 The radical, fundamental principles of freedom, rational self-interest, and individual rights. This is The Iran Book Show. All right, everybody. Welcome to Iran Book Show on this Wednesday, early afternoon here in Puerto Rico, morning for most of you, other than you Europeans, probably afternoon for you guys. Thanks for joining me. Let's jump right into it. We've heard a lot since October 7th about the tunnels beneath Gaza, and there are many of them. There's about 500 kilometers of tunnels in Gaza. What's interesting is that they are a network of tunnels, that is, it's not one tunnel system all connected. There is, from everything I've seen and understand, there's really no tunnel that really connects the south and the north, and so the tunnel systems are integrated into particular neighborhoods, into particular geographic locations. The tunnels, even though the Israeli military has shut the entrances and blown up, both from the air and looking, using liquid explosives, blown up many of the tunnels. There's still a lot of tunnels that terrorists are still popping out of various tunnels and managing to kill Israeli soldiers, who kill and wound Israeli soldiers all over the Gaza Strip, or everywhere that Israel is operating right now in the Gaza Strip. The fighting is fierce. There were many casualties yesterday, quite a few casualties, Israeli casualties yesterday as the fighting is fierce, both in the remaining few neighborhoods in northern Gaza that Israel is still trying to get complete control of, and in Chanyunas in the south, both places filled with tunnels, terrorists popping up in various places, Israel trying to destroy the tunnels where they can. One mechanism to destroy at least some of the tunnels, the tunnels particularly in the western part of the Gaza Strip, close to the Mediterranean Sea, was reported, I think yesterday or the day before, in the Wall Street Journal. According to some sources, Israel is starting to pump saltwater into these tunnels and to see what happens. Now, some of the tunnel systems are more inland and are not connected necessarily to the tunnels that they're approaching, they're trying to flood, but the idea is to flood these tunnels and force whoever's in there out, force whoever's in there out, the flooding would also destroy any food, potentially destroy, given the saltwater, destroy ammunition, weapons, and everything else, so destroy the capacity of the terrorists to use the tunnels and to move within the tunnels. This is an experiment, I think the Israelis are trying to see what they can do here. The challenge of literally destroying every single one of these tunnels is a massive challenge and flooding in the West Sea water might be a shortcut that could get rid of the threat that they pose and before they are all kind of blown up and destroyed and turned into dust, which is what they all should be. So there is flooding. The other news that came out yesterday is that Israel for the first time has acknowledged that it has troops deep inside the tunnel networks, some of the tunnel networks, I assume not the ones that are being flooded. Israel is actually operating special forces teams inside the tunnel network. I assume that some of those forces are there in order to try to find hostages and also to try to kill the Hamas leadership, find them and kill them. Not a lot of information obviously for security grounds was revealed in terms of which tunnel systems, which Israeli units are functioning there, but I don't know that there's any kind of warfare that is more for soldiers, they're more horrific than tunnels, the dark, they're booby trapped, booby traps everywhere. You don't know what you're going to find around a corner. They're very difficult to use electronic means and more advanced means to know what's in front of you and what's the sight of you. But Israeli troops are operating inside this tunnel systems networks in an attempt to find hostages and Hamas leadership would be my bet. Also yesterday Israeli troops did find two bodies or did extract two bodies of two hostages that have been killed by Hamas. I mean what's sad about this is in extracting those two bodies, two Israeli soldiers died in the operation to extract the bodies because of the bodies were kept by Hamas units. So the risk that Israel is going to in order to extract these bodies and extract these troops and the the danger it places in its own troops as a consequence is truly horrific. But that is what war is like. One other aspect of this that I think is just worth pointing out, it's an interesting statistic, but I did see a statistic that claimed that over 20% of the troops that have been killed in the Israeli troops that have been killed in this Gaza operation have been killed from friendly fire. Doesn't surprise me, it is that was true in the first Gulf War in the American side. I think well over 20%, I think almost 50% of the troops killed, American troops killed were not killed by enemy fire, but by friendly fire. War's combat is unbelievably messy. It's unbelievably uncertain. It's very difficult to distinguish friend from foe. It's very difficult in the fog of war, literally the fog, the low visibility of war to tell sometimes who you're firing at and one of the great tragedies of war is that many of the people who die, die of friendly fire and in this case over 20% of Israeli casualties were consequence of friendly fire. All right, quick update from one of the universities, Rutgers University, major U.S. university in New Jersey, after October 9th, Rutgers like, many U.S. universities experienced massive protests for Hamas in favor of the Palestinians and the campuses facing ongoing growing tensions and the university did not respond like many of the other universities. It did not respond strongly and powerfully with more certainty when these demonstrations were happening in the aftermath of October 7th. It didn't respond to the events of October 7th themselves very harshly. This came out a huge amount of criticism from certain faculty members and several influential members of the business community, donors I assume, particularly to the Rutgers Business School and the Rutgers Center for Real Estate. These demonstrations have continued. The Jewish students at Rutgers have again expressed the fact that they have felt threatened and unsafe and the administration has done little but they have come under a lot of pressure like in many other universities. Faculty members have said that many business school faculty and staff are scared. Many are in shock and they feel threatened by the atmosphere on the university. As a consequence of this, Rutgers, when was it yesterday I think, finally came to the decision of suspending students for justice in Palestine for violating university policies. The chapter has two days to appeal this. They are suspended for an indefinite amount of time. It's not clear for how long and they noted that the chapter was responsible for disruptive and disorderly conduct, failure to comply with university directives, improper behavior by campus guests and inappropriate use of space. I don't even know what that means. It referred to several students' complaints that members of the Student for Justice in Palestine have disrupted classes, have disrupted a program, meals and students studying and also noted allegations of vandalism at the business school that were associated with SJP's activity. The SPJ as well as other students' groups have called Hamas the mask of Jews in Israel justified and their actions against Jewish students on campus have moved beyond, this is what the administration is saying, beyond microaggressions, whatever the hell that means. Several other universities have done the same thing. Brandes University, George Washington University, Columbia University have also suspended certain anti-Zionist and anti-Jewish groups out there. It's going to be interesting to see when they allow them back in, under what terms, how this plays out. Is there going to be a backlash against this? But some universities seem to be acting. Whether there's consistency, whether there's a vision, whether there's any kind of insight into what exactly should the university be doing and hard to tell, it still seems like haphazard and it motivated primarily by the level of pressure that is brought on particular administrations by primarily alumni. They're doing this not out of a set of beliefs, not out of a set of commitments, but more out of fear of losing money. I really, really, really urge alumni again to consider whether they want to return to funding these universities, whether they want to return to providing these universities with money without a fundamental shift in their attitude, not just to these particular events and these particular student organizations, but their whole approach to who are oppressed groups, their whole DI approach, their whole modern leftist approach to power and power relationships, their whole approach to what constitutes harassment and harassment of whom is justified, of whom is not. This is deep philosophical rot. I talked about this, when was it? Yesterday. Yesterday when I talked about what's going on at the universities. This is deep philosophical rot. This is not going to be cleaned up by suspending a student organization here or there. This is not going to be cleaned up by a meek statement here or there. This is going to require some really bold action and a reversal of many of these universities' attitudes towards speech, towards harassment, towards minority groups, towards hiring, towards admittance of students. In other words, it's going to require some kind of philosophical revolution, which I don't think any university is ready for, but which alumni, if they really care, that's what they need to advocate for. That's what they need to talk about. That's what they need to care about. All right, COP 28 closed yesterday in Dubai, in oil, a country that only exists, a city that only exists on the map, that is only legitimacy in the world, is the wealth that it's benefited, the wealth that it's created from fossil fuel, from fossil fuel pumping, production, exploitation. That is it. That's the only reason that Dubai exists. Anyway, COP 28 is a UN-sponsored summit, and it finally came to an agreement about whether this fossil fuel that has made the UAE and Dubai and Saudi Arabia and all these countries that were, in a sense, hosting this event rich and will continue to do so, and they want to continue, finally came to some kind of agreement about what to do about all this fossil fuel stuff that makes these countries rich. The solution was to call for, if not its elimination, the use of fossil fuels elimination, but to call for a transition away from it, which is something it turns out, or producing states willing to sign off of on. The direction is less fossil fuel use. Now, what that actually means is less sufficient energy. What that actually means is more poverty in the world. What that actually means is more susceptibility to claim it issues because one has less energy to combat them through air conditioning, heating, building buildings that can withstand weather and so on. It means that poor countries will not be able to advance quite as fast, but it's the kind of wishy-washy language that it doesn't really commit anybody to too much and nobody's going to really stand by it. And it's not like the UAE and the Saudi Arabians are going to stop pumping less oil, although, as we talked about, Saudi Arabia is pumping less oil out right now, but not because of any climate change issues, but more with an attempt to drive oil prices up, which has failed because of US record levels of oil production. So, yeah, we've got to compromise and everybody left happy except, of course, the radical or the extremist environmentalists who upset because they want to eliminate fossil fuel tomorrow. They want all to live in caves. They want all to basically die out, but this last-minute diplomatic deal has saved COP28, which should not exist if you're interested in issues around fossil fuels, if you're interested in issues around climate change and around the appropriate responses to climate change and how to think about climate change. I encourage you to check out Alex Epstein's work, in particular his book, Fossil Future, but also his talking points on fossil fuel and his response to COP28. You can find him on Twitter, Alex Epstein. You can also find him on the website. Just look for Fossil Future on Amazon and elsewhere. Industrial Progress is the name of his organization, and you can probably find their website and get more information about all of that. So, yeah, this controversy about, are people going to sign up to eliminating fossil fuel or not? You can all breathe easy. They have resolved this by talking about, over time, reducing, eliminating, but not eliminating quickly anytime soon. All right, we talked a lot about Iran and the Iranian women and the Iranian kind of female uprising that happened. Miroslav, by the way, has put up Alex Epstein's Twitter feed in the chat so you can access it there if you want, but it's basically Alex Epstein, Twitter.com. We talked a lot about a kind of go-revolte in Iran about where we're in hijab, about taking hijab off. We talked about the bravery of these women post-testing against the Iranian regime. Well, in the last few days there's been another kind of mini-revolte, and this is a continuation of kind of young people in Iran, refusing to really accept the regime's harsh treatment of Iranians, you know, of Iranian women and otherwise. One of the things that is not allowed in Iran is the playing of music and the dancing. Playing of music and dancing is not allowed. It is not allowed according, supposedly, to Sharia law. It's not allowed according to the Quran. And therefore, it is banned. You're not allowed to play music and dance. Well, there's been this old man, he's 70 years old, and in a city, I think on the Caspian Sea, it's a fishing town. And he, for years, I guess, has been getting away with, on a regular basis, dancing, playing music, dancing in the street. He's got this very, you know, you can see him dancing. He's not particularly artistic, but he's enthusiastic and passionate. And people line up around him and they cheer him and watch him dance. And this is exciting. People like dancing and music. Music and dancing are pretty universally things that people love, even Muslims, even though it's technically illegal. And the authorities are basically letting go. After all, it's not a woman. And it's in the small, it's in the city. It's not that important. And anyway, they've let it go. He has an Instagram account where he put some of the videos of him dancing in the street up on his Instagram account. He had 650,000 followers. And I believe a lot of young Iranians. Anyway, one of his videos, a recent video, which he recorded, by the way, the town in Northern Iran is called Rushd, R-A-S-H-T. Anyway, he put up this video and the video went viral and people got excited. And the city decided to enforce the laws against dancing. The morality police, I guess you could say, took down his Instagram account. They banned it. They took down the video. And they actually started proceedings, not only against him, but he was arrested, but also against those people who stood around him, clapping and cheering as he danced away. And they started identifying them and started proceedings against them. Anyway, the response of the Iranian people has been that all over Iran, young people taking to play music and dancing, mimicking the dance moves of this 70-year-old man and putting it up on Instagram, on other social media channels. And you're seeing kind of the women's revolution. You're seeing a lot of women dancing without the hijab, dancing in mixed company. And there's tons of these women. You can find a lot of the videos up on Twitter of people dancing. And some of the women have had coverings. Some of them are not. But it's become a thing as a form of protest to put up these videos and to make a big deal out of it. And it's created a real stern Iran. It created such a stern Iran. I guess it's even true that there's a video up of some Israeli women soldiers dancing. Again, mimicking his moves, dancing to the same moves and putting it up on Instagram and so on. So there's a whole thing now of you too can participate by finding and dancing and putting it up. Actually, just looking at Twitter, there's a bunch of IDF girls dancing. And you should all go and watch them. You'll see how gorgeous IDF soldiers are. But really interesting. And of course, the Iranian regime is upset. And now it turns out they're more upset about the response, global response, response within Iran to him dancing than the fact that he was dancing. They have now reinstated his Instagram account. They have dropped, I think, proceedings, legal proceedings against him. And they're basically backed off as a consequence of this significant civil disobedience against him. So this is pretty cool. If you want to see all this, all you have to do is go to Twitter, put in Iran dancing. It's all you have to do. Iran dancing. And you'll get both a video of the 70-year-old dancing. And you get all the videos of all these other people. You can put the top videos. You can put latest. You'll get a whole variety of different things. You'll also get to Iran Book Show talking about Iran dancing since that is one of the issues. So, yeah. Iran, there continues to be this undercurrent of opposition and rejection of the insanity of the regime. By the way, again, another story in mainstream media, I saw one story on this on yahoo.com. Financial Times has a story on this, which I couldn't get to because it's behind a paywall. But nothing else, not a single other mainstream media avenue has covered this. Generally, they're not interested in what's going on in Iran. They're not interested in individual rights of Iranians. They're not interested in women in Iran or unbelievable silence from the mainstream media. Okay, before we go on, I'll just say this show is funded from contributions by people like you, who are listening live right now, and those who are listening afterwards, who are not live. Those of you live can contribute to the show by using the Super Chat. It's a great way to support the show. Thank you. We've got Rimo and Daniel, both longtime contributors using the Super Chat to the Iran Book Show. So thank you both Rimo and Daniel. We've also got stickers. John and anonymous user have already provided and so did I'm pretty sure, yes, Robert, I provided some stickers. So we really, really appreciate that. So please, if you're listening live, that's a great way to support the show and keep the show going. And then of course, if you're watching this, if you're listening to this not live, you can both do an applause on YouTube, applause is like a Super Chat, but you can, it's like a sticker really, but you can also support the show kind of on a monthly basis through PayPal or through by going to uranbrookshow.com slash membership or going on Patreon and just going for your own book show on Patreon. So either way, you can support the show too. You become part of this community that is engaged in making the show possible. All right. US has released some intelligence regarding the extent to which Russia suffered casualties during the war in Ukraine. Part of this is, I think, to increase the pressure on Congress to try to approve funding for Ukraine to continue its war against Russia. But by American or Western generally intelligent estimates, Russia has actually lost around 350 to 360,000 troops. Sorry, I'm wrong, 315,000 troops. Not all of them have been dead, but many of them have been injured and dead. So uncompacitated troops that will not return to the front, either because they're killed or because they're wounded, significantly wounded, about 316. This is out of a total number of troops at the beginning of the war, the start of the war. The total Russian army stood at 360,000 troops. So we're talking about close to 90% of the standing army that Russia had. Is that now it's not those troops necessarily that have died because since then they have enlisted lots of other troops and they've also brought in conflicts from the prison system, all kinds of new recruits, but the total of 315,000 matches the size almost the size of the army at the beginning of the war. This has been a devastating, devastating war for the Russians. Now, of course, we don't have numbers for Ukraine. Those are not being reported. And of course, as part of this, we should also point out that right now the Russian army stands at something like 450,000. So they have filled in for the 350,000 that have died and are injured and it grown the army by about 100,000 troops. So the Russian army only grows. They have a vast population. They're also recruiting people all over the world. You've heard me talk about Cuba and I think Nepal. And so they're constantly recruiting people. Some other statistics. At the start of the war, Russia had 3,500 tanks. It lost 2,200, 2,200. They are now having to use old T-62s and T-55 tanks that they have to pull out from the warehouses. They haven't been used in years. These are ridiculously old tanks. Russia today has lost many of its special forces unit, many of its marine forces, many of its best trained, best soldiers that started this war have been killed. And that's true. A lot of the ones that have been killed, particularly in Bakhmut and more recently are some of these reservists that they just throw in as Kanifrata. Russia has basically taken the stance, I'd say, in the last few months of doing everything it can to drag out this war, not to win it because they can't, but to drag out this war so that Ukraine will lose support from the West. So they're basically treating their soldiers as Kanifrata. Just go out there and as long as they achieve a stalemate, as long as they don't allow the Ukrainians to advance, as long as the Ukrainians cannot succeed, Russia is willing to sacrifice as many soldiers as necessary. This is an old Russian methodology going back to the days of the Soviet Union and World War II. They will just throw bodies at it. In this case, what they really are trying to achieve as a stalemate, wait it out, wait until either the Republicans don't pass an aid bill or Donald Trump gets elected or Germany has to stop funding Ukraine because of its budgetary problems. They just want to drag this out as long as possible and make it into as much of a grind as possible. A tactic of authoritarian regimes, a tactic of a country that does not care about its own troops, does not care about its own soldiers, does not care about human life. And that is Russia. That is the barbarism of the Russian state. All right, sadly, I don't think it's going to have much of an impact on Republicans who got their head deeply stuck in the sand. All right, finally, there is a new supercomputer that is about to be switched on that is called Deep South. I think it's called Deep South because this supercomputer is located in Australia. It is a computer that is capable of 228. I mean, these are numbers that are just not really comprehensible, but I'm going to give it to them anyway because this is the reality. 228 trillion synaptic operations per second. 228 trillion, 228,000 billion synaptic operations per second in one second. And they estimate that this is on par with the operation of the human brain. Indeed, this supercomputer was designed to mimic the synapses of the human brain, and it will be running AI software. And the idea here is can we mimic the operation of a human brain in a computer? It will be, everybody's a little worried, right? They're going to turn this on in next year, and there are those out there who believe that is the end of the world, right? Because the computers will take over from there. I don't, I'm not one of those who believe that, but here you have it's called Deep South. You can look it up. Those of you technically inclined, you can find out more technical information about it. I don't have it, but this is an Australian project. I love the name. So yeah, keep track of it and see once it switches on, does the world end or not? I guess we won't know. We'll be on the other side of the world ending. All right, that is everything I had prepared. So we have basically three super chat questions. So I'll take those, but feel free to come in with stickers. Thank you, Volta. Thank you, Stefan. Thank you, John. Thank you, anonymous user and Robert again. You can come in with stickers, and you can also come in with super chat questions. The questions are great, because that way you get to kind of guide the direction of the content of the show. And we only have two, three super chat questions, so this is going to go quickly. So if you want to ask a question, now is the time to do it. All right, Remo says, I've just sent you an email with a question, because I need to use some more letters. Oh, gosh, I need to open up my email. Okay. Let's look at email, email, email. You know, I shut down email during these shows, because it consumes too much RAM. So I shut down any, anything I'm not actually using. Let's see, where's Remo? Anyway, let's take Daniel, and then we'll get to Remo in a second, because I don't see the question yet. There we go. Okay. By the way, I just see that Paul Vo just became a new Patreon contributor. Thank you, Paul. Really, really appreciate it. Okay, Remo says, I am a big advocate for the idea that the only purpose of a company is to maximize profits for shareholders. I am viciously opposed to stakeholder theory, ESG, etc., but there is one sector that makes me sometimes doubted, and that is the news. When you look at mainstream media, CNN, Fox News, etc., and non-mainstream media, the Daily Wire, Women Report, etc., it seems that the way to maximize profit is to feed your base the bias it wants to hear thoughts. Yes, but you really, you know, you can't think about maximizing profits, independent of, you know, what is your business? But I think the first thing that business has to do, a company needs to do, is live up to the business that it is in, live up to what kind of business it has. In a sense, you want to still have morality, right? So the idea of maximizing profits does not negate the need to be moral as a company. I think it's consistent in the long run, but not in the short run. And part of that consistency means, or part of that means that you have to have integrity. And if you're Fox, CNN, you are positioning yourself, or should be positioning yourself, as a provider of news. If you're positioning yourself as a provider of news, the new integrity demands that you provide news, that you actually do that, and that you use best practices in order to do it. So I think all these organizations lack that kind of integrity, the integrity that would make people proud to work in a company, make people proud to run such a company. And yes, within the context of a news organization, maximize shareholder wealth, but you have to, the context is a news organization. I'm producing news. You could say, look, you know, I run a bank, but you know, it would be a lot more profitable if I started selling, I don't know, trinkets or started selling, what would be far more profitable for them? I don't know, something unrelated to banking on the side. You still wouldn't do it, you're a bank. You have a certain integrity that's associated with being a bank. It's not like every company is out there to maximize wealth in whatever area wealth is available. That usually leads to disasters. You want to maximize wealth in the context of being a bank. And as a bank, you want to be the best bank you can be in the context of maximizing shareholder wealth and in the context of banking. So there's a certain integrity associated with it that I think is ignored by these media companies that present themselves as one thing. And yes, in a corrupt society, there will be profits made even by companies, individuals who function without integrity, sadly. I mean, in an irrational economy, there might be a lot of money made selling cocaine and heroin and drugs like that. Should the company start selling cocaine and heroin because it's more profitable? The bank I talked about before. No, so the context of a context of the function and the context of morality. All right, but good question, Rio. I mean, you could also say that the drug business is another business in which maximizing wealth involves bad stuff. So should you do it? Daniel, in what concrete ways does government funding of universities crowd out competition? I think I pretty much know, but maybe you'll think of something I haven't thought of. So what ways does it crowd out competition? Well, I mean, the fact that, let's see, the fact that nonprofit universities can basically live off of donations that attacks deductible to the donor limits the competitive landscape in terms of universities. You don't have the same benefit if you start a for-profit university. And so it crowds out the formation of for-profit universities that are going to compete with other universities. The fact that many universities get money from the state universities, again, crowds out the motivation and incentive to start a university, to start a competing organization because the cost of capital for the state, the fund these universities is basically zero. It's a lot cheaper for them to do the huge barriers to entry. The accreditation, which is, again, a state function, even though the pretence is it's private, but it's not. The accreditation agencies are, ultimately, the government only approves certain agencies that then resound, that accreditation then resounds to the institutions that then make it possible for students to get student loans. In the government limits, how many of these agencies there, how many of these accreditation agencies, so there's no competition in accreditation. The competition in accreditation is not even what exists is not real because, ultimately, the government has a say in all of that. The fact that government funds science at universities means that alumni, corporations, businesses don't. They basically take that money and use it for other purposes because they figure, well, the government's already funding the science. I don't need to. Those are some of the ways in which it crowds it out. I'm sure there are many, many others just in terms of crowding out. I think those are the major ones in which you see the crowding out. Mike says, a Trump supporter told me just two hours ago that he predicts that AI will be used to steal the election. It's like Trump fans are reading from a script. Well, they are reading from a script. I mean, I'm sure this is something circulating. They were reading from a script in 2020. They're reading from a script in 2024. There's no question that if Trump runs and loses, he will claim the election was stolen. That worked for him from a PR perspective the first time around. Why wouldn't he do it the second time around? The only reason might be if he fears going to jail. Yeah, I mean, there is a script. There's no question there's a script, and they just follow it. It's basically mindlessness, and they keep doing it. I mean, Trump told us before the 2020 election that if he lost, it would be because of fraud. So he told us exactly what the script was, and then everybody jumped on the script with him. All right. We have one last super chat question. So this is your last opportunity to participate. Catherine, thank you for the sticker. And we still have more than half way to get to where we need to be. So if anybody wants to jump in with either a sticker or a question that helps us get to our target, that would be fantastic. All right. Rob says, Thoughts and Cities in Kane, the movie. I mean, the movie is incredibly well done. It is incredibly, it's a kind of a psychological drama, which I think is very intense. There's an element of suspense. And it portrays what happens to a second-handed, power-lusting, successful businessman. It portrays the self-destructiveness of power lust. It portrays the self-destructiveness of second-handedness. It shows that in spite of material success, there is an awful price to pay. If I remember right, there are no real good guys in the movie. Everybody is motivated by dark motivations and driven by, again, second-handedness and power lust and so on. There's really no nothing revealing here. It's supposedly based on the life of William Rehnquist, a host, including him building the crazy home that he built, host building, host castle up in California. So I haven't seen the movie in many, many years. It's very well made. It's very intense, as I said. It's very well acted, but it's very depressing. And again, it has almost no redeeming features other than to show what happens, how power lust and second-handedness wot a human being, what a human being. And yeah, highly recommend watching it just to see the technical skill. A lot of new innovations in theater were introduced in cities in Kane in terms of cinematography. So it's definitely, if you're interested in movies, if you're interested in that, then I would definitely watch the movie. It's definitely worth watching, even if it is quite depressing and a pretty negative statement on human life. All right. Thanks, everybody. Thank you to all the superchatters. I appreciate it. Thank you to my regular monthly supporters. No show tonight, but we will have two shows tomorrow. We'll have a regular show. And then we have Gina Golan. I will be interviewing Gina Golan in tomorrow evening, 7 p.m. East Coast time, and we'll have our usual news show, I think at 12 or 1 o'clock tomorrow afternoon. So join us tomorrow. And thanks everybody for the support. I will see you. No Hebrew show tomorrow. The Hebrew show is every two weeks on a Thursday. Every two weeks on a Thursday. Oh, we just got a quick question. Andrew says, what do you think people are responding to when they respond positively to superheroes? It can't be the altruistic games. No, they're responding to the heroism in them. They're responding to the hero aspect of it, to somebody fighting evil, even if evil and good are pretty ill-conceived often in these movies. And even if the superhero is pretty shallow, but they're responding. I think the response is a positive response. It's sad because it seems like the only way to fight evil is with superpowers and that normal human beings, with normal powers, can't really do it. Or if they do it, it doesn't really count. Richard says, are you going to have a longer show tomorrow, not tomorrow, tonight to give Gina more time to answer questions? We will go as long as Gina is willing to go. So Gina has small kids and she's sometimes on a time constraint, but the show will go as long as necessary, as long as Gina can stay. What I can do is open it up to questions earlier. So the more questions you pile in at the beginning of the show, that'll be a signal to me to stop me asking her questions and to move to your questions. And that way we can accommodate all of your questions and accommodate her limited time frame. But yes, of course, with questions, priority is given to the higher denominated questions. And yes, Gina often has some time constraint placed upon her by her children. So join us tomorrow and ask lots of questions in the super chat. We will be ignoring the chat itself unless you put dollars with the questions. All right, see you guys tomorrow. Bye everybody.