Technology, Connected - How Stories and Bureaucracy Create Power: Yuval Noah Harari on Information Networks

Episode Date: December 11, 2024

In Chapter 3 of Nexus, Yuval Noah Harari examines how stories, documents and bureaucratic systems allow large societies to organise information and exercise power.Mark and Jeremy discuss the shift from oral storytelling to written records, lists and administrative systems. Stories help people create shared beliefs, while documents turn those beliefs into laws, institutions, identities and systems of control.In this episode, we discuss:How stories allow large groups of people to cooperateWhat Harari means by intersubjective realityWhy writing transformed human societiesHow lists, records and documents enabled bureaucracyThe relationship between information systems and political powerHow documentation supports institutions while limiting human judgementWhether bureaucracy makes societies more efficient or less adaptableWhy people remember narratives more easily than administrative informationWhat Shakespeare, Kafka and Alan Watts reveal about stories and systemsHow AI and misinformation are changing modern information networksThe central question is whether humans control the systems they create or gradually become shaped by their rules, categories and records.This conversation examines how storytelling creates shared meaning, how bureaucracy converts meaning into organised power, and what these systems can teach us about artificial intelligence and the future of information.--Timestamps(00:00) Book Lovers(00:39) William Shakespeare(02:46) Nations Are Intersubjective Realities(04:31) Dreams, Songs And Fantasies (05:53) Writing As The Catalyst For Bureaucracy(07:34) Stories Are Intersubjective Realities(09:39) Computer Says No(11:21) Alan Watts And A Conversation With Myself(14:34) Are Humans Organised?(19:30) Movies About Bureaucracy(21:31) Emergent Systems(24:44) Non Human Information Gets To Jeremy(30:10) Disinformation Debunking--Read more: www.thinkingonpaper.xyz--

Disruptors and Curious Minds, CEOs, founders, booklovers. Welcome to the Thinking on Paper Book Club, where we read Book Club live, where we read books that have stood the test of time. Books that will change your mind. We are the rebellion to the 15-minute book summary. You've heard of slow food. This is slow reading. One book out there.

I like that. Farm to brain. Farm to brain. Farm to brain. From page to brain. From page to brain. Yeah, we read the truth. lines, yeah. And because I've always wanted to do this, I'm going to start with a bit of Shakespeare.

Is not this a lamentable thing that the skin of an innocent lamb should be made parchment, that parchment being scribbled over should undo a man? Some say the bee stings, but I say tis the bees wax, for I did but see a once to a thing, and I was never mine own man since. You make Shakespeare palatable, man. Henry the 6th part two. We're reading chapter three. It's about paper tigers and the document. And how the document fits into the information age. Jeremy, chapter three.

I made my own paper tigers. Can you recite some Shakespeare? What have you got in your Shakespeare canon? Nothing. Zero. Zero. Not that I don't respect. him or the collection of people or her or the collection of people that appeared to have been

him or her. Okay. On that, okay, information networks, the past, the storytelling, like, how did we get to a point where his, whether William Shakespeare existed, was he one person, was he lots of people, like, how did we get to that point? What happens in the information networks that we have to even say such things? Probably some misinformation, probably some disinformation, probably some misinformation, probably some manipulation, a little bureaucracy sprinkled in, a nice tension between power and freedom, control and liberty, all of that fun stuff. Yeah, all the good stuff.

Yeah, so we're talking about documents. So as we as we jump into this, there was a nice carryover from the chapter before that kind of tied some things. He threaded them together kind of nicely and continued on the format of like stories being the basis for the formation of nations, which news flash guys, nations are intersubjective realities, just like money, just like laws. You stop talking about them. poof, they go away. Intersubjective realities like this communal hallucination and believe in something. Yep. Absolutely.

So we talk a little bit about some of the misinformation, disinformation that went into some of the historical national conflicts and that sort of thing. But what I've landed on as I read the beginning of this was, you know, stories kind of corral the people, they kind of bring them together. They're the, they're the Pied Piper, you know, blowing the tune out of the flute of the flute. People are following. But another tool is needed once you get critical mass, a tool to organize, a tool to direct, a tool to be more poignant in the next steps to scale an intersubjective reality. So, hey, documents, lists, collect and store and process information to scale intersubjective realities. That's what documents do.

Scales intersubjective realities. Yeah, brilliant. So why are lists so boring, Mark? Like, why are lists so boring and why does stories resonate? Well, the survival instinct, the reptile brain. I don't know. It goes back to the beginnings of, humanity. Well, okay, so he lays out why, so chapter two is all about the story, but in chapter

three, it's about the document because the story is, what does he say, dreams, songs and fantasies, however inspiring are not enough to create a functioning nation state. You need to raise taxes, you need to buy guns, you can't just tell nice stories. And he gives some famous, some examples from Ukraine, from Israel, from, yeah, from the history of stories. And then you get to a point where yeah, you need a list to, you need to raise taxes, you need a list. And we don't remember lists. I think we said this last week. I can remember seven details.

And after that, my brain stops functioning. I could, is it literally seven? Like, it's always seven? I think that on a telephone number, it's like seven digits that you can retitate. After that, you need to either, you know, rotation. You can use mnemonics. You could use a memory palace. You could.

But that always turns it back. back into a story anyway. So basically, you need to write down information to keep it readily available. And that's where he starts, doesn't he where they start, you know, mesopotamia and it started writing, you know, I know, right financial transactions. You write down on these clay, clay, clay, clay, palettes, whatever. And yeah, that just gave us a way to save lists, which we can't remember in their heads because they're boring. Well, here's an interesting thing, too, that this, the idea of documenting, the idea of writing something down actually was the catalyst for bureaucracy. And we'll talk about bureaucracy in a second.

But think about the fact that, you know, back, back before we wrote things down, things like ownership were signaled to each other. Like, we signaled ownership together. You know, say you and I are living in a village. I'm like, hey, Mark, this is my spot over here. I'm signaling it by planting my plants over here and consistently reminding you that those are my plants, right? And you do the same thing on yours. And there was just this signaling that happened.

But like the fact that writing something down could have something here that a third party could use to control the relationship between you and I, which is like, I started thinking about that. I'm like, yeah, dude, writing literally. created this third-party management of people. Yeah. And it was like almost this, not subconscious, but we just woke at one day and we've given all the power to the document,

all the decisions we've taken away from our stories, we've given them into a piece of paper that says, you own this, you don't own that, this is where the border ends, this is where the border begins. this is how much money we have, this is how much money you don't have, and it's all written down on a piece of paper. Well, all right, so we go back to like stories creating these intersubjective realities, these things that you can't, you know, put in a bag and carry with you across the world. You can't knock, knock on them. You can't hold them, right? They're these intangibles, right? but now, you know, the person that creates the story starts looking at the group and goes,

oh, wow, I've got them. How do I keep them? Okay, so we got to put some rules together. Okay, guys, hey, here are the rules, here are the things. And sometimes the rules can be tied back to story. It could be, I remember in the last episode of this, we talked about, like, instead of me just creating rules, Hey Mark, I was outside and these rules fell down from the mountaintop and there was a big ray of sunshine and this rock moved and underneath the rock there was this, right? So you can actually point these boring lists back to the story because we think in stories.

So we got the documents here, but we got to keep people tied to it by continuously reinforcing the story. And then, so exactly that. I was going to read a little bit from chapter 3. Humans couldn't forge an intersubjective reality that their brains couldn't remember. This limit could be transcended, however, by writing documents. The documents didn't represent an objective empirical reality. The reality was the documents themselves, and that was kind of the thread between the storytelling and the document. Document becomes the intersubjective reality.

We see it all the time, don't we? 100%. So, all right. So now we're... Sorry, there's a famous English comedy about the frustrations of data and information of this. And it's a bit like the document has become the intersubjective reality. And there's this guy and he tries to get things done and always done via a computer.

And there's just this little catchphrase like, he types it all in and it's like, computer says no. Computer says no. And he's like, no, but it's really me. Like, computer says no. It's like, no, I live here. No, computer says no. Oh, my God. Yeah, yeah, yeah.

No, like the kind of the, well, well, here's, here's an interesting piece. And let's go right into this idea of bureaucracy, right? So we got, so like someone figured out, okay, we can write all the shit down and the shit reinforces the story. The story reinforces the shit. And you're kind of looking, you're like, okay, now all of these documents are, are piling up, just pile, pile, pile, pile, pile, pile, pile, pile, pile. And now it's like, okay, it's not a matter of creating the documents from this intersubjective

story-based reality. It's now finding, like searching and retrieving the right document based on what's happening. So it becomes a search and retrieval thing versus a creation thing, right? Yeah, you have to find the right, we have to find the right document. As he says, evolution has adapted humans for finding fruit and mushrooms, but not for documents in an archive. Oh, you can't forage. Yeah, you can't forage for documents. Can't forage for documents. All right, so enter bureaucracy.

Okay. Literally meaning, according to the author, rule by written desk. Rule by written desk. The bureau is French for desk office. Oh, there you go. That makes sense. So, all right. And this got me really thinking, you know where this, as I started reading about bureaucracy, it immediately...

Got you angry? Yeah, well, yeah, got me angry number one. But no, it pointed me back to Alan Watts. Okay. Okay? And I'll tell you why it pointing me back to Alan Watts. He's got this wonderful talk that I think it's called a conversation with myself. And he talks about the idea of nature being wiggily.

and we always talk about on this show the difference between what humans create and the natural way that things happen. We talk about it a lot in quantum computers, right? Like nature is inherently quantum. We're trying to kind of force a version of quantum based on our mind

instead of like unlocking the power of quantum in nature, right? So nature is wiggly and what do we do? Like what do humans do? We basically corral shit and we stuff it into square boxes, right? We're stuck, stuff it in these square situations where, um,

they're very different than, than the world of nature and the way Alan Watts talks about it. He's like, well, if you think about this, you're in a forest and they're, the nature is wiggly. It's the wind.

It's the leaves. It's all of these things that are not straight edge. And what do we do when we design a city? Can we mentalize? We basically create these grids, these rectangular and square grids. And we're, What do we do with buildings? We get into rectangular and square buildings. And we start talking in

languages of, yeah, let's get this straightened out, Mark. Mark, let's get this ironed out. Hey, let's get it squared away. And it's like, do we really understand the things that we are pulling in and squaring away? Or are we just organizing them because we look to organize and optimize everything? It's, yeah, the latter of those. When you fill out the form and none of the listed options fit your circumstances, you must adapt yourself to the form. Computer says no. Yeah, far as in the form adapting to you. Reducing the messiness of reality to a limited number of fixed drawers helps bureaucrats, bureaucrats keep order.

But it comes at the expense of truth. Here we go again, because they are fixated on their drawers, even when reality is far more complex, bureaucrats often develop a distorted understanding of the world. And then he uses some examples as that goes into education, it goes into the sciences, it goes into healthcare where everything is compartmentalized at the, and we lose truth in that process because it's a, what did he say in chapter one, like truth becomes a small part of reality through one lens or something. There is no such thing as truth because it's like, is it Radiohead or the Manick Street preachers

I have my truth. You tell me yours. Oh, yeah. It's like, yep. Yeah, it's, and it's actually on the specialization thing, you, you hinted on this a little bit, right? Separating things into neatly organized disciplines, right? And the biggest challenges in the world that we face, and we've talked about this on our quantum computing shows, on our AI shows, on all of these, you know, climate change, all of these things that we're talking about are interdiscipline.

right there you have to be a part of a bunch of different things to really understand something right so are we innately kind of set up to organize or are we innately set up to understand because i think it's the former versus the latter and you got to really work to understand i like that say again are we set up to are we innately set up to kind of just organize things into neat buckets rather than really understand how the pieces that we're organizing potentially work together, right? What are all these interdisciplinary intersections that make things really work? And, you know, by just getting it organized and neatened up and popped into a bucket, we separate it and we limit that interdisciplinary understanding, I think.

Yeah, I agree with that. completely. Although in defense of bureaucracy because it does the deep state sewage, don't forget you've got a toilet like his defensive bureaucracy is you've got a toilet. Well, is that bureaucracy

or is that coordination? I think his argument is that without this compartmentalization of bureaucracy, you wouldn't have the means to create the infrastructure to separate dirty water from clean water, to have drinking water, to have the systems which we benefit from from our

taxes. Although he doesn't even himself seem totally into that argument. Yeah, I'm not 100% anti-bureaucracy. I think it's when you get to the point of undue influence and controlling a group of people based on your ability. to kind of manage the layers, to manage the documents, to manage the things. And you think about it, like, there was a quote in the chapter that talked about, like, literal or literate bureaucracies actually expanded this idea of centralized authority

in a time when not a lot of people were literate. So, again, like pointing back to the show, we talked about yesterday, defy and traditional finance, you have this, you have this complexity that's introduced. and that is not distributed, the knowledge to unpack the complexity is not distributed. So the people that are kind of set on the outskirts of that are usually in a position to be controlled versus the opposite. I think you've hit on the point that brings all this together.

So if people are just tuning in for the first time, if you're meaning what the hell are we talking about, this is the whole point of Book Club. where we read each chapter very, very carefully. And then at the end, we can bring it all together and try to make sense of it on a much more deeper level. And so we're talking about information networks, the end goal being understanding how artificial intelligence

is going to work or is working or will work. And I think you've hit on it there because it's that shift in power. It's that shift in who controls again. It all comes down to information. He says here, documents, archives, forms, licenses, regulations, and other bureaucratic procedures. have changed the way information flows in society and with it the way power works. And so I think it's a very, the beginnings of the warning signs of what happens when

all of the information, the licenses, the archives, the documents is all kind of in one place. Absolutely. So think about this. Like this, this was really interesting, I thought, was the idea of species, right? So, you know, we've, we've, we. as not we, not you and I, right? Because we're not biologists, but like, you know, careless lineus and all the people that kind of Darwin and, you know, and everyone that followed through the centuries or whatever, you know, are, is species, is it something that biologists discovered as an objective reality? Like, ooh, I found this thing under the rock. I can see it. I can feel it. Or is it an intersubjective reality that they created to organize something that's a little

bit chaotic. That's the same question that you asked earlier, isn't it? Are we in Aitley? Are you saying, organ, organizers of this or are we? I think, you know, are we in Aitle maybe kind of depends on your nurture versus nature, doesn't it? Yes. Maybe not.

So, let's see. What are you thinking about that? I've got a question for you, which goes back to what we were talking about. So back to storytelling and poetry stories, art, used to be a way to understand the world. And the thing about bureaucracy and lists is that it's really difficult to make good art about a list because it's boring.

And he speaks to Kafka, the trial. He speaks to this Ramayana quite a lot. But art about lists and bureaucracy. And I was going to ask you, Can you think of any films that are about bureaucracy, which are good? I could think of like Erin Brokovich, which is kind of about. That's taken down the bureaucracy, though. Yeah, but she spends a lot of time looking in boxes for lists, doesn't she?

Oh, my gosh, that's she, yeah. I couldn't think of any films or any art that was about lists. Man, that's a great question. I, man, I don't know that anything jumps off. Anyone listening in the chat, if something sparks fired up. there and help us out with that one. Oh, he speaks a lot about this Ramayana. Have you seen that?

I haven't, but I now have it. Like, I want to watch it. I want to kind of watch it. It seemed like it was, it got a big resurgence back in the COVID times, I think. Yeah. Is that about Ram or is that Rondi Rood Varm? Is that where Arthur C. Clark got his? Ooh, that's a good question.

I don't know. I don't know. That might be some good homework for us to watch that, though. Yeah. You know what I sensed again? Um, with, with, with, you know, we're at what about a hundred episodes of thinking on paper, uh, from a, you know, our, our interview segment and we're, is this our sixth book? This book number six, yep, book number six. And, and I tell you what, every, almost every discussion we get into, or everything we try to unpack, my brain always goes back to this interplay between hierarchical systems and emergent systems. And, and he references it. in here again as the biological drama, right?

And that's the balance of mythology and bureaucracy. What did you think about that? Nobody understands it, the biological drama. Nobody understands bureaucracy except for a small people. So it moves, it shifts into the power of a very few people, unfathomable agencies, you know this. that it becomes scared of bureaucracy because it's an agent that you don't understand

for things that you don't understand and this biological drama is it that juxtaposition about is bureaucracy like the most unbiological thing like does this answer your question about whether we are inately organisational creatures or whether we are we want to connect the dots and maybe the biological drama

because we actually do want to connect the dots, but this bureaucracy is the most unorganic, unbiological system that we've built for ourselves, that we have this kind of biological drama down to our very genes. I don't know. Man, that's really interesting to think about. So like the core of us, right? The core of like how humans are built and made. We're not going to talk about how we're made. because that would be a lascivious discussion. We are going to talk about the ingredients, one of them, you know, DNA, right? DNA in the fact that, you know, that isn't that captured information? Like, isn't that a paper tiger kind of living in a cell that's basically like, all right, every cell has this set of instructions?

Do, does our biology actually have a bureaucracy? What about that? Yeah, it was completely wrong. it's completely off as impact. Yeah, we are. It's the perfect representation of, yeah, DNA is a list. Yeah, we store bureaucracy inside every cell in our body. Oh my gosh. We're innately bureaucratic. That's disappointing. That is so disappointing. Is that good news for AI or bad news for information networks if we are innately bureaucratic? Hmm. Man, it all comes down to like that every time we talk about AI and like what's done today versus what's going to be done tomorrow with a new technology. It's like technology is like jet fuel on an existing situation or a microphone to a, you know, to a acoustic voice, right? You know, and you can scream good things into the microphone and you can scream bad things in the microphone and, you know, I.

I don't know, man. It's the scale of what can happen with information using something that's non-human is, yeah, it's pretty heavy, man. I mean, we're all seeing, we're seeing things like, you know, recent elections. We're seeing things like bots. And, you know, we've seen this for years, bots controlling, you know, general consensus and feeling about candidates and in particular situations, right? So, like, technology is already, already being used to manipulate reality and create new intersubjective realities. Yeah, it's just a matter of scale. And it's like, wow, shit, we're going to be able to do that faster. And we're going to have less ability to, man, this is, all right, this is getting deep, Mark. You know, the more people lean on technology and AI and that sort of thing, the less

you know, the reduction in our ability to synthesize information organically, right? Like the reduction in our ability to critically think. So if we're being manipulated by a technology, we're like by using the technology over time, we're reducing our ability to counteract it. This is getting very, this is getting a very disappointing. That sounds like a vicious circle, the descent into hell, the maelstrom of, a lack of critical thinking. Should we love the bureaucratic information network or hate it?

All powerful information networks can do both good and ill, depending on how they are designed and used. Merely increasing the quantity of information in a network doesn't guarantee its benevolence or make it any easy to find the right balance between truth and order. That is a key historical lesson for the designers and users of the new information networks of the 21st century. three, less is more, Jeremy, not more is more.

Well, to answer your question, I think like, I think bureaucracies like are, are necessary to, to take something from a story into action, right? You know, people are inspired by a story. Okay, great, what do I do next? I'm here. I'm ready. What do I do? And then, you know, if that piece isn't harnessed, maybe the enthusiasm around the story

starts to wane a little bit, right? That's why humans are, we're always really good at coming together when there's there's like a big problem or an outrage or like, you know, something really, you know, some major injustice happens, right? And you have this like shootup of like people going, man, this really sucks. I can't believe it. Like what, what can we do to help this thing? And then we get into a point where no one creates the right mechanism to point that outrage into action. And you get this like drop off. And it's like, okay, we're back to doing what we do. So bureaucracies, I think the way I get my head around it, they're necessary.

to scale things. Hopefully the more important things and not the more manipulative things. Or just both. What did you think about the idea of like, this is pretty timely? He referenced like politicians creating imaginary problems in order to, you know, turn a new story into action. And it referenced the prime minister, Goga, the Romanian prime minister that, you know, essentially was providing disinformation.

on how many Jews were in Romania at the time, saying it was like millions when it was like 10,000, right? And all the, he freaked out all the Christians and, you know, got support to put this, this law in place where you had to prove your citizenship or get out of Dodge kind of thing. And that is the author's grandfather, I think, went through this. How did you, how did that land on you? What did you, what did you feel about that? I was thinking about, well, they were, didn't the same thing? Didn't it also Jesus? And he had to go do the consensus to Bethyham.

That's why it's Christmas time. I was thinking about, I don't know what I was thinking about it. What were you thinking about that? Well, it's just, it's pretty timely. I mean, it's pretty time. Like, the U.S. election, right, that happened recently. I mean, you, not to go into like details and like, you know, get into a major political discussion, but there is a, there are definitely, um, intersubjective realities that were created in order to galvanize a faction of people to, uh, to, to select a way to vote. And you, you witness that. Like in, in real time, it's like, well, that's not quite accurate. But even though it's not quite accurate, it's still, it's still, it's still, uh, it's still, uh, a tune that millions march to.

And it was like, okay, that's a, that's a mechanism. Well, I've got your question. Now, do I think politicians lie to get what they want? I think that that is an interesting link to it. It is very, very relevant now. We have misinformation. We have disinformation. And obviously, a big part of the nexus is more information.

Increasing the quantity of information, and that doesn't guarantee anything. So you would think perhaps that if a politician is replicating what happened in Romania in the 1930s, that it would be easy, easier to debunk it. And say that's simply not true. But if you look at what's happening in the microcosm of Twitter and then bigger global media, maybe it's actually even more difficult to say because there would be so many sources of misinformation and disinformation. It would become, you'd have more and more information,

and it would be absolutely impossible to say whether or not it was really happening. So have politicians, do they, of course, they lie to get what they want. And I think that in a world of increased information, maybe that becomes an even more powerful tool where you can just disseminate untruths and confusion. Yeah, instantly. It happens quicker. Yeah, absolutely. They talked about in this, is it Ramayan?

Is that how you pronounce that series? Ramayana, is it? Ramayana, Ramayana. You know, all these blockbuster, not that this was like

necessarily a blockbuster series or film, but all blockbuster series's series are based on these like story mechanics, right? These ancient story mechanics, even the best story. We've talked about Joseph Campbell and Heroes Journey and all of that. It's like the kind of the science of storytelling in a way.

But like, they reference this, in particular with Ramayana, the tension between purity and impurity, right? That is, that is like an innate kind of thing, right, for, for human beings and politicians manipulating what they call disgust mechanisms. I thought that was a really interesting selection of words right there. Just like the Hindu caste system, right? So that thing was completely built as an intersubjective reality. And if you're up here on the caste system and you run across someone here on the cast system, like, it's ingrained that it's like there's a, there's like a disgust there,

which is like mind boggling and unfortunate and sad. But that happens with politics every day where, you know, this particular, this, this impurity, purity and purity thing. I thought it was, I thought that was pretty nuts, man. Nuts and very powerful. Yeah. Yeah. All right. What else? What else with the bite of the paper tiger? Are you tired of, tired of tune on paper? Are we ready to land the plane? What do you think? I think we're ready to land the plane. Quick summary maybe. That was chapter three. Chapter two was about storytelling. Chapter three was about documents. Chapter one was an introduction to the whole nexus and information networks. And, yeah, final thoughts for me, but my final thoughts are more about actual what we're doing in bookclos.

rather than Nexus chapter three, where it is just invaluable to read so slowly and so deeply. And I could again feel my thoughts kind of taking shape as I'm bumbling my way through this, that afterwards it will become clearer and the dots of the history of networks will become clearer. And I'm glad I'm glad we're doing it. Likewise, man.

And I think for those listening, too, it's important to know that Mark and I don't have like prepared talking points for this. We're literally like fumbling through trying to figure out what each other's perspective is on this. And I push up against his. He kind of his back of mind. And it's amazingly powerful in creating this collective understanding. So like I would encourage you guys to read books with us and come on and talk about it. We could we could bring I think 10 people on.

So like let's start folding in some of you guys and let's let's, you know, selfishly, I want you to help me understand it, right? And maybe, you know, if we're lucky enough, I can help you understand it as well. So agreed, Mark. Agreed. Let's do it. Okay. Five people next week. Let's start the information network.

I don't know. There must be some clues in this chapter into how we get people on stage with us. Let's do it. It's time to, we have the story of thinking on paper. Now we need to build the bureaucracy to scale it. Right. Is that the deal? That sounds like a newsletter or I believe an email list. Oh, gosh. All right. Well, that's, that's the bite of the paper tiger. I feel, I feel good about wrapping up here. Hope you guys

enjoyed it. Jump in in one of these boxes with us next week. And let's let's talk about the, we're talking about errors next time, right? Is next chapter having to do with errors? Yeah. So what happens when a document is an information. information network, which could be a document, which could be a book, the Bible is an information network, right? There was a series of stories written a long time ago, but it's locked in time. So what if an information network, this is a question that he leaves in the end of this chapter, what if an information network becomes, what did he say, becomes, doesn't think it could be wrong, or doesn't think it is error prone or in need of up-throen,

date or revision. That's pretty interesting. I believe that we've already been there, haven't we? It wasn't its name, Hal? Oh, right. 2001. There you go. Let's leave on that.

Computer says no. Computer says no. We'll see you next week. Next time. See you. All right.