 The radical, fundamental principles of freedom, rational self-interest, and individual rights. This is The Iran Brookshow. All right, everybody. Welcome to Iran Brookshow on this Friday in the East Coast time. Good morning to some of you. Good evening to those of you in Europe. Everybody's had a fantastic week and ready for the weekend. All right, as you know, you can use the Super Chat to ask questions. Please do so. We're going to cover a bunch of different topics today. We're going to do it fairly quickly. I'm a little constrained on time today. Before that, I wanted to say something about Fox. If you remember, I mentioned on the show that FoxNews.com was thinking of doing a number of stories on Iran and had contacted me. The first one ran this week. You can find it at FoxNews.com. It's a story on Iran's love of America. I think it's pretty good. It's got a quote from me. It quotes Iran and it's got a lot of commentary. It'd be great, great, great to get this really going. If you guys shared it, commented on it, liked it, did all the things that in the social media world, in the online world, you do to promote something. So here's a piece. FoxNews, the lifestyle I think writer for FoxNews wrote it. It's fairly good. Not perfect, but it's good. Share, like, tweet, Facebook, comment on the comments below. The bigger visibility we get, the more people actually go read it, the more motive Fox has to come back to us with more questions, more commentary and to discuss more issues. So this is a great way for those of you who care about Iran's ideas and getting Iran's ideas out there into the culture. It's a great way for you to actually, you know, great way for you guys to actually help promote these ideas. Are there going to be two more, two more of these articles coming out? We'll see, but it looks like one will be on how Iran predicted a current political crisis and another one on five ways in which Iran can save America. So these are going to be five, you know, five ways. This is a gimmicky thing that is done today. So those will come out in the next couple of weeks. Again, when they come out, please share them, like them, comment on them. If you don't like something written on it, correct it in the comments. Again, I'm not writing them, although I have input into it, but they don't have to follow all my input. It's a writer from Fox writing them. And so the stuff you'll get, you're not going to agree with. I don't agree with correct it in the comments. So engage, guys, engage. You care about the culture? You care about the future? You care about changing the world? Engage with, you know, a mainstream media outlet that is actually promoting Iran. And hopefully this will lead to much more engagement with Fox over the next few months. All right, let's jump right in. So yesterday I attended a seminar on artificial intelligence. This is the second one I've done over the last few weeks. The first one was very, very, very doom and gloom. It had the leaders of the doom and gloom. I was going to kill us all movement on zoom to discuss why there's a gloomy and it was very depressing. And I also found it very detached from reality. Yesterday were people who are less doom and gloom, but still pretty doom and gloom, pretty negative and wrong in so many different ways. The assumption that AI is I and the assumption that AI is alive and the assumption that AI can do things independent. And just the way they talk about it is just completely wrong. Anyway, that was, again, pretty depressing in the sense of how people talk about it. But the reality is that the overwhelming number of people in Silicon Valley right now of the smartest people in this field, in the field of computers generally, software generally, and AI specifically, are pretty convinced that AI could do a lot of damage, I mean real damage, some damage that cannot be reversed. That at the very least should get us thinking and worrying about it or at least considering possibilities. I'm going to do a few shows on AI. I'm trying to get some big names to come in the Iran book show to talk about it. Some people who are more optimistic or more positive to talk about it. We'll see how they go. These are going to be non-objectivist. These are going to be kind of some of the big names. We'll see if I can get them from Silicon Valley. But yeah, so that's some of what I'm going to do to combat this. But don't worry. I don't think you should worry because your government is on top of these things. So we should all be happy and not worry about anything because seven companies, Google, Microsoft, Meta, Amazon, OpenAI, Anthropic and Inflection have all met now with a White House with President Biden and have voluntarily come to an agreement, voluntarily with a cock gun placed at every one of their foreheads. That these companies will all adhere to certain standards that are going to be basically agreed to among them and the Biden administration. There will be an executive order following that. That will try to open other companies into this as well beyond the seven. And then beyond that, you can expect legislation to regulate AI. So Congress will do this. It just, you know, with Congress, it takes a lot of time. So in the meantime, in the meantime, the tech companies are committing to a few things. They're committed to development mechanism so that users will know when content is generated by artificial intelligence through a watermark. I think probably a good idea. Again, I don't think government should be dictating this, but I think it's a good idea for AI companies to do this. Companies will also said they would make a point to avoid bias and discrimination and protect privacy. This is where the BS starts. The BS starts is when they talk about misinformation. This is where we're going to see the government involved in issues of free speech and what AI can say and what AI cannot say. I like the idea of a watermark. I like some of these things. I don't like the idea that government is involved in any way in terms of the speech. Companies are also committed to having the AI systems tested through a third party before being released. For example, a lot of these companies are going to go to DEF CON next week, I guess, next month in Las Vegas where it's a hacker conference where their AI systems will be tested. These are kind of things that the AI companies have agreed to do. Now, I know some of you would like me to go out and say, oh, evil Microsoft, evil Google, evil matter. I don't blame the companies. I don't blame them one bit. The government is hovering over them. If they don't get involved early in setting up these regulations, they'll be destroyed by them. They might as well participate. Otherwise, ignorant, stupid, irrational politicians will land up doing all this. Now, as part of this, are they going to protect themselves against competition? Sure, we know that. But the problem there is government intervention in the economy. There's always government intervention in the economy that is to blame. The fault here is with the White House. The fault here is with Congress. There's already bills being written to not get involved and to not try to influence those bills is basically suicide. Not to have your man in Washington is suicide. Now, it might turn out that you're dead anyway, but you've got to be involved. You've got to be part of the process. Otherwise, you know exactly what the consequence is going to be. All right. So AI might kill us, but don't worry. The Bited White House is on top of it and they're going to protect us and they're going to save the day. They're going to save the day. Again, I'll announce who I'm going to have on in the weeks to come. Not necessarily people you know, but people who are super smart outside of the world of objectivism who really thought through these issues. All right. Good news. There's a survey coming out of Gallup. Gallup does the American belief survey every few years and it's the first one was in 2001 and they just announced the results this morning. And belief in God is at an all-time low and is definitely going down significantly. So it looks like, I don't know, 69% of Americans believe in God. This is down from 90 in 2001 and again in 2003. But it's also down from 2016 where it was close to 80%. We're below 70%. This is fantastic. A real opportunity I think for us to present an alternative, to present both in epistemology, metaphysics and most importantly in ethics that is an alternative. It is kind of funny, but it is the case that 59% of Americans believe, I guess 59% of Americans believe in angels and 58% of Americans believe in the devil. No, wait a minute. That's not right. No, that doesn't look, yeah, that's right. Okay, so 59% of Americans believe in hell and 58% believe in the devil. The numbers are larger for angels. It's 67% believe in heaven. And alright, it looks like all my numbers are wrong. Blank all that. All that is wrong. I can't read a stupid article. Alright, 74% we're going to start from scratch. 74% of Americans believe in God down from 90. So the historical stuff is alright. 69% believe in angels. 67, which is really scary. 67 believe in heaven. 59% believe in hell and 58% believe in the devil. All of these believe in all of them. And all of these mystical elements is down. Down from where it was. Now, for the Europeans, yeah, I know this is pretty bizarre because you guys have given up on all these mystical entities a long time ago. But here we go. This is America. The good thing is the trends are clearly down and the trends are primarily among young people. That is, young people are a lot less believing today than they were in the past. Believe in God since 2001 has dropped 16 points. Believe in hell has dropped 12 points. And believe in the devil and angels has dropped 10 points. So in all these mystical elements, belief has gone down. Belief is highest, not surprising among those who attend regular religious services. 98% of people who go weekly believe in God. 94% of those who attend monthly believe in God. So not surprising are Protestants and other Christians and other forms of Christians are much more likely to believe in God than Catholics. 94% of Protestants say they believe in God. 85% of Catholics said the same. So Catholics are a lot more, I guess, a lot more skeptical. And all right, let's see what else. Yeah, lower income Americans, older Americans, women and those without college degree are the most likely to believe in spiritual entities. Low income, older women and without a college degree. So there you go. We are getting rid of slowly but systematically getting rid of the belief in mystical entities and of these particular mystical entities. Now we have to make sure they're not replaced by other mystical entities that are equally bad or equally silly. These are the most entrenched. These have been around for 2,000 years or longer. If we can get rid of these, it opens up the world to us in terms of convincing the world that there's something significantly better. All right, from AI to God, that was kind of a good transition world, I think. But now we're going to go to a session. Maybe we can pray here. Very conflicting information coming out in a recession. That's because nobody knows whether we're going to have a recession, not have a recession. It certainly looked like we were going to have a recession and a lot of data keeps coming out. Maybe things are not going to be as bad. Maybe we're going to avoid a recession. Maybe we get that promised soft landing. So Goldman Sachs, for example, has dropped its probability of a US recession to 20%. So in spite of some bad news from the Economic Fund, overall, the economy is super resilient. Employment is unbelievably resilient. We're not seeing unemployment rise. We're not seeing massive numbers of bankruptcy as we expected with the interest rates going up. Things are holding up. And as a consequence, Goldman Sachs has reduced its probability of a recession significantly to 20%. It was up at 40%, not that long ago. So that's the positive. On the other hand, the leading indicator that economists track, it's called the leading economic index, is signaling recession. It's really signaling recession like it hasn't since the 2007-2009 recession. So Goldman Sachs saying probability of a recession has decreased. The conference board indicated saying no probability of a recession has increased significantly. This is to a large extent a consequence of the fact that we are getting mixed signals from the market out there. And the response to the Fed's significant increase in interest rates has not been as I expected, as many expected. Again, corporate resilience has been much better than people expected consumers have managed to continue spending. And the most important thing is employment has not really changed in spite of the increasing interest rates. How that all plays out in the next few months, hard to tell. I still think the probabilities are slightly higher for a recession than not. But it really has in a surprisingly way, the US economy has helped up much better than one could expect. All right, you remember all the brouhaha about the AP black history class that DeSantis freaked out DeSantis and DeSantis banned from Florida. And generally they were rewriting the black history standards in Florida to, I guess, to more accommodate, I don't know, DeSantis and the Republican Party. All right, they're out and they're weird and weird in, I guess, predictable ways, but kind of sick and disgusting ways. So here's one of the pieces of controversial language that is in the new standards, quote, slaves developed skills, which in some instances could be applied to their personal benefit. Now, there's no question that that is in some narrow out of context sense true. But why do you teach history? And why are you teaching slavery? The point of teaching slavery is to teach the horrors of it. Not, well, some people kind of, some people who enslave kind of benefit from it. Nobody benefited from it. Even if they locally benefited, they were slaves. You can't contrast the, yes, I got a little bit, I'm a better, I'm a better, I don't know, tradesman. But yeah, you know, every moment of my life is dictated by my slave master. There's no benefit in slavery. There's no positivity in slavery. It's a, I mean, Christopher's absolutely right. It's disgusting and a moral abomination. And then, you know, the whole curriculum is skewed towards moral ambiguity and moral equivocation. So, you know, the, you know, riots in which, you know, or massacres in which blacks were just slaughtered, slaughtered for trying to vote, slaughtered for just being successful. Just out of context, historically equivocated with, you know, blacks rioting because they're being discriminated against under Jim Crow laws. And they're all the same. It's all violence. It's all exactly the same. I mean, I mean, this is truly disgusting. And this is the kind of stuff that the kind of new right, there's a strong element of trying to, well, if not justify slavery, say, oh, it wasn't that bad. It wasn't that bad. So, you know, and then they, you know, they actually try to try to, you know, defend this, right? You know, here's the, from the, let's see, who is this? William Allen and Francis Presley Rice, who are members of the Florida's African American History Standards Workgroup, they say the intent of this particular benchmark clarification is to show that some slaves develop highly specialized trades from which they benefit. This is factual and well documented. And what's the point of showing that? What's the purpose? I mean, a lot of things happen in history, but what's the purpose of this? It can only be, the only reason to show it is, is that, well, slavery wasn't that bad. Some people actually benefit. A few people actually got better at it, got something out of it. I mean, this is, this is the new rights, educational policies. This is DeSantis. This is Florida. God help us from the new rights, the new Republicans in this crop of, right? I mean, again, the left is bad, and the history is bad, and it's biased and it's motivated by horrible stuff. But this is in some sense is worse. All right. Stanford. This is a story we actually talked about. I'm surprised sometimes when things play out, and I discovered I talked about this, like months and months ago, and it's actually playing out. So, months and months ago, and I can't remember when I think it was in the fall. I told you the story of the Stanford president, Mark Tissier Lavegan, something. I don't know. It was being looked at, it was in trouble because there was an investigation into his research and that some of his research might have been manipulated and might have been even fraudulent and that people were examining it. It was in the Stanford student newspaper and the daily actually Stanford Daily was actually doing an investigation and that led to an academic panel investigating this and looking at it. And now as a consequence of that investigation, he has been forced to resign as of August 31. The investigation has found clearly that research data in five of his papers, five of his papers, the research data was manipulated. Now, these are not just five papers. These are not just five whatever papers. These are five papers that are considered seminal papers. Mark Tissier Lavegan is considered a superstar scientist and yet it turns out that he created an environment in the lab where the graduate students working in the lab were incentivized to get positive results. Guess what happens when you incentivize people to get positive results? They tweak the data and penalized if they didn't get positive results and therefore if you're going to be successful, if you're going to be a winner, then you're going to tweak the results. You're going to manipulate the results. You might make the results up in order to facilitate. There's no accusation yet that he himself committed direct fraud, although there's plenty of evidence that he knew what his students were doing. And then when confronted by the data, by inconsistencies, by problems, he covered it up. He manipulated it. He pretended it wasn't there. He of course says I'm gratified. The panel concluded I did not engage in any fraud or falsification of scientific data. I don't think he should be gratified because what he did is really, really, really bad. His paper has been, you know, the report identified, quote, repeated instances of manipulation of research data and or subpar scientific practices from different people and labs run, by the way, different labs run by Dr. Tissier at different institutions. So this is not just a one-time thing, one-guide thing. This is something that has been repeated. The tragedy, I mean, the many tragedies involved in this, but a big part of this is that this research is focused on Alzheimer's. I think this is part of kind of that Alzheimer's went off on the wrong track for many, many years. Alzheimer's is a disease that crushes the lives of millions of people, destroys the lives of millions of people. A cure or some kind of treatment from Alzheimer's is something that's been in the works and is desperately needed. And these kind of practices, scientists behaving like this, is setting the field back dramatically. You know, he is going to retract or issue robust corrections, at least five papers, maybe even more, in response. Now that's very rare for a paper to be retracted. But these are papers that were, again, seminal in Alzheimer's research, seminal. And move the field in a particular direction, turns out they're wrong. Turns out they're wrong on purpose. Really, really horrible stuff, bad stuff, bad name to science and scientists. And these kind of things need to be exposed. The scientists need to be punished. A big deal needs to be made of these kind of things, because these kind of scientists need to be weeded out. We count on science to help cure diseases, to increase understanding of the universe and to improve human life. And when we have scientists like this making stuff up or being sloppy, particularly when it comes to research that is so crucial for quality of life and standard of living, like Alzheimer's research. I mean, this is just about as despicable as it gets. So there's a special rung in hell for people like this, should be anyway. So luckily he's out, and hopefully he will be penalized in a variety of different ways. And it turns out that there'd be people questioning his work for 10 years. And it was questioned within Genentech, where he was working at some point, who argued that a 2009 paper of his was fraudulent. And this was done in 2011. So we're talking about 12 years it's taken to get this guy fired, to get this guy to admit and to acknowledge what he has done and for, I guess, the scientific community to realize kind of the disaster that has happened here. Of course, without a scientific community, without a scientific establishment, you would have never discovered that he was wrong. So the solution to somebody like this is not denouncing the establishment, not denouncing authorities, not denouncing experts, but quite the contrary. Denounce him as not being an expert, as being a fraud, and to celebrate the experts who caught him, because laymen are not going to catch him. So, I mean, one of the real, real, real deep tragedies of COVID, and of the whole populist right, and this is populism, and left, right and left, because you've got RFK. The whole populism is the denunciation, the denunciation of experts on authorities. Civilization collapses tomorrow without experts and authorities, without people who actually know what they're talking about, as compared to ignoramuses, who have opinions about things they have no clue and cannot defend, and are just putting their finger out into the air or their emotions into whatever to gain knowledge, gain pseudo knowledge. I mean, the populism of the left and right, in particular right these days, is equivalent to the mysticism of left and right. It's replacing God with feelings and emotions. Of course, God was always about feelings and emotions. And the fact that there are people like this who commit fraud, the fact that there are people in authority who abuse that authority, does not change the fact that our lives depend on experts, and experts are the only ones, the only ones that produce new knowledge. Well, ignoramuses meaning politicians, not just some non-politicians, ignoramuses, including some people in this chat. So, you know, the denunciation of experts is something that we are going to, that is going to be a disaster for our civilization to continue doing it. Instead of differentiating between good experts and bad experts, like the so-called experts claiming vaccines are killing everybody, not experts. This guy at Stanford turns out not an expert, a fraud. Those guys, the vaccine guys, frauds. We have to differentiate. But you can't survive without experts. You can't survive without doctors. Now, not all doctors are equal. Some are better than others. Some are frauds, as we keep discovering. But the blanket denunciation of elites that now the left and the right share is pretty, is pretty disgusting. All right. And suicidal. Suicidal for civilization. All right, we have, we're pretty removed, far removed from our goal. We've got 75 people, got $158 still left, two bucks from everybody on there. If you do stickers or something, that'll be great to try to get us at least closer to the goal. It would be fantastic. Of course, the best way is $20 questions. And so $20 questions, let's go to Ian. Two people to check out on AI, Gary Marcus and Perry Metzger. Okay, I'm copying this over. Marcus is a little doomy, but good on skepticism about AI as intelligence. Metzger is good on anti-doom stuff. I'll look at both of them. The guy I'm hoping to get is Ed Cronin. This guy is actually really, really interesting. He is a scientist at Edinburgh University. He's a chemist. He's built a chemical computer. So presentation he made on this chemical computer blew my mind. I mean, it's just amazing. He's got really, really good views on life, consciousness, on the fact that AI is not conscious. It's not life. It has no agency. So I want to talk to him about, because he's not an objectivist yet, his views on AI are so close to objectivism. It's actually stunning. So I want to interview him and see his perspective. Also, I think you guys would find fascinating what he has done with this idea of chemical computer. He says it's as fast as a quantum computer. So just as science is fascinating and then his views on AI are really, really good. He's been on both the seminars that I was at. He was in the audience and I could see his commentary on the chat and I kept giving a thumbs up because it was right in line. I'm also trying to get Arun Hoffman, who is a long-time serial entrepreneur and venture capitalist in Silicon Valley, who's an AI optimist and maybe Mark Andreessen, although Mark is just more difficult to get a hold of. I don't know if you'll respond to me, even though he follows me on Twitter. Andrew says, many replace God with some form of secular authoritarianism. What's the true alternative? Well, the true alternative is reason. The true alternative is egoism, is reason and egoism. And that's what we need to push and that's what we need to advocate for. The real alternative is your own mind. That's it at the end of the day. But yes, we get all kinds of forms of mysticism. Unfortunately, even by some people who claim their advocates for reason. But it's very hard to get rid of the epistemology of religion, even when we get rid of explicit religion itself. Ragnar, thank you Ragnar for $50, really appreciate it. Bewe would be philosopher, kings and queens. Ragnar Desert is coming to you in 2024. But looking forward to it right now. And yes, beware of philosopher, kings and queens. But don't beware of scientific experts. We need scientific experts. We need knowledge. We need expertise. We need people who are educated. We need engineers and scientists and researchers. If we're going to get a cure for aging and a cure for Alzheimer's, guess what? Scott's not going to provide it for us. We're actually going to have some scientists in a lab somewhere doing the research, doing the science in order to find the solutions for it. If we're going to, you know, apply AI to actual improving human life, then we're going to need some really talented programmers and thinkers and people who can actually think conceptually about this. We're going to need experts. We're going to need, you know, call them an educational elite, call them whatever you want, authorities. Authorities on the field, absolutely. It doesn't mean they should dictate your life. That means they've got political power. Separate science from politics, absolutely. But please don't give the science into the hands of the ignoramuses or into the hands of politicians. That's why one of the reasons we want to separate state from science. Danny, thank you, H-U-F, Hungarian. Oh, from Hungary, this is great. You should interview philosopher Barry Smith, author of Why Machines Will Never Rule the World. He has very interesting things to say about the limits of mathematical and physical modeling, super relevant to the future of technology. That's great. Let me see. I mean, of course, I'd love to interview all these people. We'll see if I can get them, you know, interviewing them and getting them. I wanted to interview them and actually interview them. Not the same thing, but I will try to do that. Very few of the experts today in science, very few of the experts today in science have to do what, quote, the government tells them to do. You know, you go into a lab at any of these major universities. You've got real thinking people trying to figure out how to answer big questions and come up with solutions to them. Yes, the government wants to regulate AI, but the guy's sitting in the back rooms at Google and all these AI companies. They're innovating. They're doing new things. They're not asking for permission. They're pushing ahead and the government is trying to catch up with them. But absolutely, you guys don't trust experts. Don't trust scientists. Don't trust the science. Do your thing based on your ignorant knowledge. That will lead to a much more successful life. Instead of trying to evaluate which experts you eject all experts, you're pretty much dead. Gayle, if we can't trust science, who can we trust? You can trust science. The question is, can you trust a scientist? And it turns out you can't trust all of them. And the challenge we all have is to figure out who we can and cannot trust. But to throw them all out is, again, basically to commit suicide. Oscar says, how can we strike a balance between self-interest and the warping of others within an egoistic framework? And what are the ethical implications of such balance on the individual and societal level? I mean, that's a big question. I highly encourage you to look at my series of talks on Yuan's rules for life and also my discussion of the virtues where I discussed the seven objectives, virtues. So these are shows in the past. We've got playlists for both of those so that it's easy to get access to them. How do you strike a balance? I mean, what self-interest really means is everything has to go through the filter of there is no balance to be struck. There is no balance to be struck. You're not responsible for the well-being of others. And the only time where you are is when you take it upon yourself to be responsible through choice and because it is in your self-interest. So suddenly you're responsible for the well-being of your children. But that's because you chose to have them. You took on that responsibility when you chose to have children. And therefore their well-being becomes part of your well-being. It becomes part of the contract you have with yourself and with them to take care of them because you acted, you did something, you had kids. But beyond your children, your relationship with pretty much everybody else is a matter of an ongoing choice, a matter that you constantly evaluate within the context and the framework of your own self-interest. What is the value I get from having a relationship with these people and how much am I willing to help them? How much am I willing to assist them? You are because they're a value to you and certainly if it's somebody you love, you're willing to do a lot for them because you love them and love is a selfish emotion. But there is no such thing as a social contract. You don't have a contract with other people unless you signed it. You took no action to establish a social contract with anybody. Friendship is a certain relationship with expectations, justified expectations, a certain help and assistance and lending an ear and things like that. But when that friendship is no longer a value added, then it should not exist anymore. Then you get out of it. The same is true of a marriage. The only contract you can walk away from, the only contract you can't really walk away from is the contract you make by having children. And then you can walk away when they're 18, but until then you have that contract. You acted in a way that created that contract. So all of your relationship with other people need to be thought of from the context of the value they present to your life, to your being, to your happiness, to your success as a human being. And that's the balance. And if everybody did that, if everybody took care of themselves, if everybody was personally responsible for their own happiness, if everybody evaluated their life based on the goodness that the relationship and everything else did for them, then on a society level we would be living in paradise. We would be living in heaven. It would be unbelievably beautiful and unbelievably amazing. When you would interact with the people that were valued to you, you would interact with strangers because they represent a potential value to you. Human life is a value to all of us. And some people who you don't like who don't present a value to you, who you're enemies you wouldn't interact with. But everybody would be in the same terms. There would no be hidden altruistic agendas, attempts to manipulate you to sacrifice. Sacrifice and altruism would be out. And society would be this harmonious, beautiful, beautiful thing. And even if we can't quite get to that where everybody is like that, just being surrounded by people who act in their own self-interest on a regular basis is such a pleasure because you know they're not sacrificing it to you. They don't expect you to sacrifice to them. Everybody understands that everything has to be done ultimately as some form of trade, whether implicit or explicit, material or spiritual. And that enhances and makes much more productive human interaction. All right, thank you to all the superchats. Thank you. Here are all the stickers. Katharine, Oscar, Oscar for a couple of $20. Thank you, Oscar, in addition to the question. Thank you, Lewis. Thank you, Steven. Thank you, Tom. Thank you, David Arsenal. Thank you, anonymous user, John Bales, Linda and Oscar again. Thanks all of you. I will see you all tomorrow at 3 p.m. East Coast time for Ask Me Anything show. Those of you who support the show with $25 a month or more, you get to attend my video. You should have received the Zoom link. If you haven't, let us know. Please come on. Ask Me Anything. Both live by video. That's always fun. Be part of that panel. Or here with the superchat. 3 o'clock tomorrow, Saturday. Look forward to seeing you all there. And yeah, have a great weekend. Bye, everybody.