Subscribe
Share
Share
Embed
Technology's daily show (formerly the Technology Brothers Podcast). Streaming live on X and YouTube from 11 - 2 PM PST Monday - Friday. Available on X, Apple, Spotify, and YouTube.
Today on the show, we are, talking about Claude Opus 4.5. The timeline was in turmoil over the weekend. People are settling into the idea that Gemini three might be good enough to actually pull some people away from ChatGPT as a daily driver. It certainly pulled Mark Benioff away from ChatGPT. He, of course, was part of chips.
Speaker 2:He was swearing on
Speaker 1:the time. On the time. Holy s h I t. I've used ChatGPT every day for three years. I just spent two hours on Gemini three.
Speaker 1:I'm not going back. The leap is insane. Reasoning, speed, images, video, everything is sharper and faster. It feels like the world just changed again. I had a similar experience.
Speaker 1:I wound up basically daily driving Gemini. I didn't fully churn. I didn't I didn't delete Chateappity for my phone. It wasn't intentional. It was more like, I'm just curious.
Speaker 1:I really wanna use Nano Banana Pro. That definitely just sort of sucked me into the ecosystem. I know you've been a Gemi boy for a couple weeks. You look great in hindsight. You were early to this party.
Speaker 2:Honestly, way longer than that. Months at this point.
Speaker 1:Yeah. There are some things that I do want them to improve in the consumer Gemini app, because I think there's a lot of opportunity there. And I'm just not sure how monopolistic consumer AI will be. And that was a little bit of what my takeaway of this experience was. So, basically, I switched over.
Speaker 1:I I've been on Gemini on iOS for a while, mostly to access v o three. V o three was the was the moment when I was like, okay. They got something that nobody else has. I gotta afford go for two fifty a month.
Speaker 2:Well, and then it switched.
Speaker 1:No. No. It was one it was $1.25, and then it jumped to $2.50. V o three is just a very special model that no one else had anything close to it. It was very accessible on your phone.
Speaker 1:And I and I enjoyed it. So I but but I switched to daily driving Gemini on iOS as the main app that I go to for all the different knowledge retrieval requests. And the result was around fifteen minutes per day in the app, and this is roughly the same as what I spent in Chateappity Historic. And there was a lot to like about the experience. So first, it felt like Gemini three does a better job sizing the response.
Speaker 1:The question can be answered in one paragraph. It gives me one paragraph. If it can be answered in in five little subheaders with little bullet points, it'll do that. If it needs more more story, more history, it'll it'll write more. In previous models, in in ChatGPT, certainly, I felt like I was falling into the trap of no matter what question I would ask, I would get the two page dissertation on it with the same structure because it was a little overfit on the format that it was delivering.
Speaker 1:Gemini three felt a little bit fresh there. It also felt faster. Everyone's been saying it's so much faster. For the last couple months when I've been on ChatGPT because the model router gives me anxiety about, like, oh, maybe I'm gonna get routed to, like, the the dumb model that's gonna hallucinate. I'm just hammering GPT five Pro because I'm on the $200 a month tier.
Speaker 1:And so because I'm on this $200 a month I'm I'm I'm used to hitting, g p t five pro, but then that always means I'm waiting ten minutes. Yeah. And so if I'm always waiting ten minutes and I go over to thinking and it's like, oh, it'll be one minute. Even if I'm on a different model, it's not as much reasoning. It feels faster.
Speaker 1:And I feel like the level of confidence in the brand makes me feel that a Gemini three thinking query that does maybe less reasoning than a GPT five Pro query will be at the same level of reliability. Yeah. And you've pointed out to me something about when it's actually running, it does something psychologically that's really valuable.
Speaker 2:It says it's running a Google search.
Speaker 1:It just says we're searching Google. And and you don't think about it because everyone oh, searching the web. And I'm like, but I don't trust the web. But I trust Google because Google's had twenty five years of building brand around trust in on the web. And then also Nano Banana Pro, very interesting, strong differentiator.
Speaker 1:It really does handle the complex images. We saw with the farm, and it's been interesting to kind of throw a query. Like, I wanted to understand Anthropix, model architectures, and I said, hey. Summarize them all in an infographic, and it just perfectly explained how Sonnet and Opus all fit together nicely next to each other. On the on the negative side of the of my Gemini app experience, there were a few rough edges.
Speaker 1:So, the first was with that multimodality. Everyone's been saying these models are multimodal. They hand them little image, text, and video. I don't know if it was just a UI issue, but I was running into tons of problems where it wasn't feeling multimodal. And what I mean by that is that I would go and I would and I would and I would issue it a an image prompt, create this infographic, And then I would wanna flip back into text, and it would not be able to really stay it it wouldn't be able to go seamlessly back to text mode.
Speaker 1:It would keep generating images. And then vice versa would happen where I would kick off a text a a text flow, and then I'd say, okay. I'm ready for you to turn this into a nano banana thing. And I'd like, oh, I I can't I can't really do that. Are are you laughing about that because you think it's like a rookie mistake or something?
Speaker 3:Well, no. I you always like, oh, it's not really multimodal.
Speaker 1:It's not really multimodal.
Speaker 3:Yeah. But
Speaker 1:There should not be a button. If there's a button, it's telling on itself. I mean
Speaker 3:It it is multimodal in the sense that, like, everything gets baked down into, like, tokens.
Speaker 1:True. True. But I I expect the models to be operating at a higher level of abstraction much earlier than I think they do. And so with the model picker, like, I never liked that because the model should pick based on the text. I really like the router in in, in ChatGPT because I should be able to go to a person, which is what we're trying to, like, recreate here and say, like, hey.
Speaker 1:I have you I have a research project for you, and I need you to spend twenty minutes on it. What I'm saying is that we are still in the pre, like, selected drop down UI functionality of Gemini because I I I'm prompted to pick what I wanna do. Do you wanna do image, video, deep research, text before you go into the flow instead of just saying, I'm having a conversation. Oh, now is the time to generate an image. And it's like, yeah.
Speaker 1:Sure. That's something I can do instead of being like, woah. Woah. You didn't ask to talk to the guy who can generate images. Like, that guy's over there.
Speaker 1:It's like, is it all one thing, or is it not? And it's clearly not.
Speaker 2:And My criticism is just that the Gemini app still has a lot of bugs.
Speaker 1:It just has bugs.
Speaker 2:It just has bugs. It was also Yeah. For now, because again, it's like it's fast and smart. I was doing a search, I had to like it it was stuck in this limbo where it wasn't running the prompt, but it wouldn't let me run a new prompt. Mhmm.
Speaker 2:And I just had to basically rage quit and restart it and just copy and paste the prompt into a new box. So Yep. Yeah. Again, it's it's incredibly impressive.
Speaker 1:Yeah.
Speaker 2:It's a great model. But at this point, it's just like opportunity to, like, get more competitive on the product side.
Speaker 1:Yeah. I I was noticing even, like, just straight up disconnection errors. Like, I would submit a prompt, and then it felt like if I closed the app, it would get confused or something. And I don't understand that because it's just sending a little bit of text.
Speaker 3:Do you guys ever use the the, like, voice to voice, like, real time audio thing on No. LGBT?
Speaker 1:No. I don't like that at all.
Speaker 3:You've never used it?
Speaker 1:I've used it. I've used it a bunch. I've used all of them, but there there is just not the preferred way of interacting. Yeah.
Speaker 2:You you you were testing it out, Tyler, by talking with it for, like, eight hours a day. Right?
Speaker 1:Yeah. And you were on the x.xai one?
Speaker 2:Yeah. With Oni?
Speaker 1:What's that name?
Speaker 2:Imagine running constantly with a VR headset. With a VR headset
Speaker 1:and a full immersive suit in a in a sensory deprivation tank. Yeah. No. No. No.
Speaker 1:Why do you bring it up?
Speaker 3:I I I actually I've using I've started using it like it's pretty good.
Speaker 1:The Gemini app launched almost two years ago. And there's still, like, rough edges in the UI, which I think is crazy. But it does seem like they have an opportunity to actually take some serious market share at this point. Like, they've caught up on many different, many different, values and, like, value props. My question was, I'm not the typical consumer.
Speaker 1:Like, I'm going to try every different different app. Like, I'll probably keep bouncing around. I don't know if consumers will do the same broadly. There's it's very, very clear that ChatGPT is just synonymous with AI, and people are not like, oh, well, like, the new benchmarks I gotta, like, change for my, you know, app. Like, no no one's thinking like that.
Speaker 1:The fragility in the ChatGPT monopoly aggregator thesis that I was picking up on was for the last year, there have been a lot of features and and, like, theses around different things that could create lock in. So stuff like personalization
Speaker 4:Yeah. Memory.
Speaker 1:Or or your memory or or even, like, the chat functionality between what you've linked, your custom instructions, your your Yep. The the the different, like I think at this point, I've synced ChatGPT or auth ChatGPT with a number of different services. I've given it even custom instructions, just saying, like, hey, cool it on the EmDashes. And I didn't miss any of that. It it made me think, like, maybe it's a little bit more fragile.
Speaker 1:Maybe maybe there will be a little bit more of a duopoly. There it won't be such a winner take all market, even though it has been historically. It's it it it has been up to this date. Google has now added $2,000,000,000,000 to its market cap over the past twenty months since the boob shirt guy asked Sergey Brin about woke Gemini images while having a foot long subway cold cut trio for lunch. What is this video?
Speaker 1:Let's play this.
Speaker 3:I have no idea what's going on here.
Speaker 1:How does this even Is that
Speaker 4:my art?
Speaker 1:The background. Yeah. With Okay. Yeah.
Speaker 4:I wasn't gonna expect to talk about this thing. But, you know, we definitely messed up on the image generation And I think it was mostly due to just like not thorough testing. Earning?
Speaker 1:It's a crazy shirt to be wearing.
Speaker 3:I don't even know how you get into a meeting with someone as powerful and wealthy as Sergey Brinberg.
Speaker 2:It's obvious. You just wear you wear a jacket. You wear a jacket and you get in, it's hot. You take your jacket off. You're just
Speaker 1:I was
Speaker 3:not expecting that. That is so insane. That's
Speaker 1:very, very funny.
Speaker 2:It's a Bay Area thing, John. Yeah. It's note notable. I mean Yeah. The stocks jumped 6% today.
Speaker 2:Barron's put out a report today just saying the title is buy Google stock. Yep. Alphabet has been the clear AI winner, which is just funny because I had earlier this year, like, people weren't saying people were saying they're the AI loser. Yeah. So Barron's is saying, actually, they have been.
Speaker 2:Yeah. They have been the clear AI winner.
Speaker 1:OpenAI's hardware division, says Mark Gurman, built around Johnny Ive's secretive startup, has ramped up the hiring of Apple engineers. The group has brought on about 40 new people in the last month or so with many of them coming from Apple's hardware group.
Speaker 2:I Yeah. I during that Scholto interview, I'm disappointed. I don't think we're getting ads from Anthropic anytime soon, and I don't think we're gonna get a mobile device.
Speaker 1:40 people that does not seem like cause for concern for Apple. I mean, they're I I I can't imagine how big their hardware group is, but it has to be, you know, in the thousands, I would imagine.
Speaker 2:Yeah. So it's huge organization.
Speaker 1:So OpenAI is poaching left and right from Apple's hardware engineering group, hiring around 40 directors, managers, and engineers in the last month from nearly every relevant Apple department. Mark Gurman says it's remarkable. So from what I've heard, this is Mark Gurman, Apple is none too pleased about OpenAI's poaching, and some consider it a problem. The hires include key directors, a fairly senior designation, as well as managers and engineers, and they hail from a wide range of areas, camera engineering, iPhone hardware, Mac hardware, silicon device testing, and reliability industrial design, manufacturing, audio, smartwatches, vision pro development software. They got one from every single sampled every single every single division, I suppose.
Speaker 2:Gemini is estimating that Apple has between 15,020 hardware engineers total.
Speaker 1:15,000? That seems like a lot. I don't know. In other words, OpenAI is picking up people from nearly every relevant department. It's remarkable, says Mark Gurman.
Speaker 1:I wonder how the how the comp's structured, how everything will come together at on on those teams. I mean, there's there's a lot of people from Apple who going over to OpenAI. It's a greenfield project. It's probably really fun, probably really exciting, probably not the most mercenary scenario.
Speaker 2:If you're working at Apple and you're excited about AI and you've been there for Yeah. The last three years watching all this prop Yep. Progress happen
Speaker 1:Yep.
Speaker 2:At the application layer and the model layer and not being thrilled with the progress happening at the hardware layer. This is like a
Speaker 1:Yeah.
Speaker 2:Yeah. Just a wide open opportunity to, like, be working right at that intersection of the of the models and the hardware.
Speaker 1:There's a lot of AI engineers who have made moves because they don't wanna be a GPU poor company. And and it's weird because Apple's in this in this scenario where they're partnering with Gemini now. They're clearly going to survive. They're it's not a serious threat, at least not yet, maybe if this this device is incredible. But right now, Apple looks pretty strong.
Speaker 1:From an AI perspective, it's gotta be one of the worst gigs because you were in this sort of, like, openly hostile environment to LLMs, to scaling, to building large GPU clusters. And then, yeah, they're sort of playing catch up now, but they're certainly not, calling up Oracle for, you know, a trillion dollars of compute. Sam Altman replied to one of our cards we put up on November 22. Sam Altman replied and said, cannot believe this is only two years ago. Subjectly subjectively feels like five.
Speaker 1:Yeah. What a turnaround to go from from defenestrated to back in the back in the seat in so much and have so much control over the organization that you're able to raise at massive valuations, strike broker all these deals, move the entire market, just a remarkable Yeah. And run.
Speaker 2:Put on put on such a master class in in deal making that people are now sitting here being like, there's no way that this would be a $500,000,000,000 company if Sam wasn't in the driver's seat.
Speaker 1:This is like a very, like, hacker news and turmoil segment, but I reverse engineered 200 AI startups. A 146 are selling you repackaged ChatGPT and Claude with new UI. Basically, the thesis of this article is that this fellow wrote a piece of, of code that looks at the marketing copy and says, what are they claiming? And then looks at the calls that happen when you actually interact with their AI feature. So if there's a chatbot on this particular, startup's website and you, are near chatting with it, and you look into the into the trace that's happening, in Chrome, is it going to the startup server, or is it going to OpenAI server, or is it going to Anthropic server?
Speaker 1:That's telling. And then there's also a little bit of API fingerprinting. Basically, OpenAI has a specific pattern of, of rate limiting, and it's and it's exponential. So if you're spamming the OpenAI API, according to a unique pattern, tell you, hey. You've you've sent too many messages.
Speaker 1:Cool off for one minute. And then the next time you do it, cool off for two minutes. The next time, cool off for four minutes, then eight minutes, then sixteen. Right? And it gets exponentially longer.
Speaker 1:The shape of that curve and the specific timings are unique to OpenAI. And so if I'm a start up Interesting. And I have the exact same back off and, timeout curve, well, then it's probably just OpenAI under the hood. At least that's the that's the claim that's being made here. And so the finding in this article is that 73% had a significant gap between the claimed technology and the actual implementation.
Speaker 1:And so out of the 200 AI startups that this fellow analyzed, 54 companies, either had accurate technical claims. They said, hey. We're using, like like, we have a custom AI model that we trained, and they did, or they're transparent about their stack. They say, hey. This is a wrapper.
Speaker 1:Like, we're a wrapper company. And so, you know, our AI is powered by ChatGPT. We're partnered with OpenAI. We're partnered with Anthropic or whatever. Now a 146 companies, that's 73%.
Speaker 2:It's a very cool study, but this tracks with exactly like, I would guess that 73% of AI startups are just re reskinning
Speaker 1:Yes. And so 19% of the overall companies, the 38 that were analyzed in this study, found that when that the startup said they had in house models, and it was actually fine tuned public models. So so this this author claims that after posting this, seven founders reached out privately. Some were defensive. Some were grateful.
Speaker 1:They asked for help transitioning their marketing from proprietary AI to built with the best in class APIs. One VC reached out and said, like, I'd like you to audit my portfolio because I have been told that I was investing in companies that were training their own AI, and I made the investment on that Yeah. Assumption. And if I'm being lied to, then that's potentially that's potentially securities fraud. I mean, I've I've seen pitches for companies that where they've said, like, proudly, like, you you should invest in this because we're not training our own model.
Speaker 1:It would actually be a mistake. And you and there's another company that's a competitor to us that is training their own model, and you don't wanna invest in them. You wanna invest in us because we're gonna burn your dollars. Better in every We're much better economics. Timeline is in turmoil over Nucleus for IVF, and he put up a Subway campaign that says IQ is 50% genetic.
Speaker 1:Height is 80% genetic. I completely disagree with that one. It's entirely skill based for me. Yep. I had the genes did not matter.
Speaker 1:I had to grind for this view. Grind my growth plates. Have your best baby is what it says. And it says IVF done right in the subway, all over New York City.
Speaker 2:I think it was intentionally trying to make some percentage of the population angry
Speaker 3:Yes.
Speaker 2:To drive enough energy and attention. I would call it rage bait.
Speaker 1:So I would call it rage bait marketing, not necessarily rage bait product level. But IVF as a category is a controversial category. It's much easier to wrap it in a campaign that will go viral for, upsetting reasons. For you can upset people, and you can get a lot of attention from that. This is an example from Cath, Coravec.
Speaker 1:She says, so Eugenix is profitable now. And so, being able to wrap something that is just a, you know, a scientific process that's been worked on for a long
Speaker 2:time. To be somewhat friend.com inspired. And apparently, they're not actually they're not able to offer the service in New York.
Speaker 1:So it's really just an image of a controversial phrase on a New York subway is more likely to go viral. So you do it there because it looks like you're on the global stage.
Speaker 2:There's a high density of people that have a a large following.
Speaker 1:Yeah. Following. And so it it's just the way to start a viral viral trend and own the moment. It's the reason why, you know, so many TikTokers are in Manhattan now doing stuff like man on the street stuff. It just like it's it's it it it has more, like, aura almost.
Speaker 1:Every biotech founder should be seeing this and understanding how to get one tenth the mind share of Nucleus. I have a playbook for you below. A lot of people are like, I love the playbook. I don't love this example because, the company is getting dragged. I don't know if it's good or bad with the rage bait thing.
Speaker 1:I think usually it's a, it's a negative thing, but it's a big, it's a big debate because Sichuan Mala, posted a long essay all about the claims made by Nucleus. Kian says everything levied unto Nucleus by Sichuan Mala is false, worse than false. It appears to be architected by a competitor that has repeatedly published misstatements and inaccuracies. Sichuan has compromised, but it gets worse.
Speaker 2:To to be clear, no evidence has been provided that that it was being levied by a competitor. Yes. That's purely an allegation that that has no no there's no proof.
Speaker 1:Yes. Yes. Exactly.
Speaker 2:The thing here is is it appears that the customer reviews
Speaker 1:Yes.
Speaker 2:Are potentially fictitious. And if you're selling a service that allows people to pick their baby Mhmm. And you're and you're showing reviews from happy customers
Speaker 1:Yes.
Speaker 2:That may or may not be real people at all, that just feels deeply wrong. Yeah. So I think that one of the first things that they could have done, I don't believe they have, is just say like, no. Our reviews are real. We used AI imagery because the real people didn't didn't want their identity online tied to this service.
Speaker 2:Right? Yeah. For privacy reasons. Yep. One of the core tensions in this industry is the fact that most companies recognize they're working on an incredibly sensitive topic.
Speaker 2:They know the general population will need to be slowly and tactfully acclimated to the idea of advanced family planning. Nucleus is perceived as polluting the commons with their deliberately inflammatory marketing. Their virality comes at the cost of increased skepticism for the whole industry.
Speaker 1:A lot of folks were not very happy about that.
Speaker 2:Yeah. They also apparently apparently, they hired two people that had Mhmm. A non competes for eighteen months. Those people just immediately started on working on Nucleus. Nucleus claimed that they weren't competitive so that the non compete didn't apply.
Speaker 2:Anyways, very messy very messy messy story. If I'm a potential customer of Nucleus at this point and I see just these series of exchanges,
Speaker 1:Yeah.
Speaker 2:I'm certainly gonna wait and see how things evolve versus signing up to use this service. The latest Nano Banana model has officially crossed the line. I no longer implicitly trust photos anymore and sometimes I can't even definitively claim it's AI now. Yeah. I totally agree.
Speaker 2:I saw this picture. Yep. And my first thought was like, that's gotta be AI Yep. Specifically because I don't think Sam is just walking down the Golden Gate Bridge in the middle of the day. Yep.
Speaker 2:It's like probably terrible from a security standpoint. Yep. But but it looks photorealistic.
Speaker 1:If you put the photo into Gemini, Gemini will tell you. If you say, is this AI? Gemini will tell you, yes. According to the Synth ID watermark detection tool, this image was generated in whole or in part with Google AI. Of course, we've seen previous, previous images where if you turn up the contrast and the saturation all the way, you can see kind of the rainbow, like like like zebra pattern, basically, that's embedded in there very subtly.
Speaker 1:But, yeah. I mean, this is this is a pretty pretty photo real. And so, you know, stay safe out there.
Speaker 2:Joe, Wiesenthal asked Nano Banana to create a really annoying link LinkedIn profile.
Speaker 1:That's the one I
Speaker 2:was talking about. Couldn't tell, is this a real person?
Speaker 1:I have no idea because it the at the at this point, we're way past the Turing test for for images in the sense that this looks perfectly edited, but, this could also just be a straight up screenshot. I would need to fact check this.
Speaker 2:I don't do small talk. Yeah. I do deep dives. My journey is a quantum leap through the liminal spaces of tech and spirituality, chief visionary officer, TEDx speaker, professional storyteller, democratizing the metaverse one DAO at a time, TEDx growth alchemist.
Speaker 1:What's up with Brian Johnson? He's starting a new protocol? Is he going to Taco Bell drive through? Is this a real photo? Is this is this is
Speaker 2:AI again? This has to to be AI.
Speaker 1:That's a very funny funny photo. This was my take was that, you know, if he's really changed by his journey, he must come out of it liking at least one fast food restaurant. And Alexis says, those shrooms spiritually healed him in a way that has him living moss now.
Speaker 2:Living moss.
Speaker 1:The live moss tagline was really good. Yeah.
Speaker 2:Guy who doesn't wanna be old. It seems like we'll get age reversing tech right when I'll be old. How favorable. Guy who thinks it it is different this time. But this time, it's different.
Speaker 3:This is insane, boss.
Speaker 2:Amy Gurley, huge congratulations to Bill Gurley for receiving the Texas Distinguished Alumnus Award, a remarkable honor for a remarkable Longhorn. Congratulations, Bill. Well well well
Speaker 1:deserved. Congratulations.
Speaker 2:This Bill. This made my day day.
Speaker 1:Everyone was everyone was wondering if he was gonna make it.
Speaker 2:Yeah. It was kind of the elephant in the room.
Speaker 1:It was hugely hotly debated. There was there are a lot what? $10,000,000 in liquidity betting on this? Whether or not he would Probably.
Speaker 2:Million? Yeah. Was sort of it was sort of the longhorn in the room, basically.
Speaker 1:Yeah. Exactly. It was it was a huge deal, but he did it. He pulled it off. Keller said that he's launched zipping points.
Speaker 1:He can pick up packages and deliver them autonomously with the zipline autonomous drones. This is the this is the private plane for your burrito, folks. It's arrived. We're here.
Speaker 2:We're in
Speaker 1:the future.
Speaker 2:Future is here.
Speaker 1:Plane. The, the flying car is here, and it will deliver you Chipotle in fifteen minutes in four minutes while it's still warm. So here's a ZIP grabbing a package from one of our restaurant partners. It'll take so many cars off the road over the coming years. That's great news for environmentalists, for congestion, for anyone who wants to be able to, really let it loose on the roads.
Speaker 1:If we're getting less congestion, maybe the speed limit goes up to 80 miles an hour, maybe one twenty, maybe one sixty. Maybe we get up to 200, and you can really let it loose.
Speaker 2:Well, you need to prove that you're at a certain address in order to get stuff delivered there? Because Oh, yeah. It's such a funny dimension to mess with people and just be like, hey. Look on your lawn. And there's just like a there's like a
Speaker 1:Any burrito?
Speaker 2:A a burrito just chilling
Speaker 1:there. Well, do that with pizzas. Right? They they prank call. I had, like, a dozen pizzas delivered to this address.
Speaker 1:I'll pay in cash. This is, like, a famous prank, and then you show up, and it's like, I don't need all these pizzas. I'm being pranked. Imagine how cool it will be to shoot one of these out of the sky to get a free meal, going hunting for your Chipotle burrito. That, of course, is extremely cyberpunk and hilarious, but it will be massively illegal.
Speaker 1:We're regulated by the FAA, so the consequences are similar to shooting at a 07:37 as it's taking off from the airport. Not a good idea. Also, communities love the service. And I imagine he's not he's not saying, like, the the the details, but if you shoot at a seven thirty seven as it's taking off from an airport, I think you're going to jail for a long time. And I think, you will not just be able to shoot one of these out of the sky and pick up a free burrito with a 22.
Speaker 1:Thank you for supporting us, listening to the show. Wherever you listen, leave us five stars on Apple Podcasts and Spotify. We will be off on Wednesday and Thursday. No show Wednesday. No no show Thursday.
Speaker 1:But we will be back on Friday for Black Friday, and we will be taking you on a whirlwind tour of the ecommerce world. We have some very exciting stuff planned for that. So we'll see you tomorrow.
Speaker 2:See you at eleven. Goodbye. Cheers.