often a result of defense investment, whether it's ARPANET or even more obscure, you know, defense funded expeditions that I was reading a book about botany. There's a whole host of things that the defense industry has funded and led to innovations and cures all over the spectrum. I'm really curious to get your take on what are the other types of industries, like energy, for instance, that this type of relearning can help provide new insights for?
And what's Lawrence Livermore up to when it comes to energy?
We actually apply. I would say the same kinds of innovative thinking and new technology development, many cases of exactly the spinoff sense that you talked about where we develop things that are necessary for the defense mission and then have unique applications in other spaces, including energy. So a good deal of the 3D manufacturing work that we have is actually in the development of materials, new materials or materials with new properties that are relevant to energy storage, a carbon capture and other high leverage developments in the energy space.
We did just issue a new report. It was actually sponsored by Climate Works, looking at the maturity or the state of technology and the costs of fielding that technology in California in order to meet the goals of the California goal of negative carbon emissions, basically getting to zero by 2045. Well, so this is the new goal for the state. It actually will require looking at it today, it will require negative carbon emissions, in other words, carbon capture and carbon sequestration.
And the question that we addressed was, are there technologies now a sufficient state of readiness that they could be deployed at scale in California and actually give us reason to hope that we could actually reach reach a state of negative of of carbon neutrality by twenty, forty five. And actually the answer the study took into account technologies, the economics involved. So basically a cradle to grave kind of cost analysis of what would be involved in getting to neutral and came to the conclusion that it could be done, that there are technologies extant now that could be scaled and could be scaled at a reasonable cost.
And because of certain unique aspects of California, including geological aspects of the state, the forestation and plans for forestation in the state as well as existing policies having to do with the use of of bio waste for fuels. When you combine all those together, it turns out you can, for a not unreasonable cost, capture and develop negative carbon approaches that can get you to zero in 2045. So this was just issued, I think, January 30th in Sacramento.
So at least for California, I think it'll have a major impact on perception of what can be done here. That's really exciting.
And there are a lot of reasons to hope for the future. That's definitely one of them. If we look at a longer time scale, it appears that we not only need to tackle the fact that the climate is heating up, but also prepare for some drastic cooling, drastic heating. We really need to get to a place where we're able to do some geoengineering right at scale. Are there any other wild ideas about carbon sequestration? Maybe some specific examples from the report?
What's the future of that going to be like? Because we're going to need to master this planet before we can start terraforming others?
Well, I'll tell you the whole idea that the reporters these are not wild ideas and that they're actually available. They do involve burning by actually most of the you get most of the way there by burning, by waste and capturing the CO2 that that results from that, turning that CO2 into a combination of hydrogen and sequestered carbon dioxide. There are significant geographical geological formations within the state that that would be excellent for holding large amounts of CO2 and sequestering it on the ground.
There are methods for producing the hydrogen. I would say the probably the infrastructure that is most one of that's most far fetched right now is just putting it in the infrastructure to actually use the hydrogen that you would produce and use it effectively.
Significant counteragent, fuel cells, some of the fuel cells, hydrogen cars, the actual infrastructure that would pipe hydrogen around there is capital investment in. All done this, but it's not the science fiction, I mean, these are things that exist today and could be done when you start talking about geoengineering. I'm less comfortable talking about things that I know. There are many people or people have suggested. It's speculative, very speculative. It becomes difficult to imagine how you're going to do a controlled experiment to make sure you're not doing something.
Which kind of one right now we to do the virtual simulation.
Yeah. So I, I'm not sure how quickly that sort of thing is going to move along. And, you know, for most of the things I've seen, there are paths like the one laid out that we laid out for California that are responsive to the pressures we're feeling right now. There are pathways along which we can go to start to address these problems. But I'm sorry you raised another important issue, which is that of adaptation, which is the fact that if we're not successful.
Around the world in reducing the mean temperature that appears to be the direction we're heading, how do we prepare our coastal areas for the inevitable impacts that they're going to see? Right. That's a very a very large problem that has to be addressed. We tend to be looking at ways we can avoid getting to that situation, right? Yeah.
Avoidance always a better strategy than adaptation, I think, although we may end up there. Yeah.
And you mentioned before we started recording this, your six year anniversary as the director. So congratulations. That's a yeah. It's very exciting. If you could take us back. And are there have there been a couple stories that really stand out to you in your career about that maybe showcase like the culture of the labs or what you signed up for this job, for that really like exemplify what you feel like the labs is all about?
You mentioned the coronavirus. Yeah. So that's, I think, an area in which things that we've been able to do at the lab in collaboration with other centers of expertise, I think are starting to show us that there may be ways to respond to these kinds of surprises, biological events in a systematic and rapid fashion as far as developing therapeutics and solutions. The typical problem is, you know, first you have to figure out what it is you're dealing with.
Then then you have to figure out what a possible target is that you could that you could use to address it with a drug. Then you have to invent the drug. Then you have to test the drug and make sure it's safe. And then there are human trials, phase one face to face three, then FDA approval and time scale for developing a response to new kinds of threats is just daunting. And it's not clear it's fit to purpose. I think we've been working hard, along with partners at NIH in the University of California, to try to put together capabilities that would allow us to first quickly identify the structure of his carrying agents and then quickly develop therapeutics and rapidly understand their safety and efficacy.
And I may have talked about a little bit about this last time, but a lot of it involves in silico work. So using very powerful computers to more quickly or short circuit a good deal of the experimental work in vivo and just accelerate the processes. We're actually starting to see some of this come to pass right now. So one of the things that we've done as a result of the coronavirus outbreak was we were in a position to very, very quickly put out a set of potential protein structures that would be spam the possible represent the possible spectrum.
That could be the structure of the protein in the coronavirus. We could put these out and allow researchers to start to immediately work on them and try to develop targets associated with these hypothetical structures. And at the same time, we now have platforms that allow us to test very quickly using the computers interaction of various drugs or potential drugs with those proteins. I don't think we're going to actually be in a position to significantly change the course of events with respect to this outbreak.
But I think that having done the work that we've done over the last several years and that I'm seeing come together. In this real case application. I think the next time this happens, we may be able to see what are we through to being able to respond with platforms that exist on large computers that allow us to quickly identify targets, quickly identify therapeutics, quickly make decisions about efficacy and toxicity, and really bring them to bear to help people.
I think that's fascinating what you said about the other researchers, potentially like around the world or at other institutions getting that information, that information sharing is a great way to combat the possibility of a real pandemic or fast spread. You would want to get that information in the hands of protein details or whatever in the hands of as many researchers as possible.
So this is an example is a long winded one, but an example of something I think we've done over the last several years that I can see. First of all, it represents, I think, the best of what the labs can do because it brings together all of these different field computational science, physical sciences, measurement, science, medicine and biology, and brings them all together to solve a problem like this. And it also is representative of the kind of spin off or dual use aspect or ethos of the laboratory.
I probably mentioned last time that we have programs where we are engaged in biosecurity. So in trying to understand how to respond to possible bioterrorism events, there's not a big difference between what a bioterrorism event might look like and a coronavirus pandemic might look like. In fact, it's the same set of tools you need in order to respond. Sure. So whether you look at that as a defense problem or a security problem or you look at it as a health problem, you're right.
And is there any type of information sharing where, like the NIH or FDA is starting to look at your kind of rapid way to tackle the coronavirus and maybe apply that to drug development times or anything like that, to maybe shorten that? How long it takes them to the finish line?
Yes, that that's a big chunk of solving. The problem is wonderful is to speed up the drug development time. And, yes, the FDA is is engaged. They're interested in how this might be done and how they might oversee how it's done. Right. So actually that that interaction has is underway. And NIH actually, in particular the National Cancer Institute is a major partner in our doing this work.
That's excellent. And when it comes to other government agencies or institutions, are there any other examples of partnerships, maybe specifically like a long term one that you've helped oversee or build across your years as being a director?
Yeah, they're actually there are many examples of very long term partnerships that it's an awfully good question, because particularly these days in advancing the fundamental sciences, you really do have to have a multi decade timescale. Right. Had one that I really like to talk about is the Large Synoptic Survey Telescope, which is a new eight meter telescope that is scheduled, I believe, for first light in Chile in twenty twenty two. It was first imagined or the first Gleeman in the scientists eye for such an instrument was I think probably goes back to the year 2000, if not before.
So we're talking twenty two years of development. This instrument will be absolutely unique in the sense that it will be able to record the entire southern sky to a magnitude of twenty fifth magnitude, which is a very, very deep, very dim stars every three nights. So sometimes this is called cosmic cinematography. Basically, this is to look for transient events, events that happen on very short timescales that you simply can't see, but without covering everything very quickly and very often, this is a completely unique instrument.
We actually designed the telescope Livermore designed to collaboration across probably at this point forty or so institutions. What the national laboratories that are most involved have been slack right up the road here, Livermore and Brookhaven. Actually, the three of us have combined on building the camera for for this telescope, the CCD array, basically a very advanced version of the camera that's in your cell phone. That's a bad comparison.
But it really is like is very big and very exciting. It'll be like the first time we've ever been able to record it. It's the first time we'll ever be able to do that.
And it's taken like twenty two years. It will have taken twenty two years to get to first light and we're on the verge of doing it. It will give us insight into dark matter and dark energy. These are some of the outstanding problems in physics that I have that nobody has a real handle on because of its ability to measure cosmic sheer, basically the bending of light by dark matter and dark energy. Its ability to do that will be unmatched and will give us insight into the what's called the equation of state of dark matter and energy.
And physicists and mathematicians are rubbing their hands greedily. Really, it's really exciting, exciting stuff.
And in addition, part of his mission will be map. Out near Earth objects, that is mapping out all of the possible things that are close to us, some of which may be on trajectories to strike the Earth, right. We have a pretty good idea of what the largest ones are, but also still allow us to go down to to basically baseball size. We need to be tracking as we weight. We have to be tracking.
So it's really only through the long term commitments of this kind of science that we can get to the point that we're able to start answering questions like this. Like I said, Livermore, we happen to have a very strong expertise in optics, telescope systems. We have the National Ignition Facility there, which is the largest optical system, I think, in the world. It's not a telescope. It happens to be a laser. But this expertise actually led to our being able to design the telescope.
We've actually been responsible for delivering the lenses for the camera itself, which are some of the largest precise precision lenses in the world that was made custom in-house.
And it was actually made by, I shouldn't say the company, because I may get it wrong, but it was made by us with a contractor. Sure. A lot of these projects sound like art projects because they're just they're such specialized things. They're highly specialized.
And sometimes I'll tell you in the space business, it's amazing you end up going out and doing things that can only be done by companies that are working out of their garage. It's amazing. Some of the most High-Tech things that go into some some of these systems are put out by small numbers of people working out of garages because it's such a highly specialized.
It is. And often the end of my favorite writers and investors has this phrase called the idioms. The idioms that's necessary to stumble onto really big innovations is often five, 10, 15, 20 years of such specialized and nuanced research that, you know, if you want to do it, you're going to be like the only one you're doing.
It's going to be quite a lonely road until that, you know, hopefully moment of epiphany or like lining up with the right folks. So, yeah, it definitely hits close to home. So, Bill, as you look forward, what's getting you up early in the morning or what's keeping you up late? What are your thoughts preoccupied with?
I know there's a lot going on, obviously, but is there any type of, you know, favorite problem you like to work on or just, you know, continually go over in your head like and, you know, try to get the solution for new insights for.
Well, I wish I could say that I'm putting significant time into technical problems that are interesting to me.
Maybe philosophically, several thousand people are trying to get the breadth of work done that we have as time consuming and I would say satisfying, figuring out ways to be successful with that. I think that the biggest problem we face right now and one we're struggling with and trying to be as creative as possible with is knowledge transfer. We're going through a major transition in the workforce. Well, among the consequences of the long term lack of investment in the kinds of work that we do was the fact that we were not hiring for a long time.
And now, as I think I mentioned last time, we're hiring like crazy. And anyone interested, I would urge to go to jobs today alone. Algarve, like put in a plug. Yeah, please do check it out. If you're technical, if you're a scientist, if you're highly passionate about this, go check it out and apply.
Or administrative professionals we hire across the board. We're in the middle of doing our job. This is not one of the things that gets me up in the morning. Our site wide environmental impact statement. So where we're hiring environmental people, help us with that.
We're in the process of a millennial turnover in our workforce, and that requires both a transfer of an incredible amount of knowledge, some of which is very esoteric, and also the transfer of a very strong culture that's dominated by the idea of national service, of intellectual independence, technical excellence and of dedication to mission. We're doing both of these things. We're transitioning knowledge. We're trying to continue our culture at the same time, we're trying to change and adapt our culture.
To new generations of scientists and workers, people who have new and different expectations from their work. So that's a huge challenge for us, the combination of those things, all of them going on at once, I wouldn't say it's a great problem to have, but it is it engages me right every day. And I would say in a good way to be a great problem to solve.
And when I talk to other leaders and CEOs and folks, it seems that there's that similar thread of how do we get the information and the stories and the building blocks of culture out of the minds of our most skilled researchers or executives and then transfer those in in a seamless way. So that's what I've been thinking about that a lot as well, because oftentimes, you know, we take for granted how much information we have siloed up that we haven't really shared and that, you know, if you try to narrate your life or narrate all the stories you'd spend forever doing it and it wouldn't get to the right people.
But I think there's some interesting ways to do it with media. So stay tuned. That's what we're ultimately up to, is to hope good. Hopefully help with that process when you. Are struggling with a problem now, and you can't seem to get an answer or you're thinking about building a new team or tackling some type of big challenge at your work. Who are you calling for advice? Is it just is it your friends? Is it you know, do you have any mentors?
What's that process like of getting help when you need it?
I think about the stage of my career where I am more in the mentor role than mentee role.
Unfortunately, like a bat phone or anyone that you could. I would say I think a very good question.
I think the answer is I have what I think is a just a superb team of senior leaders at the laboratory that that I would say one of the things I take the most pride in over the last several years is assembling this team. In fact, I've had the. The good fortune to I believe I've put in place almost everybody who's currently in senior management positions now over the last six years with maybe one or one exception, and he's pretty good to so and that's one of the greatest strengths that I can call on in solving these problems.
Sure. And when people are coming to you and kind of like the mental capacity, what is a piece of advice that you find yourself giving again and again?
Well, with respect to the laboratory, which is usually where these questions come, the advice I like to give to people is to step out of their comfort zone and look across the laboratory so large. There's so much going on. There's so many things that you can get involved in that there's always something that can draw on your talents and that you can contribute to as long as you look around and be aware of all of those things that are going on.
So you might argue that a sort of a trivial thing to suggest to people. But remember, we have a lot of scientists and engineers who tend to look at their shoes, 7000 don't know a lot of guys.
And the idea is to get them all, keep them all talking to each other and engaging. That, to me, is one of the most important things that I can tell people when they ask what's the right way to get things done here or what's the right way to to have a career at the at the laboratory. Don't stay in a stovepipe. Yeah. Get out of your comfort zone. I love it.
Yeah. Situational awareness always pays off when it comes back to you maybe earlier in your career or when you were just getting started. Has there been any advice that you've received that you've really carried with you throughout the years? Or it could be a.. Advice as well as advice that you didn't take, that you're really glad that you didn't?
Probably the best advice I received. I ended up not being able to follow, which was to stay away from the director's office.
I'm sure that was very strongly advised. Sure. And I succeeded for a long time. Yeah, you can only go so long. So Lawrence Livermore has a lot of new initiatives.
I've seen inside the lab video and online series that you're putting out. You're putting on some YouTube videos, a lot of great content, whether it's like there's one about glycerin. Latest comments might have sparked life on Earth and just a lot of cool things like that when it comes to kind of getting the message out about what the lab is about and what it does. What's your philosophy there? How are you approaching that as you start to share more?
Well, I'm glad to hear you've seen our YouTube channel, because I think our Web presence and our social media presence is something that we've been emphasizing over the last few years, something we should have been doing more of. And I think we're starting now to be much more proactive about. And so that's a big part of it. We're just doing a lot of things to expand our outreach programs. We're having more success in making people aware of the huge impacts that the that the lab has had and the national labs generally, frankly, across the nation have had on our country.
I might have mentioned this last time, but one of those stories that we keep telling you again and again is that the human genome project that everybody knows about and connects with either NIH or Craig Venter actually started at the National Labs, three national labs, Livermore, Los Alamos and Berkeley Lab. And it's all something that was forgotten over the years. But in fact, these labs had that audacious vision when nobody else thought it could be done or should be done or ought to be done starting out and get and doing this.
You know, mapping the human genome has ended up creating. I don't even know how to calculate the economic value of that or the size of the economic sector that is now based on genomics and all of the things that flow from proteomics and all of the biology and health related work that comes from it. I'll tell you, I'll predict one in the future that you may not have heard about, but may in the future. It's always been anticipated that the future size on silicon chips would end up being limited because of the wavelength of the light that's used to etch those chips in.
The visible light goes down to a certain wavelength and a number of tricks have been used actually to get down to smaller and smaller feature sizes, smaller than I would have ever expected they could get to. But it was always anticipated that eventually you'd have to go from visible light to UBL to extreme ultraviolet light etching of these chips. We've reached that point now and there have been some major press coverage recently of the transition starting to take place between the use of visible light and the use of huvelle in.
The process of getting down to smaller feature sizes, which means faster chips, basically translates into faster computers. So that work was all enabled by work done 20 years ago at the National Laboratories to demonstrate that evil light could be manipulated, could be handled with very special mirrors, could be focused and and brought to bear on and masked and used to create, you know, basically the precursors for chips that would be done at this very small scale, basically below five nanometers in feature size.
I think this is going to have a good chance of revolutionizing computer science and the speed of computers in the future by going down to these more future sizes, I predict that it will be forgotten that the national labs actually set the stage for this work long before it became the next commercial stage, and that eventually, like with the human genome, we'll all be reminded that it was actually in this case, Livermore Labs R&D lab and Berkeley Lab, the origin stories of the origin story that's exactly come out and will eventually come out for sure.
It always does. That's so fascinating. Bill, thank you for being generous with your time. We are approaching a hard stop. I wish we could keep going roughly around three maybe at Lawrence Livermore. I don't know. We'll see. Thank you so much. And any final thoughts you'd like to leave our listeners with today?
I guess just that I talked about this as being a heroic endeavor. I really believe that science in the service of mankind is one of the most noble things that you can do. And it is the it forms the best idea, I think, forms the basis for how we try to do things at Lawrence Livermore. And if people are interested, I would urge you to seek us out.
Couldn't agree more. Thanks so much and everyone listening. We'll see you next time. Thank you, Chad. Paul. I'm Silverbush, and you've been listening to Hidden in Plain Sight from Mission Dog. This podcast is sponsored by our friends at Splunk, the Data to Everything platform. In today's data driven world, every company, big or small newworld, is sitting on terabytes of unused, untapped and unknown data. Splunk helps turn all that data into action.
Using cutting edge AI and machine learning, Splunk delivers Real-Time predictive insights that will help you on your mission to change the world.
With solutions for I.T. security, Internet of Things and business operations, Splunk empowers people to make faster, better decisions and take action to get things done. It's time for our data to be more than a record of what happened.
It's time to make things happen. Check it out. It's buncombe.