 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 Monday, November 20th. It's the week of Thanksgiving. I hope everybody is ready, ready to be productive until Thanksgiving, and then ready to engage in lots of food and lots of celebration during Thanksgiving. So, and a long weekend, of course, that follows. All right, today we've got quite a few topics. I think each one of them is pretty big. I hesitated to put COVID in the title of today's thing, but I don't know how to do it otherwise. So you've got the COVID warning in YouTube telling us that you can get the information about COVID from the WHO and not to rely on me. I already have one warning from YouTube. I'm worried about getting a second one because of what I say today. We'll see. Hopefully, hopefully, we can avoid it, but we'll see. I'm citing a New York Times article, so maybe that'll give me a pass. We will see. All right. Wow, I mean, oh, yeah, before I get to it. Wow, don't forget to use the chat to support the show, to ask questions. You guys get to shape the contents of these programs by asking questions and getting us going. Dan already got us going in terms of financially in waiting for the show. He says to start, at least have enough gratitude to hit the like button. Like, don't forget to like the show before you leave. Like the show. Do it now if you expect to like the show. Thank you, Dan. Thank you, Jacob. So yeah, come on in if you want to just support the show without asking a question. You can do it on the stickers. And you can, of course, do it with a monthly contributions on Patreon, SubscribeStar, or you're on bookshow.com slash support. We've got two sponsors, the Einwand Institute. Go to einwand.org slash start here to find out about all the exciting things going on this month and next month at the Institute. There's an exciting Fountainhead event. Next week and the 28th, don't miss it. Sign up for it. Go to einwand.org slash start here. And also, of course, we've got expressvpn.com slash Iran, where if you get ExpressVPN, I highly recommend it. I use it. It's fantastic for increasing privacy, particularly if you travel and on a laptop, but for all kinds of other reasons. And if you use that URL, then you get an extra three months free as part of your introduction. OK, let's jump in. Wow. Wow that Millay won. I remember being in Argentina. So he won the election for the presidency of Argentina. It wasn't even close. He won by 10 percentage points, which is 12 actually. I think 56 to 44, which is pretty amazing. I was in Argentina. I remember last, I think it was last year, earlier this year, last year, maybe it was last fall. I can't remember. Anyway, I was there and we met with a bunch of people who know Millay and are kind of fans and have been working for him and with him and kind of the objectivists and libertarians of Buenos Aires, where we actually have an objectivist conference in Buenos Aires. And we will again in April. So I think it was earlier this year. Anyway, there was some talk about Millay is running and he probably doesn't have a chance, but it'll be interesting to watch. And he's a character. So I got to know a little bit about him from people who know him. He's obviously a character. He's quite a clown. But he's also an economics professor and has, I think, a deep grounding in Austrian economics. He has read, I think, most of Inran and has a somewhat understanding of Inran's philosophy. He's also a Christian or somewhat religious, not clear how Christian, but he is religious. He's definitely religious. And he swears, I mean profusely. And he yells, and he screams, and he jumps up and down, and he's incredibly passionate. And I think shockingly, although it's not a shock now after the elections leading up to this, but it's still shocking. He won. And he won by a big margin. And this is a guy who ran on a campaign saying to abolish the Argentinian central bank and replace, basically, Argentina peso with a dollar. Great idea. And you know, Millay is also very pro-Bitcoin and cryptocurrencies generally. So you can imagine the dollar will be the official currency, but he will encourage currency competition. He ran on a campaign of abolishing most of the government ministries in the Argentinian government. So there's a video of him with a list of all the governments. And this is what I'm going to do. This ministry is very theatrical. Anyway, he wants to abolish them. He wants to fire, I think, 2-thirds of people who work for the government, privatization on mass scale. I assume he's talked about massive and immediate reductions in regulations and in taxes. Argentina has crazy taxes and crazy regulations that distort everything. And it's going to be super interesting. I don't know exactly how it all works out. I don't know exactly what he will do and what he is able to do given the particular system of government Argentina has and the culture and the bureaucracy and what I'll let him get away with and so on. But sadly, I don't think this election is a sign that the population in Argentina is dedicated to free markets. I think his election is the ultimate expression of, we've had it. We've had it with you fascists. We've had it with you socialists. We've had it with you, you know, peronists who are kind of fascist socialists. We've had it with all of you, with the last 100 some years of politics in Argentina. We are done. It is, you know, we're upset and we won't have it. And while I think what was expected of this election was that the conservative kind of the right wing, mildly right of center candidate would win, they've had it so much. And there's so many that they're willing to go really radical. And you know, at least a third of the population is willing to go really radical. And then enough of the people who voted for the right, sent to right, saying the one thing we don't want is the same old peronista party that we've had for decades, the one thing we're willing to take a gamble on this guy who we don't completely agree with, just avoid another term of this looting, disastrous candidate. The fact that the guy who is running, who is the economy minister in the current government, got 44% is shocking, because he is an economy that has been devastated by this government, has been crushed by this government, and riddled with corruption, but more importantly, with what do you call it, inflation at 140%. I mean, the Argentine economy has been decimated for decades. But over the last few years, it's fallen off a cliff in a way that I don't think anybody expected. And for anybody to vote for the existing economy minister is suicidal and crazy. This election should have been between Millet and the right conservative between two opposition characters, not between the establishment guy. Anyway, so now the question is, what can Millet do? He probably doesn't have a majority in the parliament. So how does he pass laws? How does he dismantle the central bank? Disbanding a central bank in a country the size of Argentina is not simple. I mean, there's a sense of which is simple. You can just do it. And I'm not against that. But it's unlikely that that's how it's done. It's not simple that while these things have happened in places like Panama is on the dollar, Ecuador is on the dollar. It's never happened on an economy the size anywhere close to the size of Argentina. I'm looking forward to seeing the plan. I'm looking forward to seeing it put in place, because it'll be super exciting. And it's a super step forward. And it's a super increase in the amount of freedom Argentinians will have. They will actually be able to earn income in a currency that doesn't lose its value 100% of its value, well over 100% of its value every year. I see Daniel is just given he's contributed on a super chat. 5,000 Argentinian pesos. Now, there was a time where 5,000 Argentinian pesos would have made my day and would have got us to our goal. And wow, I mean, it was a lot of money. But today, with inflation and the devaluation of the Argentinian pesos, and this is probably the official rate, the unofficial rate, it's half of this. It's $14. So 5,000 Argentinian pesos is $14. It's actually in the real market. It's $7. So that gives you a little flavor of how decrepit the whole thing is. Thank you, Daniel. That was Daniel's first super chat. So really, really appreciate that. Anyway, I think it's super exciting. It's more than exciting because it's really interesting because it's going to be interesting what can a free market president, he's going to be president as of December 10, do when the country is not really free market, even though it elected him and he has a mandate, you have to say, winning by 12 points. What can he actually get away with? What can he do? What will be the backlash from the people who elected him? How much room will they give him to do what he needs to do? All fascinating questions. And in that sense, Argentina is kind of the canary in the coal mine. To what extent can you change dramatically, not like, not even like Reagan and Thatcher, much more. To what extent can you change, dramatically change an economy in a culture where the people are not, we don't know how aligned the people are with you. And certainly, the political class is completely misaligned. And there's no tradition of solid kind of change of power, democratic change of power, where who knows what the bureaucrats and the military and who else, what they will do if this is pushed too much. But again, he won by 56 to 44. So you've got to believe that he will have a significant mandate. My advice to him, and by the way, if anybody knows Mele and he needs some advisors, he needs, I don't know, a secretary of the economy, or I'm sure he's got people in mind. But if he needs anybody to bounce ideas off, I am available. I'd be happy to do it. I would want to find a way to support him and to see if you can put together a kind of a rational program, how quickly you can liberate an economy. To me, all of these are fascinating questions and questions that it would be cool to be involved in doing. I doubt I'm going to get that phone call. But anyway, if anybody out there knows Mele and you can tell him my guess is he probably knows who I am, or he knows a lot of people around him certainly know who I am, I am available as consulting, advice, anything like that. And I will be in Argentina in April for a big objectives conference there. Now, this is not to suggest. I mean, the only reason I am supporting Mele is not because he's an ANCAP. It's in spite of the fact that he claims to be an ANCAP. And that's because his program is not a program to institute anarcho-capitalism. He's not, and he strikes me that he's not a nihilist like so many in the Libertarian Party. He's not a nihilist like so many, not all, but so many ANCAPs in the United States. He is, I don't know if you saw him three days ago at a big demonstration, waving the Israeli flag is a massive fan of Israel. He's even a fan of the United States, where ANCAPs in the United States are not fans of the United States or of Israel. So I'll give him that. He's even in a weird way, a fan of Ben Bernanke at the Federal Reserve, but I'll forgive him that. Yeah, I mean, there are better people out there, and he might call himself an ANCAP. And he is religious, and he's anti-abortion, although he wants there to be a referendum on abortion, at least not instituted from above the banning of abortions. So anyway, let's see what happens. Maybe my last trip to Argentina is what made this possible. That's delusional, I know, but what the hell? Maybe this next trip will help put together a completely rational program for him. Who knows? Maybe one of my people in Argentina can arrange a meeting with me and Millet when I'm out there in, what do you call it, in April. Anyway, I am super excited. Again, I don't know what the outcome's going to be, but I'm super excited to watch the process and to see what happens. One way or the other, we will learn a lot about this. And then the question is, can somebody like Millet with his attitude and his a little bit crazy persona, can he get stuff done? We don't know that yet. We have no evidence that he is a doer, other than political doer, podcast doer. But is he a doer? Can he actually go out there and produce? Or does he have the people around him who may be businessman, people who've actually achieved things? And will the businessmen around him be radical? Will they try to undercut his radicalism and try to force him to compromise? I mean, so many questions, so many questions. And at this point, so few answers. And as time passes now, we will get more and more of those answers. So again, I'm excited because I'm a curious guy and I want to see how this plays out. I'm excited to watch it. One other aspect of this, part of the fun of this is to watch the mainstream media go apoplectic around this. They're comparing Millet to Trump. Yeah, Trump was really a free market guy. There's certain elements of the brashness of the way they speak, although Millet is like 100 times worse in a sense than Trump. But Millet does not come across as a pragmatist. Millet does not come across as a kind of somebody committed to lying, committed to untruth, committed to making up reality. Millet does not come across as the kind of primacy of consciousness that Trump has. He's outspoken and crazy. But he's got ideas. He's got principles. He's got beliefs that are clear. And he will be evaluated based on where he achieves them. Trump had none of that. And certainly, his beliefs that Trump had were not aligned with free markets. Now, the one thing maybe they should in common, although I think Millet has a grasp on it versus Trump that doesn't. And that is hatred for the left. But that's it. It's the only thing they have in common. All right. That is Millet, Gaza war. Not a lot of kind of big news here. The operation in the north of Gaza continues. Israel continues to take casualties, unfortunately. Every day we get the names of the people who have been killed in Gaza. The casualties are far lower still than what I would have expected and what I think most military experts expected. I might do a show on military experts because it's pretty stunning how wrong they have been about pretty much every war about Ukraine, about Israel, over and over again. Military experts approve that they know nothing about the militaries, about the area of expertise. But they are taking casualties, which is sad and unfortunate. And all the consequence, by the way, most of these casualties are consequence of the unwillingness to basically destroy more of Hamas and more of its infrastructure from the air. That is, all of these casualties are basically the fault of the altruistic mindset that unfortunately still is prevalent in Israel, but is even more so prevalent in other countries, particularly the United States and the Biden administration. But this would be true of any administration. And the kind of pressure they are putting on Israel and to compromise, to be cautious about civilian casualties, not to bomb, not to destroy the infrastructure, and not to destroy buildings, Israel could have engaged in much fiercer bombing campaign. And it could still be doing the bombing today, much more than it's doing, in order to, what is it, soften the ground for its ground invasion or as the ground invasion moves on so that there would be fewer casualties. And sadly, more than sadly, tragically, that is not what it's doing. And therefore, it's taking casualties. They are uncovering the vast tunnel network. They're blowing as much of it up as possible. They are discovering the tunnels underneath the hospitals. They are showing the world the relationship between the terrorists and the hospitals. Maybe the most important thing out of that is nobody cares. The world doesn't care. No demonstrator out there has seen the video from the IDF saying, oh, oh, it turns out Hamas did use the hospitals. OK, I'm no longer poor Hamas. It doesn't work that way. Nobody, literally, nobody cares. The media globally is almost entirely anti-Israel. The media globally is almost entirely focused constantly, the constant stream of the evils of what Israel is doing in Gaza. October 7 has been forgotten completely. It is unabating. It does not stop. The number of demonstrators around the world seems to be increasing. The demonstrations are happening all over the world everywhere. By the way, you've got to watch this video. There are a few of these videos circulating. You've got to watch these videos. They're from New Zealand. New Zealand used to be one of my top countries in the world. It's both economically free. And the South Island is the most beautiful place ever. After COVID, it kind of knocked down because of how evil the response of the New Zealand government was to COVID. But now it's going up there again. And because of the Maoris, the indigenous people of New Zealand, I don't know if you've seen these videos. They are super entertaining, scary, and I don't know, just inspiring. The Maoris, for some reason, I don't know why, but the Maoris are super pro-Israel, super pro-Israel. And every time there's a demonstration in New Zealand, the Maoris go out there and they do these war dances, war chants in front of the Hamas, pro-Hamas demonstrators. And God, over video, it scares me. I can't even imagine what it would be like to be in their presence. I mean, the guys are big guys, and they're worked out. They're all full of muscles. The women have a strong, they exhibit these strong expressions. And the war thing is, the hook, I guess, is called haka, is very much a war thing, and they're flexing muscles, and they're giving you the evil eye. And the Hamas demonstrators keep moving away. They change their route, they go somewhere else, because these guys are truly scary. It's great. It's great for them to be doing this and to be rallying and to be putting the fear of God and of Allah into these Hamas supporters in New Zealand. I have no idea if somebody maybe knows why the Maoris are pro-Israel. I just don't know what the history there is or what the connection is. But good for them. And these are the guys who play the all-black for the rugby team. These are big guys. Wow. I mean, it's a powerful, and it's just a powerful chant. It gives you the sense of, OK, this is how they go to war, and they're trying to intimidate their enemy just by chanting so the enemy runs away without even firing a shot. I mean, this is, so look it up on Twitter. You won't regret it. I'm telling you, it's pretty impressive. Anyway, the media globally is just anti-Israel through and through. It's just shocking that, again, the number of people out in the streets demonstrating the calls for ceasefire from all quarters. I have to give kudos to the European Union for some reason or I'm not calling constantly for ceasefire. But Biden is thrown in the towel. He's now full in on the ceasefire. And it does look like every day in the news there is imminent, imminent, imminent hostage deal announced in ceasefire. I'm glad that they've all proven wrong. Not that I don't want to see the hostages released, but I do not want to see a ceasefire. I think the ceasefire will do nothing but enhances Hamas's hand, both from the perspective militarily. It'll let them group and reorganize. And it will take away Israel's momentum. Israel has Hamas on the ropes. They are frantic. They're not sleeping. It's very difficult to function. And this will give them a respite, an organization. But also, it'll take away the PR momentum, whatever positives they are for Israel to do a, let's say, a five-day ceasefire, which is what they're talking about. And then what? Then they start bombing Gaza like hell. The world will go apoplectic if they start that, because then they certainly would have forgotten about anything. And I say, look, the Palestinians, they're willing to compromise. They let some of the hostages go. What are you doing? Why are you doing this? Why are you being so mean? Let's sit down. Let's have a political process. You cannot. And I said this from day one. I said, that's why they should have gone into Gaza early. You only have so many weeks to do what you need to do. You only have a limited time to get it done. Israel has to get it done. It has to get it done now. It has to get it done. And we've only dealt with, I don't know, maybe 60% of the northern Gaza. You've still got the whole southern Gaza. They're really trying to get people to evacuate parts of southern Gaza. But that isn't going, that's going to take a while. Israel hasn't entered yet into that area. It's still clearing out parts of northern Gaza. And now, when you go into southern Gaza, almost 2 million people are crammed into half the size of what you had before. What you can evacuate into the north, that's not doable. So it's just, it's an impossible situation. I just don't see how Israel wins. And wins, I mean here, completely crushing Hamas, completely defeating them, completely annihilating them. And doing it in such a way that the Palestinians understand unequivocally that they will never, ever, ever succeed against Israel. I just don't see it. I just don't see it. This is going to end tragically and set us up for the next time it happens again. And the world, Biden, Americans generally, and Europeans or whatever, are going to be partially to blame for this, because the model and other pressure they're putting in Israel is pretty devastating. So we will see. We will see, but I'm not positive, sadly. And again, it's sad to see so many Israeli troops dying for what I believe is unnecessarily, unnecessarily. All right, this is the story now after I've talked about these other controversial things. This is a story that might give me trouble with YouTube. Let's hope it doesn't. But it is a story, a front page, well, not front page, but in the opinion page of the New York Times. It's by not some radical author, kind of somebody on the fringe or anything like that, the New York Times, has deemed worthy of publishing an op-ed in the New York Times. This is actually by the editorial board, the editorial board of the New York Times. And this is what the editorial board writes. And again, this should not come to anybody as a surprise to anybody, but according to the New York Times. The evidence is now in, and it is startling. The school closures that took 50 million children out of classrooms at the start of the pandemic may prove to be the most damaging disruption in the history of American education. It also sets student progress in math and reading back by two decades, and widened the achievement gap that separates poor and wealthy children. What a shock. What a shock if you close schools down, students will suffer. What a shock that if you don't teach, nothing is learnt. Now, granted, these are public schools, so not that much is being taught. But it's not just public schools, unfortunately. It was much more than that. Some of these closures were statewide and affected more than public schools. But even a little that they study in public schools, they didn't study. Now, some parents took advantage of this, and homeschooled kids, and some parents took advantage of this, and moved them into private schools, or created coons, or created all kinds of other mechanisms by which they could study that avoided the public school system, which they realized was once they saw what the kids were learning online, so damaging. But most kids, most kids are still going to public schools, and they lost a year, some cases two years, depending on the state, of education. And all the studies now show that this has had a massive impact. Now, of course, the New York Times has a purpose here. The purpose here is to argue for more money for schools. The purpose here is to argue for more state intervention. The purpose here is to try to get basically more money, more money, more money, more money. That's always the solution. Even the other solutions that they propose are kind of funny, because one of the solutions they propose is, you know what actually helps get students who are behind get them sped forward, allow them to advance quickly. What allows it is good teachers. Maybe we should reward good teachers and expand their classrooms and get more students in front of good teachers. I mean, that would be great. But let's be realistic here for a minute. The teachers' unions don't like you discriminating between good teachers and bad teachers. I mean, that's discriminatory policies. That is anti-equity. It's anti-social justice. Just because you're a good teacher, you should be paid more. Just because you're a good teacher, you should be treated better. Give me a break. This is kind of funny how this is pushing forward. Pushing forward this agenda. The New York Times is pushing forward an agenda of merit when it comes to teachers, but of course student unions would never allow this. What they are pushing more than anything else is more money, more money is the solution to everything. You know, this is not a surprising outcome. As we all know, starting in March of 2020, schools started closing really by the third week in March of 2020. Pretty much all the schools in the United States, all the public schools in the United States were closed. The first state that closed all schools in the state was Ohio, a red state, by Governor Mike DeWine. But by mid-March, schools were essentially done. I mean, all schools were closed no matter which state it was in. And that stayed that way for quite a while. And by the end of March, it was clear that most of the schools are going to stay closed for the rest of that school year. And then in the summer, that was expanded into the summer and into the fall. And you all know the story of all this. The government, of course, poured money into the schools during this period, poured money into it afterwards. That's kind of money that's going to be missing now that I think the money dries out. And that's why the New York Times is writing, we need more money, we need more money. But it really is horrible, just horrible. Of course, the evidence was quite clear, I think, even relatively early on, that schools were not exactly a place where the virus was spreading. I'll give you one article, but there were many of these articles by epidemiologists. This one was by Amish Adulja. Amish in November 19, 2020, published in The Washington Post. And this is the headline. The virus wasn't spreading in New York City schools. Why close them? The decision that will affect hundreds of thousands of children wasn't science-based. And that was pretty evident from the very early days of the pandemic. This was a pandemic of the old. This is a pandemic of the sick, i.e. pre-existing conditions. This was never a pandemic of young children. And there was, as Amish and other epidemiologists were showing, and as was true in Sweden and other places, schools did not have to close. And not only did schools close in the United States, but they maintained close until in some states, like California and other places, until 2022. Even when the science was clear, the teachers unions and the school boards and state governments would not listen to the science. Again, Amish had this article published in The Washington Post November 19, 2020. Virus wasn't spreading in New York City schools. Why close them? And that's true in all schools, not just New York. All right, finally, this weekend. So one of the most exciting boardroom dramas I think Silicon Valley certainly has ever seen, and one of the most exciting that we've seen in the United States in the last decade or so. This is pure, I don't know, succession or whatever you want to call it, pure TV drama. This was quite exciting. And all standard around the hottest, sexiest, most interesting technology available today, which is artificial intelligence. It all started, I think it was Friday, when out of nowhere, there was an announcement that Sam Altman, the CEO of Open AI, was being fired. For lack of being open in communication, something vague and uncommittable like that. I mean, Sam Altman is a major figure in AI. He was the CEO and CEO of Open AI, but he had found one of the founders of Open AI together with a number of other people. But he was part of a big shot in this industry. He is one of the main people who went to Washington had in hand asking for regulations. He is one of the people who on the one hand was saying AI is super, super, super dangerous. And on the other hand, was pushing for massive increased development of AI. He was speaking out of both sides of his mouth, which is we'll get to in a minute. Anyway, he was fired on Friday. A few hours after he was fired, his co-founder of Open AI, whose name is Greg Brockman, who was also on the board with him, also resigned in protest of the fact that Altman was fired and came out and said that he doesn't understand what the hell is going on here and that he does not want to work for this company if Altman is not there. Then it turns out, and we'll talk about the corporate structure of Open AI in a minute because it's super interesting and none of this could have happened if it had a seen corporate structure. But some of its investors, Microsoft in particular has put in tens of billions of dollars, or maybe $10 billion into Open AI, started objecting what the hell is going on here. We invested with Sam Altman. What are you doing? But not just Microsoft, Sequoia Capital and other major venture capitalist firms in the Valley who had invested in Open AI started objecting. Interesting enough, it came out. They're not represented on the board. None of them, not Microsoft, not Sequoia. None of them, which led me to think about the corporate structure, which we'll get to in a minute. And on Saturday, it looked like Sam Altman was in the building of Open AI. So there was some speculation that they were negotiating to bring him back. And there was speculation throughout the weekend about whether he's going back. The interim CEO who Open AI appointed, Satya Nadella, openly said, I don't want to be CEO. Altman should be CEO. I mean, why was he fired? This is insane. So she, together with a lot of employees, were pushing the board to bring him back. He came to the building. He spent a few hours there. There was speculation about him being back. But he wasn't. And then this morning, I guess it was this morning, or maybe late last night, the board of directors announced that they'd hired a new chief executive officer, Emma Shear, who is the former CEO of Twitch, the video company. I mean, well regarded, well respected guy, knows AI. There's been a CEO of a successful company. So Emma Shear is now the CEO of Open AI. And then a couple of hours after that announcement, Microsoft announced, Microsoft the largest investor in Open AI announced, that they had hired Sam Altman and Greg Brokman. Had given them basically what constitutes an unlimited budget to start their own advanced research lab at Microsoft, made them, made Altman the CEO of this advanced research lab. Basically, I can only understand this as to compete directly with Open AI with which Microsoft has a deal and in which Microsoft has invested heavily. So what the hell is going on here? Now, the initial stories that came out was kind of the CD regular stories when suddenly a CEO has kicked out. I don't know, he slept with somebody. He did something. He abused. He did something inappropriate, something like that. Those were the initial rumors that were floating around. But as the day progressed Friday and then Saturday, it became clear that that wasn't it. And then discussions about having returning, it was obvious that that wasn't it. So what was going on? What was going on? To really understand what was going on, you have to understand the structure of Open AI and how it was founded and created. Wow, this show is much longer than I expected. I'm glad I don't have a hard stop at 3 o'clock. All right. Anyway, so let's up our goal as a consequence of the longer show. What the hell? So Open AI was founded in late 2015 as a 501C3. In other words, it was founded as a nonprofit with a strong commitment to the quote, public good. They hoped at the time to raise a billion dollars for this nonprofit to work on AI, to be responsible in how it was developed, and to make sure that it benefited everybody. In other words, we committed to publishing our research and data in cases where we felt it was safe to do so and would benefit the public. Their whole funding document is full of public good, public good, public good. Anyway, they couldn't raise a billion dollars. They only raised $130 million for this nonprofit. So what they did was as clear that they couldn't do that is they created a subsidiary, which was a full and bear with me. I know this is technical, but it's fascinating. They created a for-profit subsidiary. The for-profit subsidiary would then sell shares to investors and could and did go public. But the for-profit subsidiary was from a governance perspective completely controlled by the nonprofit. So investors who invested in the for-profit entity had no control rights, had no ability to control what happened with open AI. That was controlled completely by the board of directors of the nonprofit. Now, the nonprofit invested in the research and development. The nonprofit also gave money to other nonprofits. It was like a charity. And the board was by governance structure dominated by, quote, outsiders. Now, originally, people like Elon Musk were on there. Now, that board is nobody of Elon Musk's statue there. There are people of high statue there. But all of them are committed to the non-for-profit, that, quote, charity, mission of open AI. Not so committed and worried about the for-profit part of open AI. So on their website, they say, the for-profit subsidiary is fully controlled by open AI nonprofit. We enacted this by having a nonprofit wholly owned and control a manager entity that has the public control. Anyway, they've struck it in a way. Because the board is still the board of the nonprofit, each director must perform their fiduciary duties and furtherance of its mission, which is safe, artificialized, generalized intelligence. Put aside whether that's even possible. Safe AGI that is broadly beneficial, broadly beneficial, publicly good. While the for-profits subsidiary is permitted to make and distribute profits, it's subject to this mission. That is, if the board feels that the AGI is not safe or is it's not going to be broadly beneficial, they can change direction. The non-profit's principal beneficiary, this is perfect, right? The non-profit's principal beneficiary is humanity, not open AI investors. Third, the board remains majority independent. Independent directors do not hold any equity in open AI. Even open AI CEO, Sam Altman, does not hold equity directly. This is stunning. Fourth, profits allocated to investors and employees, including Microsoft, is capped. All residual value created above and beyond the cap will be returned to the non-profit for the benefit of drumroll, humanity. Fifth, the board determines when we attained AGI, artificial generalized intelligence. Again, by AGI, we mean highly autonomous systems that outperform humans at most economically valuable work. Such a system is excluded from IP licenses, they won't IP it because, right? Because it's for humanity. And other commercial terms with Microsoft, which only apply to pre-AGI technology. So whatever rights Microsoft has is only to the pre-AGI technology, not the AGI. Now, the board, before this reshuffle, the board was composed of Greg Brocken, the guy who resigned, who was chairman and president. Ilya Syskeva, the chief scientist who played an important role in what happened. Sam Altman, who was the CEO. And non-employee Adam DiAngelo, who I think is the CEO of Quora. Tasha McCauley and Helen Toner, who are tech people from the Valley, right? Now, I'm going to speculate. I don't know this for fact, but I'm going to speculate that this board is a board of what you would call effective altruism, EA. These people are effective altruists. This is about humanity. This is not about profits, God forbid. There's a for-profit entity. Yeah, well, we need to raise capital. What can we do? We can't do it otherwise. But this is a board of effective altruists. I'm pretty sure Ilya Syskeva and the non-employees Adam, Tasha, and Helen are all effective altruists, although I'm pretty sure that Adam Altman and Greg are also, although maybe less so now than they were. This is a board that basically it appears. Came to believe that Sam Altman was steering the company in a for-profit direction too strongly and was pushing products too fast that were, quote, dangerous because of the dangers of AI that they all believe. Then he was pushing the company to make money, pushing the company to do what the investors wanted, pushing the company to abandon, well, not explicitly, but implicitly in its functioning, the non-profit goals that Sam Altman was far too focused on the for-profit side, for-profit goals, investors, while the board was focused on humanity. And this is the essence of the split. This is a split in the effective altruism in the application of effective altruism here. This is inevitable. It's inevitable that when a non-profit tries to raise a for-profit, this will blow up in one way or another. And it has blown up. Most of the employees in open AI are now saying they want to leave. I think it's like 500 or 700 employees are starting to let it to that fact. Many of them are going to be hired, I think, by Sam Altman and Greg Brockman at Microsoft. Basically, I wouldn't be surprised if open AI is emptied of talent, which all moves to become a subsidiary of Microsoft. Sadly, that'll mean that Microsoft and probably Sequoia and other venture capitalists will lose the investment that they made, but they deserve it because they invested in a governance structure that was never tenable. You don't invest hundreds of millions of dollars in a business where you have zero say, zero control. In a way, the business is not being run for you as investors to maximize shareholder, long-term shareholder wealth, but for the benefit of humanity. So this is exactly the danger that altruism broadly affected altruism just being one species of the general trend. Altruism broadly, this is kind of danger that altruism poses, it is anti-business, destructive, destructive from a business perspective. It is anti-productivity. It is anti-markets. It brings around, ultimately, a decay and decline. And if a vast number of businesses run like this, the economy would collapse. So wow, what a perfect story. You want to run a company for the benefit of humanity? Ultimately, you're going to fail. You want to run a company for the benefit of shareholders? Ultimately, you will benefit humanity. I can't think of a better illustration or the millions of illustrations. This is a great illustration. I can't think of a better. This is a great illustration of the lack of viability for all these so-called nonprofit models, conscious capitalism, stakeholder capitalism, stakeholder whatever. You want to change the world? Make money. That's how you change the world. You change the world by selling products that people actually want, thus improving their lives. But yeah, do it morally. Apply morality to everything that you do in life, including the business you own, the business you run, the business you manage. Do it ethically. Ethically as the self-interest ethics. But this is building a company on the basis of this kind of effective altruism. Altruism, generally, is always going to fail. My warning to the effective altruist movements out there. All right. That's the latest in the news. Don't forget, you can support this show on Patreon. You run Bookshow, SubscribeStar. You run Bookshow. Or on my website, www.yourunbookshow.com. That's PayPal. And you can make a monthly contribution if you get value from the show, whether you're live or whether you're not. If you get value from the show and you'd like to trade value for value, please consider supporting the show. Of course, if you are live one way easily, quickly that you can support the show right now is by doing a super chat, by just going on and just doing a sticker and supporting the show that way. Please consider doing that. I've set a new goal of $500 for today because we're going to go well into the second hour. All right. Let me just scan these to look for issues that are relevant to what we just talked about before I just go at them. Yeah, there's a lot of Millet questions, so let me start with that. Michael says, you say it's too early for politics, but look at Millet. Can Gloria Alvarez get you connection with him? Would you be willing to fly down and be part of his government? Sure, I'd be willing to do all that, but it's too early for politics. The fact that he got elected, he got elected after Argentina almost collapsed, and the reality is that the United States is nowhere near as bad as Argentina, so it's too early here, certainly. And we still don't know what he's going to do and what he can get away with, what he can actually put into effect. So I still think it's too early for politics, but would I be willing to advise and so on? I said earlier, be happy to. It would be fun, it would be interesting. Let's see, GF37 says, happy for Argentina. Javier Millet is solid. I hope so. We will see. Will Lunt says, here's another two K well in Argentinian money for what it's worth. I appreciate it, thanks. Hopper Campbell says, Millet one, your show exceeded 35 K, ARI is almost at 125 K. Jordan Peterson feels the need to attack Ein Rand, the individualist ethos maybe on the rise. Maybe, maybe, you know, let's hold our horses. I don't know that I'm quite willing to get the victory flag out quite yet. Let's see what happens. Let's see how this evolves. 35,000, 125,000 are pretty pathetic numbers. I mean, in the big scheme of things, good for me, good for your eye, but pretty small in the big scheme of things. All right, Clark, can Argentina go further than Chile in its free market revolution? It would be a travesty if objectivists don't get in on this government. Well, I don't know about travesty. Anyway, I'm not gonna comment on the travesty. I think that's ridiculous. It's Argentina, you know, there are only so many objectivists in Argentina and many of them are young and, but could Argentina go further than Chile? It could, and he's certainly more radical. Melea is more radical than even the Chicago boys during the Chilean revolution. The fundamental, the big differences is that the Chilean economic revolution was instituted from the top down by a dictator. It was basically done by Pinochet, and if you didn't agree with him and you objected badly enough and you opposed him, you would kill you or imprison you. So it was forced down the Chilean people's throats. They didn't like it. So this is very different. Here you've got an election, so Melea was elected, and you've got a parliamentary system, and Melea is not dictator of Argentina. He does not have dictatorial power. So the question now is, how much can he actually get done? And, you know, so I talked about that. What can he get done? What can he actually get through, get through his Congress or his parliament, and what would the Argentinian people tolerate given that they're not under a dictator, and they have to accept anything he does or says? Apollo says, you'll take an Argentina. I've already done that. That's in the beginning of the show. All right, Andrew says, AI doesn't exist, so we can all contemplate it in wonder. It exists to be used and commercialized into products or profits. Well, AI doesn't exist if you take it literally, but if you don't take it literally, there's a technology there that's pretty awesome, pretty amazing, life-changing, I think, world-changing, economy-changing, but to really maximize its impact on the world for the positive, it's gonna be done by for-profit entities, for-profit companies. Microsoft, Google, Apple, many startups that are building stuff. I mean, it is pretty cool. There's already amazing stuff that AI is doing that is amazing, so it's not intelligence, but it's something. It's this amazing technology that behaves, that produces results that seem like they come from an intelligent being. So I'm excited by the technology. All right, Sivanos, $50, thank you, Sivanos. Do you think not-for-profits have any utility as far as taxes go, or are they strictly malevolent in nature given they usually rely mostly on grandmoney? No, I don't think they're malevolent, and I have no problem with 503s. The Ironman Institute is a 503, it's an off-for-profit. If your mission is a non-profit mission, if your mission is consistent with that, it's a mission that cannot be done in any other way or cannot be articulated or so long-term that you can't really do it in a for-profit structure, 501c3s can be great. It's just that they're not good if the fundamental mission is an economic mission, and if the fundamental mission is one of building products to be sold or building products for people, or even giving away. It's just not a good system for anything like that, and it's gonna be corrupted always by a system like that, and they won't ever be able to raise enough money to really have an impact. That's why they had, OpenAI had to create a subsidiary, a for-profit subsidiary to raise the billion dollars that it needed in order to actually produce a meaningful product. All right, Vadim with $200, wow, thank you. Why would a company found itself as non-profit? What is the benefit to a company? Is it just a tax shelter? I see a lot of hospitals in California, non-profits, yet build new additions to their buildings every year. The extra money has to go somewhere. So non-profits, often it's a tax shelter. It allows people to make contributions to your business without offering a material value in return or a service value in return, but just to support the business while taking a tax deduction for it. So that is the reason to structure something as a 501C3 as a non-profit, it's to give the person attributing money a tax benefit. But it's not ideal for a business like hospitals shouldn't be non-profits. And I think the fact that so many hospitals are non-profit is supposed to give a sense of confidence to the public that the hospital is not gonna have lots of profits and not gonna be profit motivated and not gonna exploit them, but that's ridiculous. It's exactly because they're not, because it's exactly profits that keep the hospitals honest. It's exactly profits that force them to be benevolent towards their patients. So hospitals shouldn't be non-profit, but they are, to some extent, as a marketing tool, to tell people, look, it's not about profits, it's about humanity, it's about helping people, it's about keeping people healthy and we're not gonna make a lot of profits, we're gonna keep our prices low. It doesn't work that way. The fact is that non-profit prices always go up and when it's for profit and when it's real competition, prices come down. So the main reason to have a non-profit as a company that's selling real services and real products is as an ethical moral statement to the world, I'm not in it for the profit. I'm not in it for self-interested reasons. I'm doing this for humanity. So open AI was founded like this because they wanted to make sure that they were corrupted by the profit motive. They wanted to make sure that investors didn't put pressure on them, right? That investors didn't put pressure on them to produce bad, immoral products just for the sake of profit. That is why they advocate for non-profits because non-profits are free of the kind of pressure that profits puts on something. But that's a perversion and a distortion. It is exactly profit which is in a marketplace which actually keeps everybody honest, maximizes productivity and maximizes effectiveness. So if you're pitching certain educational products, if you're trying to advocate for philosophy that's only gonna have an impact decades and decades into the future, non-profit well, you know, makes a lot of sense. But in an industry where there are goods and services to be traded in now and where there's a large number of clients, it makes absolutely no sense, no sense. And indeed, it's destructive, as you can see in the OpenAI case, how destructive it actually is and can be. Thank you, Vadim, the $200, that's amazing. All right, let's see, do we have another Mille? We have another Mille question that just came in. Rand says, at the risk of sounding pessimistic, I think Mille will accomplish very little. Argentina is drowning in Christian altruism. That is the root problem. That is the root problem and that will not change anytime soon. You know, I agree with you. I think it's gonna be interesting to watch and certainly you could get some things done and it'll be interesting to see what he can get done under what circumstances, how long it lasts, what impact it has. So whatever happens, I mean, I'm looking at this more from the perspective of this is gonna be interesting. But yes, Argentina is dominated by a Christian altruism, by Catholic altruism, South America even more so than Argentina. And to overcome that in order to have a real positive impact gonna be very difficult. But you know, I'm not gonna let that pessimism deny me the curiosity of seeing how it plays out and seeing the extent to which we can have a positive impact on that outcome or you know, I think whatever happens we'll learn from this example. I mean, it is, he is the most free market president of a country to be elected in the last 100 years easily. And just on that, it's exciting and interesting and let's see what happens. And the Argentinians are desperate and a lot of stuff can be done out of desperation even if it may be, if the whole program is not sustainable because of the altruism and the Christianity. All right, Liam, Candace Owen is clearly an anti-Semite. The new white is using leftist language to describe Israel. She tweeted to venture pure that she's against genocide and how money can't get in between her and God. Jewish money. Well, it's his money or daily wire's money. I saw that, I did a whole segment about it. I mean, I don't know. And then she interviewed on a podcast, what's his name? This guy that I was asked to interview but probably won't, asked to debate but probably won't, Finkestein or something like that. Who's a real piece of work. So yeah, Candace is terrible. She's terrible in Israel. She's terrible in freedom. She's terrible on pharma. Somebody mentioned big pharma in the chat. She's terrible on big pharma. She is awful and is she, am I ready to just write her off as a complete anti-Semite? No, I just think she's just an emotional nothing and she's influenced by a lot of people who probably are very anti-Semitic, very anti-Semitic like this Norman Finkestein character. But so she's influenced by them. I don't know that she herself is but you can find a whole thing that I did on the whole Candaceau and Ben Shapiro gig a few days ago. It's on my YouTube channel. Andrew says, was it brilliant of Thomas Jefferson to state the pursuit of happiness as the moral principle declaration of dependence before the morality of selfishness was worked out? Is that still in the US's sense of life? Yeah, I think it was brilliant of Thomas Jefferson and brilliant of the founding fathers to let him and to sign the document. I think it was very much a part of the Enlightenment. The pursuit of happiness was a conception within the Enlightenment. It was a premorality of selfishness kind of attitude that reflected the confidence and the positivity and the excitement of the Enlightenment. And Thomas Jefferson reflected that and the founders reflected that. And you know, unfortunately, I ran took another 170 years for 130 so years for her to be born. So that by then it was, by the time she writes out LaShog, it's too late maybe at least for the situation for the full-fledged morality of selfishness to be the backbone of that statement. But it's in the declaration and therefore I think it shaped much of America. It shaped the sense of life and the attitude of Americans and the kind of people who came to America. And there's an element of that still in American but it's definitely dwindled. I mean, even I ran said a sense of life I cannot withstand constant erosion from the explicit philosophy in this culture. We've seen a lot of that erosion over the last 100 years. Suddenly we've seen a lot of that erosion of the last 50 years to the point where Leonard Peacock in 2004, I think it was or three, I declared the Americans of life almost dead post 9-11. And I think it's only gotten worse since then. You can see it in the massive demonstrations against Israel right now. And in the tribulism of left and right. And so is it still there? Yeah, there are remnants of it. There's still Americans who still have it to one extent or another. But as a driving force of what America is and its character, I think unfortunately it is dead. It's not there. It's just not there. I don't see it. Jeremy, $50. Thank you, Jeremy. Really, really appreciate that. It was a stick-off and hopper. Thank you for the $20. Who else? That's all I can go back for. Okay. Oyvind from Norway. I thought, I think you'd need to read Atlas Shrug to Peterson as a bedtime story. I like Peterson, but he is so wrong on the characters of Iron Man. I almost cannot comprehend. Please someone reach out to him. You know, we've tried. He could have me on his podcast anytime he wants. I would go on. We reached out to him years ago. He was at Ocon. I think probably a mistake. But you know, I'm quite happy to engage with him. It would probably be better for some of our philosophers engaged with him. They're all quite happy to do it. I went to his conference, giving him a lot of opportunities. But the reality is that Jordan Peterson is not interested in the truth here. That's not what motivates him. Truth doesn't motivate him. He's got a particular epistemology and a particular metaphysics which shape his ethics. And he's not gonna budge on that. And it shapes how he reads Atlas Shrug. He's read it many times, not once or twice. And the fact that he doesn't get it so badly should cause you to question whether you really in any meaningful way agree with him on anything else. Maybe everything he says is tainted by the same thing that makes it impossible for him to understand Atlas Shrugged. I think it is. And I think in the end, you can discover, you will discover that there's not a lot of there, there when it comes to Jordan Peterson. Hopper Campbell, what were some of the good things about colonization? Well, lots of good things. I mean, colonization, well, it depends whose. Like the main positive force of colonization were the British. America is a good thing about colonization. You got the United States of America, ultimately. Australia is a good thing of colonization. You got Australia, New Zealand. English, the fact that English is, you have kind of a one language that in a sense unifies the world and is a common global language today. That is a product of colonization. I mean, the fact that Indians speak English is a huge benefit to the economy. I wish they had a better rule of law that would allow them to take advantage of that. But that would be on Hong Kong, Enric says. The railroad system that they build in places like India, even more than the railroads, educational system. India and some other countries colonized by the British have fantastic educational systems relative to countries that were not colonized or relative to countries that colonized by other powers. What else did they, what else are some of the benefits? A respect for kind of the will of the people and as reflected in limited government political systems, which again, India has and a lot of non-colonized countries don't have. And there was broad in these countries. Now again, there were a lot of sins, but there was a lot of good education. I mean, basically an exposure to Western civilization. That was the main good of our colonization and exposure to Western civilization. Common law, not just common law, just law, property rights, respect for property rights. So the institutions of capitalism, even if they were then not used for capitalism and even if they were abused by the colonizers themselves. So all of that, all of that was some of the good things about colonization and that is completely ignored. Again, there were bad things, right? But the exposure to Western civilization by all these cultures around the world is the main positive that the colonizers brought. And again, the British colonizers were a lot better than the French or the Belgium or the German or the others who were much more brutal and much less interested in developing the countries they colonized and much more interested in exploiting them. Rob, in the field of history, is the field of history doomed to attract primitivists by nature? That is, theocrats fascinated by medieval tribes because historians whitewashing the area, become historians whitewashing the area. No, I don't think it's doomed to that. It's that because of the kind of world in which we live. It's that because history, like every other field, is going to ultimately serve the philosophy that is dominant around them, that is dominated in the culture that they have embraced. And so the history, like, look at economics. Economics is dominated by statists. Political science dominated by statists. Foreign relations dominated by statists. Why? Because statism, the philosophy of the state is, and the importance of the state, the centrality of the state and all human activity, is the dominant philosophy in our culture and they are just products of that philosophy. So I don't think history is any different. James, more short clips of Ankar at his best, please, that would be one mechanism to grow the movement. Ankar is too talented to be tucked away and behind the scenes. Yeah, I agree. I agree. The more Ankar, the better. Dark Fox, Jews are outvoted in the UK by Muslims. Muslims grow via immigration and political support for Israel while holding is cracking. Do you regret some of your advocacy for immigration? No, because I've always said, right? No, the problem is nobody actually listens to what I say about immigration. I've always said that what the West should do is declare war on Islamic totalitarians, on Islamism, jihadism, and as part of that war, first of all, defeat them and limit immigration from the countries where Islamic totalitarians are a force and limit that immigration until Islamic totalitarianism is thoroughly and unequivocally defeated. And I've always said this, but if you're not gonna fight a war, then there's no real basis to limit immigration. So I'm still open to limit immigration from Muslim countries, I always have been. If you listen to my debate with Leonard at the end of the debate, he asked me, if I would be for limiting immigration or denying immigration in Muslim countries, I said, okay, fine, but I wanna see war because I want it over because I don't think limited immigration is gonna save us. I think the only thing that will save us is destroying the enemy. And so I'm fine with limiting, but when Trump limited it, he limited it from just a few of the Muslim countries. And the ones he liked, were okay for immigrants to come, like Saudi Arabia. 14 of the 19 terrorists was from Saudi Arabia, but Trump's ban on Muslim immigration was a ban that excluded Saudi Arabia. I mean, that's ridiculous. And I criticized him at the time for that. If you're gonna ban Muslim immigration, which, yes, you can make the case for, then ban it from the countries that are worst Saudi Arabia being one of them. But you see, no more than that. Maybe it'll be one of them. But you see, nobody will do that. So I am the strongest voice you will find on defeating the barbarians. You guys don't wanna defeat the barbarians. You use, I mean, you guys, I'm not making it personal, people out there don't wanna defeat the barbarians. They just wanna insulate themselves and people don't look like them. They wanna insulate themselves from people who are different. And that I'm against. I'm for defeating our enemy. There is an enemy right now. There has been, I mean, I just dug out a talk I gave 16 years ago, 16 years ago, God, time flies. 16 years ago, it was the Israeli military intelligence center. It was open to the public. It was at the center. I think even my parents were there, which is weird. Anyway, it was a long time ago. And it was about Israel and the West and Islamic totalitarianism. And I laid it out. And I have been proven a thousand times right. Go watch the video. I just posted it again on Twitter. Go watch the video. I was completely right on everything I said about Islam. And at the time, people thought I was nuts, exaggerating over the top, and they still think I'm nuts. But you know, people wanna stick their head in the sand. People wanna ignore the threat. People wanna pretend it doesn't exist. Whether they're on the left, on the right, or they are libertarians, they all wanna pretend it doesn't exist. Suffer the consequences. And it's, the consequences are gonna be all kinds. I mean, I saw that, what's the name? Barry Weiss had a story, I think on Friday, about the fact that American girls are converting to Islam in large numbers. Immigration won't stop that. Immigration restrictions won't stop that. But defeating the Islamists will. So you gotta take it on. And you gotta deal with it the way it needs to be dealt with. And not pretend that if you build a wall, that solves the problems, because it doesn't, Israel built a wall. Look what happened to them. And Israel has no Muslim immigration. Look what happened to them. Mark, how to reach out regarding one-on-one matters? I mean, I've told you Mark, and Angela keeps emailing you and you're not responding. So please respond to Angela's emails. She says, as far as I can tell, that she is sending you emails. So if she's not, let me know, but she says you're not responding to them. You can send me another email at youron at youronbookshow.com, but you need to go through Angela. And when she emails you, you gotta respond to them. So I don't know what's going on exactly, Mark, it's been going on for months now. But I want to resolve this. I want to give you what to do, but let's figure it out. Please let me know, send me an email, but let me know what's going on. And let me know if you're not getting emails from Angela, or what is exactly going on. All right. Andrew, last question. If Jordan Peterson is evading about Iron Man and who ideas how much of that you think is because of Objectivism's atheism? I don't think that's it. I mean, it's certainly part of it, but I don't think that's it. I think it's much more, because I don't think Jordan Peterson is conventionally religious. I think his religion comes out of his kind of metaphysics and his epistemology, which, it comes out of his, how he thinks, what he thinks knowledge is, where it comes from, what he thinks reality is, how connected we are to it. I think it's much more philosophical than just, oh, they're atheists. I don't want to understand what they say. Evan says, you mentioned plans to grow your show. What are your goals and strategy in this regard if offered, how can I invest? Basically, write to me at your on at your on bookshow.com. I'm working on a strategy. I'm trying to figure out the strategy right now. One thing I'm trying to do is hire a marketing firm. I'm talking to people who have ideas. I don't have yet the strategy written down and I'm eager to get people to invest, but please communicate with me directly and we can figure out how to make something work. And if you have ideas of what an investment like that would look like, right now I think the best step for me would be ideally if I had the money, so in terms of investment, if I had the money to hire both a sophisticated social media marketing firm to get this show greater exposure in the world of social media. And at the same time, hire a kind of a PR firm that would get me back on television. And I think those are the two things that have the most upside in terms of leverage. Getting me back on television or in front of podcasters and just fine-tuning everything we're doing in social media and figuring out algorithms and figuring out how to properly market the show. Those are the two things I'm focused on. I'm open to other ideas. I'm looking to more things. How much that'll cost is hard for me to say right now, but please write to me at youronbookshow.com. And that is true of anybody with ideas or with interest in investing. All right, guys, thank you. You did super chat, we achieved a 650 evening goal that is of a long show, but it is of course a long show, it's an hour and a half. So it turned out perfect. Thank you all. I will talk to you all tomorrow at about the same time, one or two o'clock East, sorry, 12 or one o'clock East Coast time. And tomorrow we'll do two shows and then after I figure out the exact schedule for Thanksgiving, I'll let you know what that is tomorrow. All right, bye everybody. Have a great rest of your week and thank you to all the super chatters.