Something that surprised was near the end of the interview when I Prof. Goodman said that the Padua Rainbow was not really true for most of society until the scientific revolution. I think this stood out to me because one would think that even the great thinkers of our time like Aristotle would go through rigorous testing to make sure his claims stood true but in fact he didn't! If we think our system is so correct, we don't feel the need to check if we are right. I think a question I would ask Blundell is if she thinks the Padua Rainbow still needs correcting because who's to say we're not like Aristotle right now, believing our current system is correct when in fact some more elements need to be added in? The Rainbow itself changes drastically in the face of AI/ML, so what kinds of edits will be made in the future as more advance technology comes out?

I think something that surprised me is the idea of incorporating "noise" into models. We can't really expect models to reflect real life if the conditions are pristine and the data is without uncertainty because nature itself has some essence of unpredictability. I also thought it was interesting how Palmer noted the brain as something he was particularly interested in because it had a lot of noise -- I agree with this statement. I think that it is important for making models more accurate for the future. A question I want to ask him is what he thinks about the energy produced by generating models. I understand that there is a lot of energy used for modelling and internet use in general -- is there a way to offset this? Are the positive gained from the models offset by the energy released by the modelling itself?

I think something that surprised me was that there was a possibilty of being able to 3D print what is needed to make vaccines. In a world where labs are now creating 3D printed meat and food, being able to create vaccines in a mass-producable way opens up a whole new horizon. I think it's amazing that now we are able to use the machines that have been developed thus far to think about future generations and the accesibilty of healthcare around the world. I think something that I would want to ask is what Mr. Rees thinks can be done to improve the relationship between politics and climate change, especially given the fear of backlash and loss of backing from politicians. We only recently got our first class here at Harvard that goes into depth between the relationship of meat and climate change because of how powerful the meat industry is -- how can we make people more proactive in learning about these topics and making the necessary changes to their life?