TBPN - The Cournot Equation, Micron’s $200B Bet, Hollywood vs. Seedance 2.0 | Diet TBPN

Episode Date: February 18, 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.comAppLovin - https://axon.aiCisco - https://www.cisco.comCognition - https://cognition.aiConsole - https://console.comCrowdStrike - https://crowdstrike.comElevenLabs - https://elevenlabs.ioFigma - https://figma.comFin - https://fin.aiGemini - https://gemini.google.comGraphite - https://graphite.comGusto - https://gusto.com/tbpnKalshi - https://kalshi.comLabelbox - https://labelbox.comLambda - https://lambda.aiLinear - https://linear.appMongoDB - https://mongodb.comNYSE - https://nyse.comOkta - https://www.okta.comPhantom - https://phantom.com/cashPlaid - https://plaid.comPublic - https://public.comRailway - https://railway.comRestream - https://restream.ioSentry - https://sentry.ioShopify - https://shopify.com/tbpnTurbopuffer - https://turbopuffer.comVanta - https://vanta.comVibe - https://vibe.coFollow 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

It's the year of the firehorse. And we get to celebrate it twice. Because I remember we talked about it at the beginning of the year, but the Chinese New Year did not start until today. It's Lunar New Year, right? Worshippers burned large incense sticks on Monday outside of Temple in Hong Kong to mark the Lunar New Year, which falls on Tuesday. People around Asia celebrate the start year of the horse. In the Ultrodome, it's the year of the horse every year. Every year, I think so.

Everyone is talking about the corno equilibrium, at least dark. Mario Amadei and Dorcasch Patel are. And you and me and some folks on the timeline. We're going back and forth and basically trying to get to this question. I feel like we should give the context on this on the titling strategy. Oh, yes. Because we call the run of shit. Like we'll title an essay.

Why is no one talking about the Kernow equilibrium? Because this one guy had this super viral. Yes. Like a year or two ago. And he's in the title was, why is no one talking about Mark Andrewson? We were laughing about it so much. he's one of the most talked about investors in venture. He's on the minus list constantly.

He's written essays and books and been viral a million times. He's someone that everyone in the industry has an opinion on already. He's not like a minus lister. Yeah, yeah. Not a lot of people. It's like everyone's talking about it. But in this case, the basic idea is that if there's only a few players in a given market, You can think about any specific market, lemonade stands or whatever.

And they aren't competing on price. They will compete on supply. And they'll try to predict what their competitors are doing and then respond accordingly. And this is really, really relevant to the AI lab discussion because you can tell that even though all the leaders of the AI lab say, I don't think about the competition, I don't talk about the competition, all use general terms, they're all obsessed with what everyone else is doing and they think about it constantly very clearly. And if someone's buying $10 billion a compute over here, they're going to counter with $8 over there, try and jump to 12. And everyone's sort of keying off of each other.

You know, Microsoft pauses, AWS goes all in. There's all these like horse races. It's why semi-analysis exists and provides great, you know, cross-functional data. Outside of tech, there's this discussion that I see that's always funny to me where people would be like, the price to earnings ratio. Ryan says they don't want you to talk about the cornucaly. They don't want us to talk about it. They don't want us to talk about it for sure. There's this discussion.

I saw an person say the price to earnings ratio for open AI and anthropic is just simply too high. And I was like, earnings. These companies are losing money. They don't have a price to earnings ratio. It's divide by zero. This is going to blow your mind. Yeah. It's so much worse than you think, right?

They're not making any money. The other side of things is the inference factory. So this is essentially a manufacturing business. You have variable costs. So GPUs, power, engineering overhead. and then your revenue, subscriptions, API usage, and enterprise contracts. And so when you just look at inference, you see positive contribution margin. And we can see that because we can compare the cost to inference a model of the GPT5 class size

or the Opus 4.5 size. You can see what does it look like to run an open source version of that model on commodity hardware? It's way, way cheaper than what you pay to Anthropic or Open AI, so they must have good margins. And everyone sort of agrees at this point that inference margins are in fact healthy. The question is, how do you balance those two pieces and when do you risk over-investing? And that's sort of this Corno game of chicken that everyone's playing. The Corno equilibrium comes when a small number of labs, an oligopoly, effectively choose supply at the frontier level,

and then the market clears at a high price for frontier access. So choosing supply in this case means how many data centers get built, how many GPUs get ordered, but also how much low-latency capacity is allocated to the top tier. So, you know, right now they just, Open AI just did the Cerebris deal, there's Claude Fast, and there's a whole bunch of different modes that will deliver faster inference. And how many of those fast queries you get, how much of the best chips are allocated to a particular tier that you're paying for, is an economic question for the labs. There's a ton of developers and knowledge workers who are happy to pay hundreds of dollars a month or more,

but they always want the best available model. This is most people in executive roles in startups. Yeah, I got my $200 a month subscription. I'll pay $250 or $100 or whatever, a couple hundred bucks. And it just makes me better at my job. I just do whatever I need to do. But don't give me the old thing. I want the best.

I want to know that the hallucination rate is as low as possible. One percent of the time it makes a career ending mistake. So having a product, not just an API business, gives you leverage. Because at some point, the model. are smart enough where you don't need to train them you don't need to train a model that is 4% better because people are still coming to your application and having a good product experience right yes so historically one of the critiques to anthropics business was that they have to just be on this constant constant fly you know sort of hamster wheel of training the best model because

they have an a they're the majority of their business is this API business they're not an aggregate yet swap it out for a smarter model yeah said they have cloud code now, which gives them some more leverage over the market. And the really interesting thing is that Dario is now talking about being near the end of the exponential or maybe producing like the final models because we've talked to a few people about this, but it's very unclear if it's possible to create like a superintelligence of like 5,000 IQ. It might just be they get good at all knowledge work and they can answer all tasks, but

it's like the digital guy. At that point, it does commoditize and you drop out of KORNO equilibrium and you become more, customers are more aggressive about switching to cheaper models to cut costs because the frontier is now commoditized in the entire backlog. Everyone is at the frontier, basically. And so in that scenario, you switch over to Bertrand competition, which doesn't really mean that profits go to zero, but there is more competition. And it looks a lot more like the hyperscalor cloud market, which is, I think, what people have been sort of signaling towards. And also, it sort of explains why a lot of the VSE firms are getting in multiple companies

because they don't think it's going to be winner-take-all anymore. They think it's going to be much more oligopolistic for the long-term, and there will be competition between the major three or four labs. And it will be much more about how can you marshal enough supply, create a huge barrier entry. Like, you and I could start an AWS competitor tomorrow, but it's going to be extremely expensive to bring up data centers that just serve web apps everywhere, let alone AI stuff, right?

Building all those data centers. You're thinking what I'm thinking? You're thinking, you're thinking AWS competitor? People are saying, when does Steve? I was hanging with my buddy, my buddy Ben on Sunday. We both live in Malibu. He was thinking of just getting some chips and setting up Malibu inference. There we go.

Just the name alone. Sounds like you could get at least, at least. Malibu inference. That's really funny. Would it be a beautiful name for a NeoCloud. Yeah. Let's play the clip of Dwar Keshe Patel and Dari Amadeh discussing the economics of AI labs. Like we have a, you know, let's just imagine we're in like an economics textbook. We have a small number of firms. Each can invest a limited amount in, you know, or like each can invest some fraction in R&D.

They have some marginal cost to serve. The margins on that, the gross profit margins on that marginal cost are like very high because, because, because, because, inference is efficient there's some competition but the models are also differentiated there's some there's some you know companies will compete to push their research budgets up but like because there's a small number of players you know we have the what is it called the necunuch the corno equilibrium i think is what the what the small number of firm equilibrium is the point is it doesn't equilibrate to perfect competition with with with with with zero margins if If there's like three firms, if there's three firms in the economy, all are kind of independently behaving behaving rationally, it doesn't equilibrate to zero.

Help me understand that because right now we do have three leading firms and they're not making profit. And so what is a good question? Yeah, what is changing? Yeah. So the, again, the gross margins right now are very positive. What's happening is a combination of two things. One is we're still in the exponential scale-up phase of compute.

So basically what that means is we're training like a model gets trained. It costs, you know, let's say a model got trained that costs a billion dollars last year. And then this year, it produced $4 billion of revenue and cost $1 billion to inference from. So, you know, again, I'm using stylized number here, but, you know, 75%. These are my numbers. I'm just putting a random number. Gross margins and, you know, this 25% tax. So that model as a whole makes $2 billion.

But at the same time, we're spending $10 billion to train the next model because there's an exponential scale up. And so the company loses money. Each model makes money, but the company loses money. The equilibrium I'm talking about is an equilibrium where we have the country of geniuses. We have the country of geniuses in a data center, but that model training scale up has equilibrated more. Maybe it's still going up. We're still trying to predict the demand, but it's more, it's more leveled out.

There is another fun clip that we should watch from A Beautiful Mind. Jordy, have you seen A Beautiful Mind? No. The Oscar for Best Picture, I believe. It's about the mathematician John Nash. Have you seen A Beautiful Mind? I've not. Wow, unc status over there.

You would have, you would have, I was, I was walking on the beach with Senra. Yeah. And we walked by an incredibly famous, one of the top movie directors of the last probably 10 years. Really? And Senra was like, do you see that? And I was like, see what? It's a guy with a dog. That's hilarious.

I feel like that your beach tours have been really star studded lately. This is a different from the previous one you mentioned, correct? Yes. Wow. Yes. That's remarkable. Well, let's pull up the clip. It's from a beautiful mind. Nash, you might want to stop shuffling your papers for five seconds. Is that Eric Kleiman? Yes, it's Eric Kleiman. In the ramp biopic, we got, we got our cast right here. This is the original, like, looks maxing movie. I don't know if she'll just be moving in slow motion.

Oh. Will she want a large wedding, you think? Should we say swords, gentlemen? Pistols at dawn. Have you remembered nothing? Recall the lessons of Adam Smith, the father of modern economics. In competition, individual ambition serves the common good.

Exactly. Every man for himself, gentlemen. And those who strike out are stuck with their friends. I'm not going to strike out. You can lead a blonde of water, but you can't make a drink. I don't think he said that. All right, nobody move. She's looking over again.

Right, she's just looking at Nash. Oh god. All right, he may have the upper hand now, but wait until he opens his mouth. I don't remember who last one. I guess that wasn't a history book. I think this is very, very stylized and completely apocryphal. Like, he definitely thought of this theory, but not at a bar. We block each other.

Not a single one of us is going to get her. So then we go for her friends. but they will all give us the cold shoulder because nobody likes to be second choice but what if no one goes for the blood we don't get in each other's way and we don't insult the other girls it's the only way we win

that's the only way we all get late so he's describing the prisoner's dilemma where everyone must work together the best result comes from everyone in the group doing what's best for himself right That's what he said. Is that right? Incomplete.

Incomplete. Okay? Uncomplete. Because the best result would come from everyone in the group doing what's best for himself and the group. This is some way for you to get the blonde on your own. You can go to hell. Governing dynamics, gentlemen. Governing dynamics.

Adam Smith. What's wrong? Yep. Here we got. Careful. Careful. Thank you. Anyway, very fun.

Dave says just joined the stream. We watch in a movie. Yeah. Lots of game theory going on in the AI wars right now. Everyone's trying to figure out how far to push it. There's a fair amount of risk. There's still the Kornow game of chicken around who will invest the most in advancing the frontier. But the end state looks a lot more durable than pure model commoditization and the perfectly competitive

situation that many were predicting a few years ago. Bucco Capital says I thought Dorcas had a good point that software engineering is the only job where the full context needed to do the job is available to an AI agent via the codebase. And I didn't think Dari had a good answer for why automating other jobs will be as easy. This got a bunch of a lot of people kind of reacting, kind of disagreeing generally that all of the full context needed to do the job is available. But I do think something we need to figure out. Yeah, we were debating this because there was a post that was just sort of like a WoJack reaction that was just making fun of this. And it wasn't clear if they were saying that, like, that they were agreeing or disagreeing.

But basically, my take was, well, it's possible that a lot of the, you know, the full context needed to do the job of a lot of different white-color jobs is, in fact, logged. It's just logged in the final product, which is like a deck or spreadsheet or a decision, and then a whole bunch of emails, a whole bunch of slacks, and then a whole bunch of Zoom calls that's recorded. And so, yes, if you're running a business where a lot of work gets done in smoky bars late at night and, you know, back alley deal making, sure, that's going to be harder to automate. But in the world where it's someone sitting in front of a computer and there's a screen recorder running, like, you should be able to pull up most of the context. At the same time, you can't just snap your fingers and go back and get every decision that was made in the 80s that allowed Coca-Cola to become a, dominant soda maker. But you can with limits. You literally can with limits.

If we get people on calls just being like, knowing the calls being recorded and used to train something to replace them, they're just like, I'll tell you offline. I'm not in speaking this secret in your record. Golf this weekend. Debate around the posture. Yes. Dwar Kesheh, his posture was absolutely excellent.

He's been having the gym a lot. He looks fantastic. I love this sweater. The crew neck works really well. The pushed up sleeves is a particular choice. Didn't translate into that, Chad Wojack, but he looks fantastic here. A lot of fun on the timeline looking at the looks-mogging or whatever,

the looks maxing. I don't even know. Frame-mogging. That's the frame-mogging. He kept bringing up the example of a video editor saying, yeah, but when will the models be good enough to edit video as well? Yes. Pick out moments.

Yes. And give me two years and another 500 billion. We've tried every tool there is. They can't do it yet. It's tricky. I don't know. I don't know what's... And it's not even that we're not trying the tools to replace the people on our team.

We're trying to make them have higher output. One interesting thing is that the, there isn't, there aren't a lot of open source, like, Premiere profiles. Like, I've edited a ton of videos for YouTube. There's a whole bunch of cuts in there. What I cut out, what I didn't, you could have that record, but it's not stored in GitHub. Like it's just you can't necessarily train on it. You can train on the final product and understand,

but you don't understand what actually got left on the cutting room floor. There's this whole concept of like, kill your darlings, like when you're in the edit. Like you need to be cutting more. You're like, I like that shot. It's so cinematic, so cool. But does it actually advance the story?

No, so you cut it down. I was watching The Matrix this weekend and there's this amazing shot of when Neo and Morpheus are going to visit the the oracle and they reach for the doorknob and the doornaub has this perfect reflection and the reflection shows Neo and Morpheus and they had to do this crazy VFX shot to hide the camera in more what looks like Morpheus's coat because if you point a camera at a mirror you see the camera and you don't want to see the cameraman there that ruins the shot and so they did all

this crazy stuff to like to like you know cover up the camera and I'd seen the behind the scenes and been like wow that's really impressive and in my memory I thought it was like oh it's such an important shot they probably like lingered on that for like five seconds to really let it sink in like they're pulling a trick on the audience it's beautiful it's like half a second and they did all this work and then they knew that like from a storytelling perspective you don't want to hang out and watch a picture of a doorknob for five seconds and so all these decisions like they sort of get chronicled but they don't get neatly organized in the way that a github blog does with with pull request discussions and what happens so it'll be it'll be difficult. So maybe two years and another five billion dollars does it, but it's coming.

So we'll keep monitoring it. Andrew Reed says horses don't stop. They keep going. Wait, did he actually say that? Yes. No way. Yes. In response to 2026 being the year of the horse, I love it. One of the greatest lyrics of all time. Originally, to explain the joke, it's a young thug song. And the actual lyric is hustlers don't stop. They keep going. But it sounds like horses. And so people put horses don't stop. They keep going and they show the AI generated image of the horse bench pressing. And it's incredibly inspiring. There's a lot of young thug songs that are hard to decipher.

100%. Let's hit the size gong for this Pennsylvania Girl Scout. Six years old breaks record selling 87,000 boxes of cookies. She's unstoppable. Unstoppable. Wait, how much is that? What's the ARR? estimating that it's somewhere around $600,000 of sales at only six years old.

Really incredible stuff. Heartwarming. That's awesome. India's Adani Group to invest $100 billion in AI infrastructure. We've got to hit the gong again. Hit it again. Indian Proclanates investment may boosts the country's ambitions to become an AI power. India's Ondani Group and energy and logistics giants said it would invest $100 billion to develop large-scale data centers by 2035. the largest such commitment in India so far.

Tyler, what do you think about the timing here? Is this going to be too late? Are the clankers going to, like, is 20, 35? How are we looking there? Is that that's most singularity? Yeah, I'm very bullish on the clankers coming pretty early. So, you know, time will tell, I guess. I'll see.

I cannot wait to pull up this clip. It is a big number that I feel like a lot of countries have been teasing big numbers, but this is like real. McGrohn. Yeah, this is like a really big number. You see a bunch of like multi-billion dollar deals, multi-billion dollar releases, but this is like a serious, serious serious investment. So you know, good, good news. Micron is spending 200 billion. So congratulations for saying the biggest number. Micron. Micron is spending 200 billion to break the AI memory bottleneck for decades memory

chips were low margin commodity products. Now the industry can't make enough to satisfy data centers hunger. Just like this one company is like yeah we're gonna spend twice as much as India. Micron technology is the largest American maker of memory chips, the tiny slices of silicon that store and transfer data and help power everything from smartphones and car computers to laptops and data centers. Micron is rushing to add manufacturing capacity to avert the biggest supply crunch the memory industry has seen in more than 40 years. Did you hear that the the PS6 the PlayStation 6 is now delayed because of memory?

shortages. 2029. Pretty, pretty big delay to 2029. They really don't refresh. You just created a trillion gamers. No, seriously, I think adding insult to injury to... Yeah. The gamers might actually be...

gamers might rise up. They might be an important voting block. A lot of them are of age to vote. And a lot of them would rather have new gaming hardware than, you know, necessarily AI sloping. the feed. They're like, yeah, I can't afford the new PC that I wanted. What do you think? I don't know. I mean, I feel like this says a lot about how good the PS5 is, right? Because they can like afford to just like postpone the PS6. Like what game...

Oh, now you don't want technological progress? Wow. I wanted to go to the data centers. I don't care about like the next game graphics have like, have they gotten that much better in the past like five years? Like yeah, maybe, but it's like for the actual gameplay is it that important if like the actual pixels are... Realistically, a lot of this stuff should be moved. moving to the cloud soon if it's not already. And then if you're running in the cloud, you can upgrade the hardware. And in theory, you should be able to run

like a gen AI upraising pass to make it more photo real. And I feel like that's going to be where more of the juice is squeezed out of the graphics than just continuing on the traditional path of like more pixels, more ray tracing. It'll be make a really beautifully designed video game that works really well, really tight, deterministic. interaction, so it's satisfying, and then give it a layer. We've got to have a ram trader on the show, really somebody that's in the thick of

deal-making in the space. Moving on, Lucas Shaw was on a tear over the weekend reporting on the Warner Brothers Paramount Conversations. He says this morning, Warner Brothers is going to resume talks with Paramount after two months of rejecting them playing mind games. The company still says it's committed to Netflix, but needs to find out just how much the Ellison's will offer. He originally reported on this Sunday, but it's being confirmed today. Again, we kind of knew this was going to happen.

If the Ellisons had been saying, we're giving you a big number, but it's not our biggest number. It's not our best and final. So no surprise here. Let's flip over to Claude Bot. Kent Dodd says, names the thing Claude Bot.

Claude asks for a rename. Renames to Open A&I buys it. legendary a legendary couple weeks no confirmation on buying it's an open source project they're keeping it open source there's a whole bunch of different

yeah Dave Morin remember reading is going to step into I believe run the foundation that will that will kind of steward the open source project and then Peter's obviously joining open AI I'll take this day off to figure out this whole open claw thing

every entrepreneur on present Day weekend. We've talked about this on the show before. Long weekends are really good for AI progress and AI diffusion. Petition for three-day weekends to speed up AGI timelines probably would work for sure. Fumblegate. Fumblegate. Did Anthropic Fumble OpenClaw? Will Brown says honestly crazy that OpenClaught sold for $1 billion. Like he's really the first solo $5 billion founder. Time will tell if it's worth $15 billion that OpenAI spent on the acquisition. but it's pretty wild that you can just vibe code an open source project and make 40 billion in a couple months now. It really, really nails it because everyone jumped immediately to a billion, immediately.

Off of nothing. Off of nothing. Off of like one rumor. It's very, very funny. Who knows? Alex Cohen breaks it down for Gen Z. If you're wondering what happened today, Claude was maugging OpenAI for weeks.

Then this gym cell dev ships Claudebot, which was the fastest growing open source thing ever. absolute looks max for the whole ecosystem. Anthropic tries to derry-goon him with legal. Dev renames to OpenClaw. Open A.I slides in like a FOID pulling Chad with acquisition interest. OpenClaw gets acquired by Open A.I. Now Anthropic is getting jester gooned by the entire timeline, and Open A.I. is gigamaxing off their fumble.

Anthropic could have just let them cook, him cook. Instead, they went full moid and got outframed by the jester maxers at Open A. The looks maxed like the lingo is really, it feels, hilarious. I do wonder the half-life. I feel like it's got to be. It's got to be towards the boom, but the rise of the kick streamers is certainly the story of the year. Certainly the story of the year. What did Claude do? What did Claude do? The Pentagon has said that Anthropic will pay a price. There was reporting last week that Claude was leveraged in some way during the Maduro planning, the planning of the Maduro

raid. I was imagining in my head Dario as Walter White in the SUV just being like watching the logs and seeing Pete Heggseth running a deep research report on Maduro. Who is Nicholas Maduro? He's just like, no! No, don't do it.

Yeah, very unclear how it was used but a lot of pushback. What happened? Put out a statement on C-Dance 2.0. It's not a comment. It's a statement. The Chinese, yeah.

Now, the Chinese are, I've been quivering and fear ever since. Oh, no. Tag came after them. What they said? Sag stands with the studios in condemning the blatant infringement enabled by ByteDance's new AI video model, C-Dance 2.0. The infringement includes the unauthorized use of our members' voice and likenesses.

This is unacceptable and undercuts the ability of human. talent to earn a livelihood. It is kind of interesting that just in this statement they're admitting to saying like it's so good you're going to make it impossible for our members to earn a living, which doesn't actually... It says undercuts. I didn't say eliminates. C-Dance 2.0 disregards law, ethics, industry standards, and basic principles of consent. Hit that. Boom. AI development demands responsibility that is non-existent here. Completely correct. Some of the C-Dance videos are insanely infringing. It's just like, wow, it's Larry David. Beginning of the end,

says growing Daniel. Disney, as expected, sent a cease and assist letter to bite dance over C-dance 2.0. I wonder how bite dance will actually react to this pushback. Obviously, they expected it. They know that they're not abiding by a number of different U.S. laws. whether or not they care is another thing. Yeah. Like, if you, If you make an AI version of Andrew Huberman and you get in a fresh ad account, you can probably start spending money before the Huberman Lab team finds out what you're doing. I would disagree. I think Rob's on top of it.

I think he's goaded. But anyone else. Any other team would be cut. I don't know. I mean, he might respond faster than the others, but this is certainly happening. So this is interesting. If you're already like an A-list massive superstar, I think you see some stuff like this. And you're actually like, great, I'm going to be a lot.

able to shoot a movie in a week from LA. I'm not going to have to travel to these insane exotic locations and spend a week in the desert filming all these clips. So if you're like a Timothy Shalame, this is maybe like, yes, you're worried for the overall industry, but at the same time, you're thinking, okay, my name and likeness is now infinitely scalable. I can still, like, restrict the supply in some degree, right? I'm not going to tell any movie studio. hey, you can make a movie with me, whatever. You're still going to kind of restrict it. The question becomes new talent that's emerging,

trying to build their brand. At what point do studios say, we're just going to make a character, we're going to make a new actor out of thin air, place them across different movies, build them up over time. You could imagine, I don't think a company like CAA would do this

because all their talent would be like, what are you doing? Like, you're taking our job. But I could imagine a group trying to make like a little Michaela-style actor that you build up over time. One thing that we'll find out is how much does the actual actor's real-life matter in the context of their career? Like if Timothy Shalame is dating Kylie Jenner,

does that like increase his appeal on the big screen? Yeah. And I would say yes, probably, right? There's so much fixation on the lives of all this talent. I can't wait for tomorrow at 11 a.m. Sharp. Pacific. Thank you.