Joe Rogan Experience Review podcast - 546 JRE Review of Siddharth Kara

Episode Date: September 29, 2026

Check out JREREVIEW.com for all the latest Joe Rogan JRE info.  This week we review Siddharth Kara's return to Joe Rogan. Kara breaks down new research into cobalt mining in the Congo, child labor, environmental contamination, and the hidden human cost behind modern technology. We also get into the disturbing story of the Zong slave ship and the bigger question of what happens when economic progress comes at someone else's expense. Sponsors: Get 25% off your first order from Zazzle by visiting www.zazzle.com For fee-free banking go to Chime.com/JRER Hims: Go to Hims.com/JRER for simple online access to personalized, affordable care for ED, hair loss, weight loss, and more. SUPPORT OUR SHOW! Head to our Patreon Check out our website at www.jrereview.com For all marketing questions and inquiries: [e-mail] Please email us here with any suggestions, comments and questions for future shows.. [e-mail]

All right, guys, welcome back to the Joe Rogan Experience Review. So the episode I wanted to get into this week is Saddam Kara. And if that name sounds familiar, it should. He was on Rogan back in 2022 talking about cobalt mining in the Congo. And I remember that episode being one of those ones where you hear about something that you kind of knew existed, but you didn't really understand what it looked like. Because everybody knows the stuff in our phones has to come from somewhere. Batteries don't just appear.

The metals have to be mined, the completely. Opponents have to be manufactured. We know that. But knowing something in the abstract is very different from actually seeing the people at the bottom of the supply chain. And that's really what Kara does. He starts by telling Joe that he hasn't been back to the Congo since his book Cobalt Red came out. According to Kara, people he works with told him there was basically a bounty on him and it wasn't safe to return. So he stayed connected with people on the ground and continued the research through colleagues.

And his basic message is, things haven't really. gotten better. In some ways, he says they've gotten worse because the demand hasn't gone away. It's cobalt, copper, nickel, tantalum, lithium, all the stuff feeding phones, tablets, electric vehicles, batteries. And now you've got another massive source of demand coming in, data centers. That's an interesting addition to this conversation because four years ago, everybody was talking about phones and EVs. Now we're building these enormous data centers as fast as possible. And those require servers, circuit boards, heat sinks, energy storage, cooling systems, just a ridiculous amount of physical infrastructure. And I think we forget that

sometimes. We talk about the digital economy as though it's somehow separate from the physical world. It's not. The internet still needs buildings. servers still need metals. Electricity still needs infrastructure. Batteries still need materials. At the bottom of all this incredibly advanced technology is still somebody digging stuff out of the ground. And in the Congo, Kara says that bottom end of the chain can involve child labor, forced labor, militia-controlled mines, dangerous working conditions, and serious environmental damage. That's a pretty wild contrast. You have some of the most sophisticated technology humans have ever created sitting at one end of the chain, and somebody with a shovel at the other. One of the first things Joe asks is basically

why aren't we getting more of these minerals here? And Kara says part of it is just geology. The biggest and highest grade deposits of a lot of these materials are concentrated in central Africa and other parts of the global south. There are deposits in North America. But then Kara makes the point that really becomes the theme of the first part of the episode. We don't want the environmental destruction here. And Joe immediately goes, oh, right. So, we're okay with it happening over there. And that's where this gets uncomfortable. Because I'm not anti-technology.

I'm not anti-electric vehicle. I'm certainly not sitting here pretending I don't own a phone. I love technology. But you can't cause something clean and then only look at the part of the process that's happening directly in front of you. If I'm driving an electric car and there's nothing coming out of the exhaust,

great. But where did the battery come from? Where did those materials come from? What did extracting them do to the land? What did it do to the water? Who was doing the work? Those questions are part of the environmental equation too. You can't just move the dirty parts 6,000 miles away and then declare the whole thing clean. Kara talks about a study he did through the University of Nottingham called Blood Batteries. And this is where the conversation moves beyond the labor conditions and into what mining is doing to the environment. His team used

time-lapse satellite imagery to look at the copper-cobalt mining region in southeastern Congo. And according to Kara, in some of the areas they studied, 40, 50, even 60% of the forest, shrubbery, and grasslands had disappeared as mining expanded. Joe actually stops him here because he thinks Kara means the whole Congo. And Kara clarifies that he doesn't. This is specifically the mining region in the southeast, around the copper belt near Zambia. That's an important distinction. The Congo is enormous.

Much of it is rainforest. They're talking about the part of the country where this mining is concentrated. Then Kara gets into the water testing, and this part is rough. His team did a case study around Kowesi, which is one of the major mining centers. According to Kara, they found heavy metals in water sources at levels ranging from 10 to 950 times the World Health Organizations. recommendations recommended maximums for human safety. Lead, cobalt, copper, uranium, chromium. Now, those are Kara's reported findings. I'm not independently verifying the study here. But if you're talking about numbers anywhere remotely close to that, that's not some minor environmental issue.

That's the water people are living around. That's groundwater, rivers, lakes. Water people potentially drink, wash in, cook with. And Kara's point is that the damage doesn't stop at the edge of the mine. You can have nothing to do with mining and still live in the environment affected by it. And this is where I started thinking about how bizarre the economics of this are. Imagine living on top of resources the entire modern world desperately wants. Cobalt, copper, all this incredibly valuable stuff. Companies make fortunes from products that depend on. it and you're living next to the mine and your water is fucked. How does that make any sense?

You would think living on top of an incredibly valuable natural resource would make the people there wealthy, but obviously that's not automatically how it works. If the people living there don't control the resource or they don't have the political power to demand a fair share of the value, the money can leave while the damage stays. That's the part that gets me. The mineral leaves, the finished product leaves, the money leaves, the pollution doesn't. And Kara explains that it's not only the digging itself. Once you've got ore out of the ground, you've still got to separate the different materials. You might have cobalt, copper, nickel, silver, uranium, and other elements mixed together. That processing uses industrial chemicals and acids. And if you don't

have proper containment, that stuff can end up in the soil, groundwater, rivers, and lakes. Now imagine trying that here. Imagine a mining company opening something outside Austin and saying, yeah, we're going to remove a massive amount of vegetation, dig the place up, use industrial acids to process the ore, and if some of it ends up in the groundwater, well, you know, shit happens. People would lose their fucking mines. And rightly so.

There would be environmental reviews, permits, containment requirements, water monitoring, lawsuits, protests. Again, none of that means mining in America is perfect. Of course it isn't. But we have expectations about what companies are allowed to do to the environment around us. Kara's argument is basically, why does that standard become negotiable when the people affected are somewhere else? And I think that's a fair question.

There's another thing I liked about this episode. It doesn't really let the listener sit comfortably outside the problem. It's very easy to hear a story like this and think, those fucking mining companies, those fucking governments, those fucking corporations. And then you finish the episode and check your phone. We're all connected to it. That doesn't mean we're equally responsible. Obviously we're not.

Me buying a phone isn't the same thing as a company deciding how it sources billions of dollars of material. But consumer demand is still part of the machine. We want the phone. We want the laptop. We want the electric car. We want faster servers. We want more storage. We want everything immediately.

And ideally, we want it cheaper than last year. There's pressure moving all the way down that chain. And the person with the least power is usually the person who gets squeezed hardest. That's not unique to mining. You see that everywhere. Agriculture, clothing, construction, shipping. If everybody above you is demanding lower costs and faster production, eventually somebody at the bottom absorbs that pressure.

And in Kara's research, the people at the bottom can literally be children. Later in the episode, he gives updated estimates for the artisanal mining population. Kara says his research puts it at around 300,000 people working on any given day in artisanal mining, and close to 10% are children. So you're talking roughly 30,000 kids. He also says his team classified around 30,000. 37% of the workers they studied as being in conditions he considers absolute slavery. Again, those are Kara's figures.

But even if somebody came along and argued the exact percentage should be lower, the bigger question doesn't disappear. Why are children involved at all? We're not talking about some obscure product nobody can afford to improve. We're talking about supply chains feeding some of the richest industries on planet Earth. So when you hear numbers like that, hundreds of thousands of people involved in artisanal mining, tens of thousands of children. The obvious question is, how does that material actually get from somebody digging in the Congo

into the battery sitting in your phone? Because you'd think there would be a pretty clear separation. You've got the large industrial mines over here, you've got the informal artisanal mines over there. Surely the big companies know exactly which one they're buying from. But Kara says that's not really how it works. The supply chain gets massive. messy. Material can move through traders, buying houses, processing facilities and refiners, all from different sources can be mixed together. And once that happens, tracing a particular batch all the way back to the exact place it came out of the ground becomes much more difficult. And this is where corporate responsibility gets complicated, because the company whose name is

on your phone isn't necessarily buying a sack of cobalt from a 12-year-old kid. Obviously, There are layers in between. The phone company buys components. The battery company buys processed materials. The refiner buys material from suppliers. The suppliers may be dealing with different mines and traders. So everybody is separated from the person actually digging. And I think that's important because otherwise it's very easy to turn this into a cartoon.

Big evil corporation knows exactly what's happening and just doesn't give a shit. Maybe sometimes people do know more than they admit. I don't know. But you don't actually need that to create a terrible outcome. You can have a system where everybody is following the incentive directly in front of them. One company wants lower costs. The supplier wants to keep the contract. The processor wants more volume.

The local buyer wants material. The miner needs money today. And the person with the least bargaining power ends up taking the biggest hit. That's actually more interesting to me than just saying everybody involved is evil. Because if the problem is one evil guy, that's easy. Find the guy, get rid of him, problem solved. Kick him in the dick on the way out if you want. But if the incentives themselves keep producing the same outcome,

you can replace the people and end up right back where you started. That's much harder to fix. Kara also talks about how companies respond when these allegations come up. And you'll hear phrases like, responsible sourcing, audited supply chains, zero tolerance for child labor. Which all sounds good, and I'm sure some of those programs do improve things. But Kara's argument is that what he sees and what researchers on the ground document doesn't always match the clean version of the supply chain presented publicly.

That's the gap he's focused on. What does the policy say, and then what is actually happening at the mine? Those can be two very different things. And Joe brings up something that I think most people listening are probably wondering, Why can't the companies just pay more? We're talking about incredibly valuable materials feeding gigantic industries. Surely there's enough money in the system to improve wages and conditions. And Kara basically agrees that money is part of it,

but it's not as simple as just handing everybody more cash. You need infrastructure, schools, safe working conditions, environmental controls, enforcement, alternative employment for families who currently depend on children contributing income. If you simply announced tomorrow that no child has allowed anywhere near these minds, that sounds great. But if the child's family then can't afford food, you haven't really solved the underlying problem. You've moved it. So the solution has to include giving families a realistic alternative. That's a theme I thought was important, because moral problems are easy when you're sitting thousands of miles away. Children shouldn't work in minds. Obviously, nobody's

sensible disagrees with that. Okay, now what? What does the kid do tomorrow? What does the family live on? Who pays for school? Who builds the school? Who makes sure the adults earn enough that the child doesn't need to work? That's where slogans stop and actual policy begins. And Kara's answer is that the companies making enormous amounts of money from these supply chains should be helping fund that transition. Not charity in the sense of throwing a few dollars at a village and taking a photograph, actual investment, clean water, schools, healthcare, safer jobs, environmental cleanup. And I think there's a pretty strong argument for that. If your business benefits from resources underneath a community, the community probably shouldn't be worse off because you arrived.

That seems like a reasonable standard. Then the conversation gets into the idea of reducing cobalt in batteries. And this is where technology may genuinely help. Battery chemistry keeps changing. Manufacturers have incentives to use less expensive materials, improve energy density, extend battery life, and reduce dependence on difficult supply chains. There are already battery chemistries that use little or no cobalt. Recycling could also eventually supply more of the material we need. That's good. Innovation can reduce pressure on these mining regions. But Cara makes a point here that I really liked. Let's say we solve the cobalt. problem technologically. Tomorrow, somebody invents a battery that's cheaper, better, lasts twice as long

and doesn't need any cobalt. Fantastic. What happens to the people in Congo? Do the companies that benefited from the region for years just leave? Do we say, thanks for the minerals, sorry about the water, best of luck? That would be a pretty fucking convenient version of environmental progress. We clean up our technology and leave somebody else with the cleanup. Kara argued. that if industries benefited from extraction, while environmental damage accumulated, there's still an obligation to deal with what was left behind. And whether you agree with exactly how that responsibility should be divided, the principle makes sense to me.

You don't get to make the profit disappear into one country while the damage stays permanently in another. This is also where the whole idea of the green transition gets more complicated than the marketing, because every energy system has a footprint. Oil obviously has one, coal has one, natural gas has one, nuclear has one, solar panels require mining and manufacturing, wind turbines require enormous amounts of material, electric vehicles require batteries. There is no magical energy source that arrives with zero physical cost. So the question isn't which technology has no environmental impact, that technology doesn't exist. The question is, what are the total costs and best?

benefits of each system and how do we keep reducing the costs? That's a much less exciting conversation than yelling at each other about whether EVs are amazing or bullshit, but it's probably the useful one. Because if you genuinely care about environmental damage, you should care about it regardless of where it happens. If carbon emissions matter in Texas, they matter in China. If contaminated groundwater matters in America, it matters in Congo. If a child working in dangerous conditions would be unacceptable here, moving that child 6,000 miles away doesn't make it acceptable. And there's another part of this that Rogan keeps circling back to. Scale. 300,000 artisanal miners is an enormous number of people. You can't fix something like that

with one little program. This isn't one bad mine. It's an ecosystem. People depend on it. Local economies depend on it. Governments depend on mining revenue. International companies depend on the minerals, and the rest of us depend on the products. We're all connected to the thing, which is why I don't really like the idea of turning this into consumer guilt. I don't think you should plug your phone in tonight and stare at the charge of thinking, I'm a terrible person. What the fuck does that accomplish? Nothing. Guilt without action is basically emotional masturbation. You feel bad for a while, then you move on.

The useful thing is understanding the system well enough to know where pressure can actually make a difference. And consumers do have some power. If people care about sourcing, companies notice. If people keep devices longer, demand changes. If customers reward companies that make supply chains transparent, competitors notice. But the big leverage still sits with governments and corporations. They're the ones signing contracts. They're the ones moving billions of dollars.

They're the ones who can make compliance a condition of doing business. And that's where I think the real pressure has to land. If you're buying these materials at scale, make the standard part of the contract. Show us where it came from. Show us the mine. Show us the labor conditions. Show us the water testing. Show us the environmental controls.

Not a glossy report. Independent inspection. If a supplier can't demonstrate how it was produced, they don't get the contract. Now the incentive changes, because doing it properly isn't just the nice thing to do. It's the price of doing business. And that leads into the other huge part of the episode. Kara goes back hundreds of years to a case where business and human suffering collided. The slave ship, Zong.

So this is where the episode takes a pretty hard turn. Kara starts talking about the Zong. And if you don't know that name, the Zong was a British slave ship in the 18th century. and the story of what happened on that ship is absolutely horrific. But the reason Cara brings it up isn't just to tell a terrible story from history. His new work looks at the Zong because, in his view, it exposes something bigger about slavery. The way an entire economic system can take human beings and slowly turn them into numbers, property, cargo, insurance claims. And once you do that, you can justify things that would otherwise be completely unthinkable.

The ship was carrying enslaved Africans across the Atlantic. And obviously, we all know, broadly, what the Atlantic slave trade was. People were captured, sold, transported across the ocean, and forced into slavery. But when Kara starts getting into the actual mechanics of it, that's where it hits differently. Because this wasn't some chaotic operation happening outside normal society. It was business. There were investors. There were merchants.

There were ship owners. there were captains, there were insurers, there were contracts, there were accountants, there were courts. This whole enormous system existed around buying and selling human beings. And that's the part I find almost harder to understand than the violence itself. Because you can understand one psychopath doing something horrific. We've always had psychopaths. What is much harder to wrap your head around is an entire respectable economic system where people go to work in the morning, do paperwork,

Calculate risk, ensure cargo, make investments, go home to their families, and the cargo they're discussing is people. And Cara spends time explaining why sugar was such a huge part of this. Europe developed this enormous appetite for sugar. Today, sugar is everywhere. It's cheap. Half the shit in the supermarket has sugar in it whether you want it or not. But historically, it was incredibly valuable.

producing it was labor intensive and plantation economies in the Caribbean became dependent on enslaved labor. So now you've got this massive economic demand. Europe want sugar. Plantation owners want labor. Traders can make money transporting enslaved Africans. Investors can finance the ships. Insurers can insure the voyage. Everybody has a financial incentive to keep the machine moving.

And when enough money gets attached to something, human beings become extremely. extremely creative at explaining why it's okay. That's something we've done over and over throughout history. You don't normally say, I'm exploiting this person because it makes me money. You build a story around it. They're different. They're inferior. This is the natural order. This is legal. Everybody does it. The economy depends on it. And once enough people repeat the story, something completely insane starts feeling normal. That's what makes history useful to me. Not sitting around congratulating ourselves because we're morally superior to people who lived 300 years ago. That's easy.

The interesting question is, what are we doing right now that people 300 years from now are going to look back on and say, how the fuck did they think that was okay? Because those people probably exist. And the uncomfortable possibility is that we're doing things right now that feel completely ordinary because they're embedded in our economy and culture. That's where the connection to Congo starts making sense. Kara isn't saying cobalt mining today is identical to the Atlantic slave trade. It's not.

Those are different systems in different periods with different legal structures and different scales. But the mechanism of distance is similar. The person benefiting from the system doesn't have to see the person paying the price. And that distance makes moral compromise much. easier. Then Kara gets into what actually happened aboard the Zong. The ship left the African coast carrying hundreds of enslaved people. Conditions on slave ships were already horrific. People were packed below deck in incredibly confined spaces. Disease spread. Sanitation was almost non-existent. People were chained. Some refused to eat. Some tried to resist. Some died during the voyage.

And Kara describes the methods used to keep people alive because economically, every person represented value. That's such a disgusting sentence to even say. Keeping somebody alive because they're worth money. But that's how the system viewed them. Not as passengers, not as prisoners even. Property. During the voyage, the Zong ran into problems. There were navigation issues, illness, shortages, and concerns about water.

And eventually, the crew began throwing enslaved people overboard, alive. More than a hundred human beings were deliberately thrown into the ocean. And this is where the story becomes almost impossible to process. Because after the ship eventually reached Jamaica, the owners made an insurance claim. They wanted compensation for the enslaved people who had been thrown overboard. Think about what that means. A company says the cheapest way to manufacture something is over. overseas. Okay. Then somebody asks why it's cheaper. Labor, regulations, environmental standards,

taxes, whatever it is. And if you keep following that question far enough down, eventually you might find that part of the savings comes from somebody at the bottom of the chain living or working under conditions we'd never accept here. That's not always the case, obviously. There are plenty of legitimate reasons manufacturing can be cheaper somewhere else. But cheaper isn't really an explanation. It's the beginning of a question. Why is it cheaper? Who is absorbing the difference? Because somebody usually is. And that's really where I think the Zong story and the Congo story come together. Again, they're not the same thing. I don't think you need some exaggerated historical comparison to make Kara's point. The Atlantic slave trade was a specific and horrific

institution. What Kara is pointing to is something underneath both stories. What happens when enough distance develops between the people receiving the benefit and the people paying the human cost? Because once that distance gets large enough, we stop seeing people. We see labor, production, units, costs, supply, demand, a spreadsheet. And obviously, you need those things to run an economy, but somewhere underneath every number is an actual person. That's the bit that can't disappear. I think that's probably the biggest thing I took away from this episode. Modern life is unbelievably good at hiding the beginning of things. You wake up and make coffee. Where did the coffee come from? You put on a t-shirt. Who made it? You get in your car. Where did all those materials

come from? You pull out your phone. Where did the battery come from? You order something on and it arrives tomorrow. What happened between clicking the button and that box appearing outside your house? Most of us don't know. And honestly, we can't know everything. You go fucking insane. I don't want to conduct an international investigation every time I buy a pair of socks. That's not realistic. But the fact that consumers can't personally investigate every supply chain is exactly why the companies controlling those supply chains have a responsibility to know what's happening inside them. They have the contracts. They have the information. They have the money. And most importantly, they have leverage. Kara gets into solutions toward the end. And I like that part because after hearing

all this, you naturally start thinking, okay, what do you actually do? It's very easy to spend two hours explaining how fucked everything is. Congo is fucked. History was horrible. Enjoy your Wednesday. But Kara isn't arguing that nothing can be done. One of his points is that the amount of money needed to make meaningful improvements in these communities is small, relative to the enormous value of the industries using these materials. And we're not talking about asking some tiny, struggling company to save an entire country. These are global industries generating extraordinary amounts of money. So what does improvement actually look like? First, get children out of the minds, obviously.

But like we talked about earlier, you can't just ban a kid from working and then congratulate yourself. If that family depends on the income to eat, you haven't solved the underlying problem. You've just removed the income. So you need schools. You need education people can actually access. You need adults earning enough that their children don't have to work. You need other economic opportunities. Otherwise, you can make the official child labor number.

look better while the family gets poorer. That's not a solution. Then there's worker safety. If adults are going to mine these materials and people are going to continue mining them, give them proper equipment, training, protective gear, safer working practices, make sure tunnels aren't collapsing on people, make sure workers understand what they're being exposed to, have medical resources available. None of this requires some technology that hasn't been invented yet. We already know how to make mining safer. We do it in wealthier countries. It costs money. That's the difference. Then there's the environmental side. Test the water, independently. Contain the chemicals used in processing. Stop contaminated runoff from moving through

communities. Clean up areas that have already been damaged. Restore land where you can. And Kara's argument is that companies that benefited from years of extraction should contribute to that. I think that's pretty reasonable. If you make money from a resource, part of the cost of doing business should be dealing with the environmental consequences of extracting it. We already understand that principle here.

If a company contaminates a river in America, it doesn't get to say, but the product we made was really useful. Great, clean up the fucking river. Those two things aren't mutually exclusive. You can make something valuable and still be responsible for damage created while making it. Then there's transparency, and this might be one of the biggest pieces, because if nobody can trace where material came from, everybody has plausible deniability.

The manufacturer points to the supplier, the supplier points to the processor, the processor points somewhere else. Eventually, nobody seems responsible for anything. So make it traceable. Where was it mined? Who bought it? Where was it processed? Who refined it? What labor standards were used? What environmental standards were used? If a company wants to tell customers its product is responsibly sourced, show the work.

And I don't mean some glossy corporate page with a photograph of a smiling child in the words, Our Commitment to Sustainability. Oh, fantastic. They've got a leaf in the logo. Problem solved. I want to know what happened at the mine. Give us independent inspections. Give us the water results. give us measurable targets. And if something went wrong, say it went wrong.

I actually trust that more. Nobody expects a supply chain involving multiple countries, governments, and hundreds of thousands of workers to become perfect overnight. But you can show whether it's getting better. And that's really the standard I kept coming back to. Not perfection tomorrow, but visible progress. So where did I land after this episode? I want the technology.

I want better batteries, better computers. better computers, medical breakthroughs, better cars and cleaner energy. I'm not interested in romanticizing some past where everybody lived off the land and died from an infected fucking tooth at 43. Progress is good. But if we're going to cause something progress, the definition can't only include the person buying the finished product. The person digging the material should progress too.

Can you have the incredible phone and the miner earns a decent living? Can you have the electric car and the village has clean water? Can you build the next generation of technology without pretending the materials underneath it appeared by magic? That's the challenge. And that's why the Zong section connects so well with the Congo discussion. The circumstances are obviously different, but Kara's warning is about what happens when economic value becomes separated from human value. When you hear cobalt, don't just think battery. Think about the person who mined it.

When you hear supply chain, remember there are human beings inside that chain. When you hear cheap, ask why it's cheap. Not because we should stop building things, because understanding the real cost is how you build them better. And there is something hopeful in that. These aren't laws of physics. Children don't have to work in mines. Water doesn't have to be contaminated.

Workers don't have to be exploited. Those are conditions created by human systems, and human systems can change. Maybe 20 years from now, we'll look back at photographs of children around cobalt mines and think, how the fuck was that still happening? We had satellites, smartphones. We could track a package across the planet in real time. But somehow we couldn't figure out where the minerals in a battery came from? Come on.

So yeah, heavy episode. Definitely not the lightest rogan you're going to listen to. this week. But I thought it was a really worthwhile conversation. Kara is one of those guests where even if you don't agree with every conclusion he reaches, he makes you think about something you probably weren't thinking about before. And for me, those are often the best Rogan episodes. Not necessarily the ones where I agree with everything. The ones where I finish with more questions than I started with. Where did this stuff come from? Who paid the real cost? And can we keep all the benefits of technological progress, without hiding that cost somewhere we don't have to see it.

I don't have perfect answers to all of that, but they're questions worth asking. Anyway, guys, that's my take on Saddam Karah on the Joe Rogan Experience. If you haven't heard the full conversation, go check it out. As always, thanks for listening to the Joe Rogan Experience Review. I appreciate you guys coming back week after week. Take care of yourselves, look after the people around you, and I'll catch you on the next one.