TBPN - AI’s Economic Impact, Warren Buffett Discovers YouTube, Mistral Launches “Le Chonk” | Diet TBPN

Episode Date: October 6, 2026

Diet TBPN delivers the best of today’s TBPN episode in 30 minutes. TBPN is a live tech talk show hosted by John Coogan and Jordi Hays, streaming weekdays 11–2 PT on X and YouTube, with each episode posted to podcast platforms right after.Described by The New York Times as “Silicon Valley’s newest obsession,” the show has recently featured Mark Zuckerberg, Sam Altman, Mark Cuban, and Satya Nadella.TBPN is made possible by:Ramp - https://ramp.comPublic - https://public.comCisco - https://www.cisco.comConsole - https://www.console.comCrowdStrike - https://www.crowdstrike.comFigma - https://www.figma.comMongoDB - https://www.mongodb.comNYSE - https://www.nyse.comRailway - https://railway.comShopify - https://www.shopify.com/Follow TBPN: https://TBPN.comhttps://x.com/tbpnhttps://open.spotify.com/show/2L6WMqY3GUPCGBD0dX6p00?si=674252d53acf4231https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/technology-brothers/id1772360235https://www.youtube.com/@TBPNLive

I was leafing through GQ this morning. Tom Cruise is on the cover. It's a good edition. There's a funny anecdote in here that I wanted to share. I got to find it. But they got the whole Tom Cruise spread, lots of photos. But they did a little back-and-forth interview with him, and he's a course, bro. He dropped a course, a private course.

And we got to get access to this. The question from the GQ interviewer, you have mentored a lot of younger actors. Powell has talked about watching a six-hour instructional video about screen acting that you made, right? And Tom Cruise says, it was very basic. It was just something to have people understand, just to have a different concept of lenses and what the lens is and what the frame is just the same way as an actor on stage. Being a global superstar for dummies. Yeah, basically. He made a six-hour, that's a course. He made a six-hour video, just the same way as an actor on stage or in development of cinema where it started and what that frame means and how it and how to

understand that frame. Thank you, Tim. There's just different layers of storytelling of structure, but also to understand certain things so that you can forget about it. What else do you tell younger people, other people in your business? I listen first. What do they want? It's not me.

I'm more interested in what are their goals. What do they want? And it's not just younger people. This is me when I was a kid. I'm going, what are you interested it? And they say, really? He said, yes, what is this movie about? What is this?

There's a bunch of other fun things in here. But I thought it was funny that there's a secret six-hour training video on how to be an actor from Tom Cruise. We got to get access to it. I feel like there's a lot of journalists that they get documents, they scoop things, they release things. But I've never seen anyone just be like, I'm putting down 10 racks for whoever can bring me

the six-hour Tom Cruise video. Yeah. I'm putting it behind a high. to pay well. I'm going to monetize it, but there's a bounty out. Like Kevin Roos has the Dari Amadee big blob of compute thesis from 2017, like this leaked BDF, sort of on the scaling law and the bitter lesson, basically. And I've never seen a journalist just be like, I know this document's out there. Like Eric Newcomer should just be like, bring me founders fund returns. I'll give you five grand if you got them, you know, because it's probably math's out at some point. Maybe more.

More, yeah. To risk your allocation in the next. Yeah, I suppose that that would violate journalistic ethics. It just put a bounty out for a document that you know exists. I will bribe you for the truth. And it probably really, like I was thinking about the various leaks that go out. Like some of them violate NDAs, but if they're secretive enough and they're squirled away via signal, like they probably don't trace back, they probably don't really trigger anything.

also some of them just don't really matter. They will, you know, a company might not be that frustrated about a particular leak. If it makes the company look good. Well, speaking of movies, the team saw movie yesterday. Ben, could we get a review? Oh, you didn't go. Ben didn't come, yeah. Wow, Tyler, review.

I saw it. Who saw it? Nick said that he was starting to look at his phone after like 40 minutes. Wait, what? Nick did not enjoy it. I thought it was pretty good. So basically the reviews are really bad, right? Yeah.

And famously, well, not famously, but like the box. office is really bad. Not all the reviews are bad. I saw Mark Andreessen gave it a positive review. He did, yeah. And that was really one of the only, like, very positive reviews I saw. But yeah, I think the budget was like 160 million. First weekend, it was like 8 million. It was like, pretty brutal. I thought it was good. It was very cool. Like the framing of the movie. It's hard to like, it's hard to like, argue too much. I thought it was very cool. I think this, this critique is so nuanced. It's remarkable. I thought it was. I don't. I don't I don't want to spoil anything. I don't want to spoil it here. What was cool about it?

Just give us like 30 seconds of spoilers. I'll bleep it out. Okay, so basically the bleep working. The game decompilation thing is going strong. Ben Thompson was writing about it in strategicity today. There were some more knockout effects. He took it in a very interesting, like, legal direction about the implications of taking a video game, decompiling it, doing whatever you want with it. Obviously, IP licensers don't like that. but there's not a lot that you can do to control that. And obviously open source models are coming. There's a bunch of interesting knock on effects.

I saw a really funny one. They're getting funnier, these mashups. I saw one where someone was playing NHL hockey in Resident Evil. Did you see this one? It was really such a good mashup because the guy's just like on ice skates and like flicking pucks and zombies. It was pretty good. I was into it.

Again, probably not really something I want to play for five hours, but will I watch the 30 second video of it? Absolutely. But yeah, Polygon has been breaking this down. If you've been on X over the last few days, you probably notice that things have gotten very weird when it comes to modded video games. There are clips of Call of Duty operators doing kickflips and other tricks from skate, people playing Black Ops 1 zombie mode and Skyram, Miles Morales swinging through Gotham. Here's another ad to the list. Someone has gotten the Xbox version of Halo, Combat Evolve, running in a web browser with multiplayer and split-screen support.

funny thing is that it's not they didn't like apparently the halo community doesn't like the PC release of halo so they ported the Xbox version to the cloud browser it's like you can really do anything you want now and so Ben Thompson goes on to describe a little bit of what's going on games are written in human readable languages cc plus plus obviously there's scripting languages on top of that but then they're compiled into machine code that's executable by the processor that they're intended for for halo that's x86 you've always been able to disassemble machine code into assembly, because assembly maps almost perfectly to machine code, the difficult part, which takes humans years, is decompiling assembly to C

or some human readable language that then you can actually modify. But LLMs are really good at that. And so, is it legal? Is it legal? The story conflates two different AI capabilities. The Fallout Project appears to be a new game. There's no Fallout New York, although using the name Fallout is likely a trademark violation. I think we were joking about the lawyers being really excited seeing all these going out because it means full employment. Decompiling is not in and of itself illegal. Sega versus Accolade held that disassembling code is fair use if it is the only way to reach unprotected functional elements and there was a legitimate purpose.

And Sony versus Connectix extended the same reasoning to reverse engineering the PlayStation's bios. However, that is likely where protections end. code that is derived from decompiling is by definition very similar, if not identical to the original code, which is covered by copyright. So even if you go and decompile a game and then you ship something that's like a mod, you're going to get a DMCA notice, and this is already happening. Like something will go up, it'll go viral, and then they'll get hit with a take down notice this already happened. Two hours later. Is that me? Or is that?

Getting hit with a copyright. Two hours later, you'll get hit by, yeah, copyright. So you'll have to take it down. There's a couple interesting things. So the actual value of these, like, decompiled games, mashups, pretty limited because you basically just get a viral video and you can't really monetize it because you get to take down notice. But

the training rollout for the AI labs, like the training data that comes from like having this fleet of like all these different game moders go and spend a bunch of tokens that they're basically paying for, maybe it's a little subsidized, but like they're basically paying for all this decompilation

And then also the labs probably have RL environments for this type of work. And then there's tools for this as well. It means that I would expect, like, the next version of models that is trained on all the inference that's happening right now. Because everyone right now in the game modding community is like, let me go point GPT, Astra and Opus 55 at whatever game binaries I can get. So it's like, oh, I like Skyrim. I like Minecraft. Let's go decompile those. But then they're also doing it with all the long tail.

So all of that's going into the next set of training data. So you would imagine that the models get much better at video game development, which is cool. He also just talks about how things will change over time, similar to what's happened in video. AI seems to exacerbate a lot of trends, including the shift to service-based games. So he talks about, like, in a world where if you send someone a disc or you send someone an executable binary, like they're just going to decompile. and be able to do whatever they want with it, maybe you want to stream that game. So you, this was, Google had an effort for this.

I forget what that was called. But Google had the ability to basically stream you a 1080P. Google Stadia. Stadia, that's right. So they would stream you the video output and you would stream them, the controller input, and the game would run on the server. So you never saw any code.

You just saw video coming back. This is also how the MetaQuest Xbox Edition worked. You were streaming the game in. That's right. That's right. And I think Xbox has stayed with the cloud gaming a little bit longer. But gamers have always sort of pushed back on that. I don't like the latency.

What if my Wi-Fi goes out? I'm just trying to playing a single-player game, blah, blah, blah. And so it's possible that this is something where the game industry comes together. And they're like, we really got to fight these hackers. We got to hide our code behind more of a firewall, like that cloud streaming firewall. Or it could be something that they just like embrace and go the, the IP protection route. Yeah, it's hard to think that this doesn't go the way of generated text

where, like, people still care about the posts and where they come from, effectively intellectual property. The instantiation of the actual product is less relevant than the story around it and the people behind it. And the shelling point of, like, we're playing the same game. Of course, people will do their individual stuff as well. But anyway. What else we have going on, John?

Well, I am so glad to be past that subject. Because you just don't like video games? I had enough. I had enough. You had enough? I had enough. Two days in a row. That's a final frontier.

Yeah, you're going to be able to race anywhere you want. Mustafa says, coming in with a major white pill, AI won't take your job anytime soon. In 10 years, only 5% of what humans do will be replaced by AI. Let's see what he has to say about that. They're doing new media over at MAI, the humanist review of AI. They made a magazine and they have a number of articles. And they tapped MIT economist and Nobel laureate, Nobel Prize winner in economics, Darren Isamoglu,

to write a piece about how AI will diffuse. And it's interesting because in this one, it's a total white pill, but then he was on 60 minutes and he's a little bit more blackpilled. So we'll have to go back and forth. I think it's the same guy. Yeah. We'll have to reconcile this. Okay, so let's see what Daron Asimoglu says in the Humanist Review. It's a longer piece, but Mustafa Suleiman summarized it here.

He said he argues that we need to stop building AI to replace people and start building it to make them better at their jobs. 52% of Americans are worried about AI's impact on their jobs. The fear is overblown. and it's steering how we build AI. I like the 48% of just confident people. Like, good luck. Good luck. The type of work I do, yeah, I'm not in the training data.

I'm not, there's no oral environment for what I do. AI isn't in the productivity statistics yet. This was the famous line about the internet. It shows up everywhere except the productivity statistics. Most firms using AI aren't seeing real gains yet. expect roughly 1.5% added to GDP over 10 years, not a revolution. Electricity took decades to spread. The problem is like, so the problem is like going back to our conversation with Sean Frank

yesterday from Ridge. This is a company that's over 10 years old right now, growing 50% this year, using AI across the entire business from demand planning to creative to a number of other things. And the business is performing pretty much as well as it ever has. The thing is AI is impacting the whole business in different ways, in big ways and small ways. But you can't give AI credit for the growth because there's so many factors contributing, right? New products, push into retail, all these different things. And I think you can still say that maybe most firms aren't using it to see real gains.

But when you say that electricity took decades to spread, I just don't view... AI as it's not the kind of technology that that takes a long time to spread when it works. I agree. And that's because we can use the internet, which pretty much everybody that's productive has access to to spread AI. So already just a few bullet points in and. But the Nobel Prize winning economist has another example to push back on you. He says if you don't like the electricity example, here's another one.

recognition. He said turning speech into text has been an aspiration since the 1930s. And this is a harder one to grapple with than electricity because a lot of what was in place for AI is also in place what a lot of the things that you're saying about why diffusion should be faster for AI was true for speech recognition. So people have been trying to do speech recognition. You talk the computer types since the 1930s going on a hundred years of pursuing this. It's became a huge step closer to reality thanks to the work by the American by the American husband and wife team James and Janet Baker starting in the 1980s when they founded the iconic

company Dragon Systems Dragon truly revolutionized voice recognition and it would not be an exaggeration to say that everything else that has followed in voice recognition since then is thanks to the bakers their breakthroughs their breakthrough was to a Previous attempts to build speech recognition systems based on syntax and meaning and instead deploy machine learning techniques in order to build a pure prediction system which would map speech onto the best match text. Already in 1997, the year Dragon launched Dragon naturally speaking, the first program that was capable of voice recognition from natural continuous speech. The momentousness of this was obvious. So in previous software, including the previous product from Dragon,

Dragon dictate, you had to pause in between each word to let it process the gap between words. You no longer needed to do that with Dragon naturally speaking. This was 1997. I can vouch for all of this because Darren Ismoglu, the writer, after developing repetitive strain injury in both arms in 97, he was an early user. Even with the very slow processors of the time, Dragon naturally speaking was like magic. it would score close to 95% accuracy. I didn't know at the time that I would be a user of their products for the next 30 years.

But what I immediately knew was that the processing power of computers improved. I could have access to much more powerful voice recognition software, enabling me to carry out my work despite a continued inability to type. By 2000, everything was going as I and others had predicted. The software had gotten better, and with better computer chips, accuracy, and functionality were improving at a fast pace. What nobody could predict was then the next two decades, despite advances in the underlying technology, consumers would see little of the gains, thanks to a series of corporate disasters. Dragon was acquired in 2000 by a Belgian company, Lernout and Hospi, that went bankrupt within months of the purchase, with its co-founders later being found guilty of corporate fraud. You hate to see that.

Nauty, nothing. So Dragon was then purchased by Scansoft, rebranded as nuance. I actually worked for a startup in college. They got acquired by nuance. Very, very talented team over there, which progressively de-prioritized the consumer in favor of medical and enterprise markets. If you walk into a hospital today, you will see a lot of doctors and nurses dictating notes,

even before the Whisper Revolution that just recently happened. Microsoft acquired nuance in 2022 and continued the same model. The result, voice recognition software on PCs today is only marginally better than what was available in 2000. far less progress than the underlying technology would have led me to expect. This disappointing history lesson is one of the reasons why even greater curation is warranted when making predictions about the fast diffusion of AI models today. Breakthroughs in the infrastructure of a new technology need to go hand in hand with the right kinds of applications built on this infrastructure. And then, of course, you need the right marketing structure to reach potential customer base,

as well as inputs from consumers to act as the impetus for modifications and improvements of the applications. This is what we are not seeing for AI. This is what was completely bungled for voice recognition. What do you think? A whole lot of mumbo-jumbo, John. Okay. Let's move over to 60 minutes because Darren Nesimoglu takes the other side of his own argument, arguing against himself with Brendan Footee from McCur.

Job category on LinkedIn. And just as machinists once replaced artisans, Brendan Foote insists he's creating a career of the future. Out of work, fear not. Come crane AI. Literally all of the top 20 economists in America, they would say the exact same thing, which is that there's going to be more jobs in 10 years than there are today. You're a top economist in America. What say you?

No. One of the greatest edits ever. What we are living through with AI is unprecedented. The first phase of the Industrial Revolution... You're positive. This is the same guy in this article that we read. Wait, I don't think these two things are incompatible. Break it down for us.

So the article is... Yeah, because he's saying 5% of the things humans do are at risk. No, he's saying that right now, if we keep building AI the same way, it will replace workers, but we need to build it a different way that empowers workers. That's what the, like, the headline of the articles, will AI replace workers, not if we build it right? Okay. We're saying, like, right now, on the course that we're doing right now, it's going to replace workers. Got it.

So we need to shift courses. Okay. Right. That's what I take. And his argument from an economic perspective is, like, that will actually increase product that will be better not just because higher employment is good but also higher economic growth is good so we should be trying to solve problems that cannot be solved by people right now with AI as opposed to just just displacing you're

just moving stuff around there's doing net new thing okay I like that I believe that's what he's saying you're a top economist what do you say no and here's the thing yeah top economists have never been wrong on anything so you know It does feel like it's a critical moment. There's been so many people building up to like 2027 is going to be the crazy year. 2026 is going to be the last normal year. Like something has to happen in 2027 that will answer a lot of the questions that have been being asked over the last five years, you know, since GPT3, basically. Which is like RSI, super intelligence, serious, serious move on GDP.

Serious like showing up in the statistics somewhere other than just debt. But, I mean, at the same time, you see, like, weird things happening in financial markets. Like, gold is spiking. And, like, it's hard to put that on AI, but there's still, like, there's pockets of, like, okay, there's something odd happening that you might, in retrospect, a tribute to the AI boom. Anyway, what do you think of Jeremy's take? What agriculture did to our bodies, AI will do to our brains make us stronger and taller. I think he's being negative. I think he's being negative.

Didn't it in some way make us, like, you know, weaker because we're, you know, consuming more grains versus, you know. Yeah, I mean, some agriculture made us a lot taller and stronger, but then made us fatter for sure. Yeah. Because we overconsume. And so, yeah, if you're overconsuming information, it's brain rot, yeah, but a good, good encapsulation of the thesis. Anyway, where you want to go next, Jordy? We got to talk about Warren Buffett because he's just like you. He's just like you, folks.

A viewer's guide to Warren Buffett's nightly trips down the YouTube rabbit hole. Glenn Close Clips, 1950s commercials, Uzbekistan's version of America's Got Talent. The legendary investor can't resist the algorithm either. Feeling guilty about spending hours each day watching YouTube, don't be. Warren Buffett is right there with you. Glenn Close Clips, commercials from the 1950s, Paul Anka Video, is the famed investor can't get enough. Buffett enjoys speeches by complete unknowns.

He's a fan of Berkshire Hathaway's own content, too, proud of how it performs on the video platform. He watches it all nearly every evening, usually from a recliner in his Omaha home. Warren's range is broad, says Sharon Osberg, a close friend and frequent viewing companion. It can be the silliest things. Buffett also goes down random rabbit holes,

just like us. The next day, he'll come into his office gushing over a moving amateur rendition of my voice, way. In August, Osberg visited Buffett's home in Omaha. They spent hours on YouTube, grinding. We watched a really good documentary on Roy Cohn, she says, and the Uzbekistan version of America's Got Talent. That would be Uzbekistan Got Talent. It's unclear. Easy to remember. Buffett, who recently turned 96 and stepped down as Berkshire's chairman, declined to comment on his YouTube habits. What's up with Sharon just blowing up, blowing up his whole routine?

If I invite a friend to my home... If I invite a friend to my home to watch YouTube videos with me for hours and hours and hours and go down the YouTube rabbit hole and then a week later, you're calling up the journal, spilling the truth about my video, my rabbit hole habits. Yeah. I feel like Buffett had to be like, I want you to tell the journal. You think it's AstroTurf. Yeah.

I think I want you to take this. You think he's paying people. I think he's trying to, I think he's as locked in as ever. I don't think he's doing anything for entertainment. He wants the other allocators to get comfortable. You know, I can spend a few hours on YouTube every night. Meanwhile, he's studying the blade every single night and all of this. He's giving them a benefit of the 4D chess.

Yes. Occam's 40 Razor. Yeah, that is Occam's 40 Razors. Yeah. This is what he's doing. It makes sense. What do you think of the new passport? People were going back and forth on Paul McGregor was saying,

if I was redesigning the cover of what is arguing, the country's most important public document, I'd first hire both the best typographer and Crest Designer Money can buy, then fiddle about with the layouts probably. And Joe Gebbya fires back high when you're done finding, when you're done fiddling, please send me resume of top Crest Designer, make sure they can do better than the 1782 official National Anthem. It looks like a very... National emblem. National emblem.

Yeah, the redesign looks like a very tasteful and moderate iteration. I think people are reacting to this. Like, it's like, now it's all gold and it has like a bear and an eagle fighting on it, and it features like the UFC Octagon, which like was sort of where people's expectations are for these types of things, but

this feels like a very normal... UFC branding on the passport. Yeah, no ads is a big step backwards. Yeah, I will say that the passport text where it's kind of sans-sera all caps and there's like spacing, that does look like

AI slop kind of. It does. This is like very common when you just have Model 1. Too much too wide of Kearning is your problem. Okay. The kerning needs some work. Yeah. It does read a little odd. That's pretty high stakes graphic design.

It is. Most stuff, you're like, yeah, we're going to make this, you know, pamphlet for conference and nobody's going to read it. And if they do, they'll look at it for a second. The passports, like we're going to make, you know, a hundred million of these. And then they're going to carry it. them for a decade.

Yeah. Representing the country globally. Yeah. They will be inspected many times. I'm not into passports. I don't want to leave America. It's like not a good thing. They can just get rid of them.

Just stay here. What else we got? Oh, Les Chaton Fat. It's time. La Chon. They're calling it La Chonk. La Chonk, yes. They're leaning into the jokes, Mestrall, AI, the French neolabab.

Is it fair to call them a neolab? I think they're just a lab. They're just a lab, right? They're pre-neo-lab. Yeah, I would say so. You would call them pre-neo-lab specifically? Let me actually consult our nomenclay. Okay.

Oh, I think they were like national lab or something like that. Up there with Lawrence Livermore. But they launched Mistral Large 4, aka La Chonk. One trillion parameters natively made it multimodal. 49 billion active parameters. It is the best open weight model from U.S. or Europe on aggregated benchmarks, state-of-the-art on critical workloads, including cyber defense, manufacturing and finance, and it surpasses closed frontier models on visual grounding,

forged in Europe. End-to-end is deployable from Europe via our own mistral cloud infrastructure available to all the API today, working with cybersecurity partners privately. Open weights release end of October. So presumably they'll release the open weights for like the cyber nerfed version, I would imagine, something like that. I don't know. Anyway, what is your review, Tyler? Do you have any other data to share about Mistral's progress? Yeah, I mean, it looks very good. I think it's like very much on par with the kind of frontier of the open source. So like the Chinese labs, it's like very much a contender. It's not necessarily like destroying all of them on every benchmark,

but it's like certainly, if people are worried about using Chinese open source models, because maybe downstream there's going to be some legal ramification or whatever, like this is a very good choice. It really does change the open source, close source debate because... Yeah, I think mistral and reflection, which is kind of the American open source lab. Like we're now starting to see like, okay, these models are actually like quite competent. And reflection came out with, it's called Beam yesterday. Whoa, not tapped in.

You're like, sorry, sorry, I can't hear you. I can't hear you. It's called game, yes. Anyways, we can come back to that. But great, great to see them getting a new model out. And Leo has the funniest benchmark of them. It says it's pretty funny that it seems the one thing Mistral Large 4 is actually leading on is a benchmark about regulation, another EU banger. Harvey's legal agent benchmark is up to 15%,

whereas other models are down at between 5 and 13%. Interesting. I wonder if that's intentional. I wonder if there's actually anything to read into that. I really have no idea, but it's certainly valuable. I'm sure Harvey and all the other legal companies will be excited. because we, I mean, we read the whole thing about Harvey, their margins being in a really rough spot for a minute when they were overly, overly relying on, like, the most expensive frontier models. Now there's a ton of price competition between open AI and Anthropic, and then obviously there's a bunch of pressure from open source models.

So it's truly the, it's truly the, create the benchmark that you want the labs to hill climb. And they just created the benchmark for like their exact workload. And then they're able to do that. Sushi Commander says, what are you talking about? Both Beam and Mr. All, Beem and Mr. All large are a generation behind the latest Chinese leading model. So putting you in the truth zone, Tyler. I mean, you can look at the benchmarks. It's like, yeah, it's not leading them.

It's like among one of the contenders. It's not the frontier. Yeah. It's like in line, but a lot of the, a lot of the, like the most recent round of Chinese open source happened like a couple months ago, which is always rough. Because like you catch up to the frontier and then it's like, well, you're going to take another six. months to get something out where they're going to only take another two months to get something out. So that window. But there's so many other geopolitical implications that lead companies to go one way or another. So we'll see. We'll see.

Olivia Moore has some data on what's happening in the battle for consumer AI dominance between Chachipti, Claude, and Gemini. A16Z pulled the data across web and mobile plus consumer revenue. Chachapit is at 2x Gemini scale. XX scale on web and two and a half Gemini scale and 14 times Claude scale on mobile. Interesting. I mean, I guess that makes sense more consumer focused. You're pulling there. The main thing here is just look at the run from Claude. Yeah. I mean, we saw this in the app store, right? Like you would open up the app store and Claude was at the top for a while and then fell down and now ChachypD's back on top and they're just going back and forth.

The war for the frontier is just trading shots back and forth, back and forth. Yeah, right now, Mews still at number one. Vented, who we're working on Gintin on, is number two. Vented is still number two. So dominant. The folks over Vented are really doing a fantastic job. Thank you for tuning into TVPN today. It's been an honor.

Fantastic show. We'll see you tomorrow at 11th and Pacific. I can't wait. Leave us five stars in Apple Podcast and Spotify. Sign up for our newsletter at TBPN.com and we will see you tomorrow. Love you. Have a wonderful. Goodbye.