NEWSMAX

Sure, as you know, is critical. What is the state of dealerships in the automotive world? How is it changing? Tesla's taking a different approach, but there's still shops where you can go see a Tesla. What will your strategy be? How has it evolved over the last couple of years? Our approach is clear. We are going to go direct to consumer. Okay, we will be selling the vehicles directly to the consumer. And in my mind, I look upon it as three fronts because one, there's no debate that we can handle the transaction far smoother and far straight with a lot more transparency. We're going to build the ecosystem to do that. I think if you look at a brand such as Carvana, they've without a doubt proven there is a good digital path to sell a car and make it. I think the second thing today, I think there's no world where if you don't control the relationship to the customer, have all the data that comes of that relationship, you can't be successive. And the third one, without a doubt is we are going to do a lot of work to build the infrastructure. I think where a lot of the brands you mentioned fell short a little bit is you have to have the service infrastructure built ahead of the wave, not behind the wave. And those are the big things we're focused on. We're executing that and it's critical. What does that actually look like? I mean, it seems like one of the biggest challenges because you need to have service. Are you going to have a central service hub or. I imagine that that's 10 tough if you're having to ship cars around all over the US Is there specific key regions that you need to be set up in? I'm just curious. You got exactly right. I mean, the good news is it all starts at the factory. From the factory, we've laid out nine distribution networks that we will have. We can put these in very smart locations where you can have lots of space, relatively inexpensive, and let's say line up the cars there. Then from there they'll move in to the retail store. We will build 100 stores over time. But this allows us to do. We can be way smarter on inventory, way smarter on cost front. And then what you have now is a lot of these dealerships. You have extremely expensive inventory, extremely expensive parking, and we can put this in much less expensive real estate. I think the other thing, speaking of real estate, where we see the action being is we can build in sort of class A fronts where we can get off of Main street, get off of the expensive stuff, and build it in store smart locations, 85% of the investment will go into service, since that's where the most critical function is. And that's what we're building pretty much as we speak. But again, if we have the data from the customer, the data into our factory, and the data into our suppliers, we can sort of get out of this world of let's build a couple of thousand cars and send them across America and hope they sell. Then they sit in a parking lot. They sit there for 120 days, you throw incentives on them, the RVs collapse. We can avoid that. We can be way smarter using data, using intelligence, using AI to get the right car into the place and basically hold pricing power. Yeah. How important is the test drive to.

Notre Dame. I would love to start with an introduction on yourself, but also just the story of Scout Motors. It's a fascinating company, goes back decades, If I'm not misinformed. 60s. Tell me the story. Yeah. Of both the company and how you got involved and where you're going next. Wonderful. I mean, I'll start with myself, please. I think where it starts with me, of course, is New York, the automotive business. Obviously, with my last name. I've Irish background. My family is a classic American tale. Yeah. They came here with a suitcase. They came to Ellis island, and my dad was in Brooklyn, my mom was in Rockaway, and they wanted to make their way in the world. That's amazing. And of course, it brings me here to here to today. Yeah. I think if you look at Scout Motors, how it all came about, I think first and foremost, as you know, it's a iconic American brand. It basically invented the SUV segment, invented a lot of these things back in the day, 1960s. I think what happened to Scout is exactly what happened to America in the 1970s. High inflation, stopped making things outsourced. A lot of things had troublesome labor relations. High inflation on that. And this American dream, this American icon went away. And how it came back to life, I think it's sort of three things came together. I think first and foremost was, let's say, the business necessity. The Volkswagen group at the time said, how can we get more successful in America? And the way to be successful in America is to go after these profit pools where the trucks and rugged SUVs are. And of course, they had purchased a company called Navistar. Navistar had the heavy truck business of international. Of course, they had the rights to Scout. And there came the genesis of this idea. Could we bring back this magical icon with the backing of a company that knows exactly how to make things and get good cost and bring it back to life with a clean sheet? And that was the premise. And that was four years ago. We had one in place and a couple of PowerPoints lies. And now fast forward. We have 1600 employees. We're industrializing a factory in Blythewood, South Carolina. We're going to show you a pretty cool prototype car behind me in a little bit. And here we are. I think the other thing that's important to look at is sort of the softer side of the thing. And for me personally, I think a lot of us during COVID I drove across the country with my family. When you drive across the country, right, you go to Ohio, you go through Pennsylvania, you go through Indiana, you see some of these manufacturing towns and do have to ask yourself, what happened? Why is this? I think at the same time, we saw a lot of the geopolitical environment with Tavris and the resurgency of saying, let's build things again, let's do things again. And then the other final sort of piece of the puzzle is Scout was a super cool, glorious icon. It's like, why do we let these things go out of business? Why do we let these things fade away? Why don't we do it right? And you put it all together and we're here at this magical moment doing something difficult, for sure, but doing something really cool. So that's the background in a nutshell. Yeah. Yeah. I mean, the idea of reindustrialization, making cars in America today feels like there's a ton of tailwinds, but 2022 is a different era. Is that a lot of luck, just being in the right place, in the right. Because when I think about all the tariffs and everything, I'm just like, oh, this is a win for Scout. There's another win for Scout. And, I mean, we were watching the President talk about AI. Literally, the question right before was about making cars in America. And so there's a lot of positive economic forces that are working. Was the plan that this was coming and that there would be more reindustrialization movement in the future, regardless of who is in the Oval Office, or was this just like a lucky break that happened down the road? There was a look. We're profound geniuses. We looked into the crystal ball and we knew absolutely everything was going to happen. No, I think there was a, let's say, movement, sort of gentle drumbeat. If you were listening, you saw the transition, let's say, from NAFTA to usmca, and clearly you can see where that was heading. That was, of course, back in 2016. Sure, sure. You also knew from COVID that supply chains were becoming, let's say, tenuous, for lack of a better term. It was difficult. And then you knew in this segment, if you look at this segment, majority of the segment says, I want to buy things that are American, I want to buy things that are made in America. So Scout's whole premise was always going to be that. But based on that, of course, a lot of other things came their way, from tariffs to geopolitics to everything I know. So I think it was a good core idea. It's a phenomenal core idea that's gotten more tailwinds as it's come, which has been great. Yeah. I recently heard that the. That the life of a new car has basically doubled since.

Data creating content or automating business workflows. Codex helps you move projects forward from start to finish. We got some breaking news. The President just phoned Jensen live on stage at the all in Summit. Whoa. Jensen was on stage? Yeah. Or the President was on stage. Jensen was on stage. And he gets a call from Donald Trump. Trump says the great thing about Jensen is that he can create the best AI chip in the world, but can't figure out how to put me on speakerphone. What? That's a wild, wild thing. Very big, big moment. So anyways, that's crazy. Apparently. Yeah. Mike Isaac says. Okay, wow. Per folks there, Trump called Jensen in the middle of his interview. He was on stage and Jensen put the phone on speakerphone. Whoa. Okay. Jensen thanked Trump for his social media posts this morning, pouring cold water on alarmism. Yeah, Jensen's been anti doom for this entire cycle. We'll see where it all goes. I'm sure there'll be more. Brad Gerstner chimed in. Oh, there's a video. Do we want to play the video? Trump calling Jensen live during the all in pod interview. And I mean, we just read it out. So I think you know what's going to happen. But this is a wild moment. The planet. The great thing about life is that Jensen can develop the most complex computer chip in the world that nobody can copy for 10 years. But he can't figure out how to put me on speaker. He is on speaker phone. He is on speaker phone. I think he must have had a hard time getting it set up. Okay, Mr. President, you're now talking to the planet. The great thing about life is that Jensen can develop the most complex. It's the joke again. But he can't figure out how to put me on speaker. Odd joke. Okay, well, anything substantive come out of it? I'm sure we'll know more tomorrow. We'll be back. We'll be back at 11am Pacific. Thank you for tuning in. Leave us five stars on Apple podcasts and Spotify. I'm off to go get some rest.

We have a new. Oh, there's a video. Do we want to play the video? Trump calling Jensen live on during the all in pod interview. And I mean we just read it out so I think you know what's going to happen. But this is a wild moment. The great thing about life is that Jensen can develop the most complex computer chip in the world that nobody can copy for 10 years. But he can't figure out how to put me on screen. He is on speakerphone. He is on speakerphone. I think he must have had a hard time getting it set up. Okay, Mr. President, you're now talking to the planet. The great thing about life is that Jensen can develop the most complex. It's the joke again. But he can't figure out how to put me on speaker. Odd joke. Okay, well, anything substantive come out of it? I'm sure we'll know more tomorrow. We'll be back. We'll be back at 11am.

Of what actually happened since we got off stream Friday. Then all the news breaks of course, but the Pacing the Frontier goes back to July 28th of this year. So there was a Pacing the Frontier statement, an open letter that was signed by employees and leaders from OpenAI, Anthropic, DeepMind, Meta and a bunch of other places talking about this idea of pacing the frontier. Then the same day Sam Altman publicly said we may have to pace the rate of AI development. Two days later, OpenAI tells Axios that OpenAI helped shaped the petition's language and Altman had discussions, had discussed pacing with White House officials. So stuff was happening in dc. This was back in basically the very beginning of August, very end of July this then August 18, OpenAI publishes something called Pacing Model Development in an Era of cybercritical capabilities. OpenAI said it actually slowed scaling and paused a major RL run. There was that two week training pause that happened on August 31st. Anthropic official anthropic post explicitly discusses pacing the frontier. So the idea is spreading and calls for coordinating pacing mechanisms and and then on September 12, which was actually Saturday morning that Dario dropped the essay we must pace the frontier, turn the concept into a much bigger public anthropic campaign that everyone's talking about today. So the rollout of this was pretty, pretty quick. And there's a few key things from Dario's essay. It hit the timeline at 7am Pacific. He was up early. Post in perfect time. To get a lot of likes on a banger, you gotta feel something. No? Everyone else, there's no fundraising news happening. Drop your essay early Saturday morning. Let people digest it with their morning coffee. Elon was clearly engaging by 8am Elon endorses it 9:30am Sam endorses it Saturday 4pm Demis generally agrees with Dario's point and argues that it needs some work. Remember Dario put out something pretty similar, talking about pacing and AI development and the need for oversight generally months ago, before transitioning out of his role as CEO of DeepMind and stepping up to I think chairman. Then later David Sacks on Saturday, but at 8:15 just had time to process everything. He asks some questions about Dario's post, goes back and forth. Sunday morning the Financial Times reports that Donald Trump has rejected calls from tech bosses for an AI slowdown. Later that day, Sunday morning, Gavin Baker rounds up the weekend. So we can kind of go through some of this and go through those posts. But what actually happened In Dario's essay we must pace Frontier, he has the three step plan on how he proposes number three will shock you. Number one, give independent third party evaluators access to AI companies so. So they can verify safety practices. He calls out Meter, which drew a lot of attention because people were debating how independent Meter is. There's some Meter employees who have worked at OpenAI have worked at Anthropic. There's people that work at Anthropic who worked at Meter. Like, it's. It's all very much a revolving door with these AI safety groups. And then the AI labs, you go back and forth depending on what you're interested in. So not as independent as, like, oh, yeah, we're going with an accounting firm who doesn't really have an opinion about the AI future. These are all people who are deeply embedded in the discourse, which could be a huge benefit because they take this stuff really seriously. Could also lead to some people flagged as conflicts potentially, but still some optimism from the community around what that would look like. Two is Frontier Labs in democratic companies should work together with the government's help to establish AI safety standards. And this was the one that people were going back and forth on. Do the labs actually need government approval from this? Dean Ball was talking a little bit about the Sherman Antitrust Act. There are very clear rules about companies agreeing to do really anything in concert with each other. This is the number one reason that you don't want monopolies and cartels forming, is that if all of a sudden, you know, oh, you know, American Airlines and Delta and United all say, yeah, for safety reasons, we should have fewer flights. It's like, okay, well, what would that do to the market? Probably drive up their margins because there's less flights, charge more for them. They have fixed costs. So you could very clearly see that collusion in that market would lead to more profits for them and more harm for the consumer. That's where the Sherman Antitrust act came from. We flagged this a week or two ago that this might like, even. Even though it seems like, oh, well, if Demis and Dario and Sam and Elon all agree like, this should just happen, that's not a problem. There are actual legal and federal regulatory rules that might need to be adjusted or waived for something like this to happen. So that's. I think that's why he's calling for that specifically. He's saying we need an exception to the rules so that we can actually do this. Because it's great to all write blog posts that we loosely agree on, but to have anything formal, we need government approval. And then third, this is the one that will shock you. Apparently the US and other democratic countries should try and coordinate with authoritarian governments. So he wants the US and China to coordinate on AI pacing. Of course, China still wants to catch up. And there's some tricks there is. Like what will happen in equilibrium if both countries have the exact same capabilities. Is that the best outcome or do you always want to be in the lead? If you always want to be in the lead, it's very hard to negotiate with someone and say, oh well, why don't you just have half as many nuclear weapons as we have and that'll be great. Like we'll pace you. And so you go back to nuclear non proliferation and all the difficult debates there. We obviously wound up with a multipolar world with everyone wanting at least some capabilities there. So Elon chimed in, agreeing with Dario. Then Sam and Demis also agreed. The timeline, on the other hand, had some questions and concerns about Dario's post. Who will these third party evaluators be? Why wait for Washington to regulate the frontier? If Anthropic believes AI is advancing too quickly with, why not simply slow down on its own? David Sacks raised some questions on X and we can go to David Sacks post, which I believe here is in the timeline. He said Dario has written that we need to quote pace the frontier. And Sam has agreed. People may be surprised by my response. Go ahead. You guys are the frontier by any reasonable metric. Market share, revenue growth, model, capability. The two of you have a duopoly on frontier intelligence. You've also claimed the lead is widening because of recursive self improvement. I don't think what you see, I don't see what you see in the lab. If the unreleased models are scary enough that you think you should slow down, I support your decision to be responsible. But stop pretending you need anyone else's permission. Stop pretending antitrust law has to be suspended so you can form a cartel. Stop pretending you need a regulatory approval process that supersedes product liability. Stop pretending meter is independent when. When it is intertwined with anthropics, investors and staff. Stop pretending that you need those same evaluators to police competitors who aren't even at the frontier. And so maybe that's a little bit of an issue. Although. Yeah, I mean the regulatory capture angle is always like if the safety rules become super cumbersome such that you can't start a Instinct like product. Right? It's like Instinct is a small team. They're not building a frontier model. They're not training their own models, at least not yet. But they're like doing stuff with AI if all of a sudden they have to spend a year negotiating with a bunch of third party evaluators, have a bunch of people embedded and then go through some sort of review process and the government's not getting back to them. Like you can't have a breakout consumer product and that. And it doesn't, it doesn't feel like there's been any type of effort from anywhere to try to control or regulate like application layer companies. And Greg was on odd lots this episode came out this morning talking about not trying to. Doesn't believe there should be any sort of limits to application layer stuff. Yeah, basically like if you just want to train a model at home for your own use cases, you know, there shouldn't be limits on that. Yeah, Trump, Trump came out yesterday. He was pretty active over the weekend. He said the only control or quote unquote guardrails that AI needs is a strong and smart high IQ president. And the USA has that in spade. The Trump, The Trump administration has stopped AI people from doing bad or potentially bad things. Things like Dario, who is now pretending to be a perfect little angel. And we will continue to do so. We already have tremendous criminal and regulatory power over these companies. There is a sick conspiracy going on against AI and data centers and the only one that is happy about it is China. Whoever wins, AI wins. We are leading China and all others and will continue to do so. Conspiracy theorists, treasonous traders and leakers, beware. Thank you for your attention to this matter. It is funny to accuse like the labs of being in a conspiracy against AI. Yeah, that really, really doesn't follow. I don't. But he also followed up just 40 minutes ago, said concerning AI, when in the history of business, Capital H, Capital B, history of business, did anyone see the leaders of an industry call for regulation that if strongly implemented would drive them into oblivion and bankruptcy? AI is taking over the world, destroying humanity and all other things. Bad is a hoax. No different from Russia. Russia, Russia, Ukraine, Ukraine, Ukraine. Impeachment hoax one, impeachment hoax two and all the other hoaxes and scams that America was forced to endure. President Xi of China just announced that China will be doing absolutely nothing to stand in the way of AI or its future. Google has recently stated that they want to build a massive plan plant in Finland all because they are finding permitting too difficult in the United States. I'm not happy about this and want them to change their thinking. AI and data centers will be the greatest economic development engine in history. Bigger Than oil, gold, diamonds, or even the Internet. Bigger diamonds. Bigger than diamonds. Like, of all the technology, the Internet. The Internet, the transistor oil, the Internet, the wheel diamonds, these are equivalent things. It will not be stopped by brilliantly run destructive forces during the term of President Donald Trump. Okay, well, anyways, I'm wondering what the. So a bunch of hedge funds are paying. They pay to get access to this. Let's assume like a minute early, something like that. How did they trade this? Because it's very long to beers long diamonds. Yeah. Maybe diamonds are underappreciated. I think diamonds are actually in a really rough spot. I think people are moving to lab grown stuff really aggressively. So it's actually a tough, tough period of time for us, the diamonds. And I'm sure the diamond industry is calling for regulation. For sure. For sure. Okay, where were we? Interesting. I don't know. We were talking about David Sacks. We were talking. Oh, we got it. We got to keep. We got to keep going because the President was on a roll this weekend. Let's pull up this video. Okay. Oh, yeah, they asked him how he used AI. While we pull up the video, let me tell you about the New York Stock Exchange. Want to change the world, Raise capital at the New York Stock Exchange. The IPO window is still wide open. Air market a little bit down, but overall, handling things pretty well. We take it a lot of their cars, car tariffs this week, again, there's been so much concern about AI. Have you heard directly from any of these AI tech leaders? And you seem to downplay some of the concerns that we've heard, but you know, it's going to be more good than bad, but by a lot. And I've said it at the beginning, whoever wins AI and we're leading by a lot. Whoever wins AI wins. Have you ever used it yourself or have you been. How do you use AI? But I would say, you know, for the most part, you can use AI for a lot of things. The funny thing is that, is that like, there's AI generated slop on his social. True social account, like, constantly. Like, the slop videos are obviously AI like, both sides of that debate or that discussion should have known that, I guess. But I guess it's like people on his team are creating like the AI slop videos because, like, there will be like a new vibe coded, like, you know, some sort of simulator that they put up on White House stuff all the time. So. But I guess that's not him. It's probably people on his team that are like, I Made this AI video. Yeah, but I don't know. Gavin Baker had a roundup of what happened. Let's go through what's going on and lots of people just sort of like processing this going back and forth. People were expecting Elon to be sort of against this, maybe anti Dario. He of course came out in favor and has been talking about how like he was working with Nick Bostrom in 2014 on AI safety. Has been very concerned about this the whole time. Although at various points in time Elon has been less of a doomer and more like we got to build, we got to go, we got to, we got to actually compete here. Working both alongside Labs, co founding OpenAI, founding XAI, growing the model capabilities there. But he's like firmly in favor of this. So let's see what Gavin Baker had to say. He said wild 24 hours for AI and lots of different proposals have been made. TLDR the only tangible new fact is that OpenAI and Anthropic are going to have have embedded third party evaluators from unknown organizations with Daria floating meter as a possibility. Having third party evaluators is smart as there's no section 230 style liability shield for model outputs and showing a duty of care will be important in future litigation. Several Internet companies might have gone bankrupt without section 230. So limiting liability really matters. I think there are minimal investment implications from this single new fact. But I do think that anyone who wants quote a smoother for longer cycle than most constraints are good wafers, watts, real rates and spreads. I was thinking about how a lot of the safety folks are worried about just the capability build out from the semiconductor supply chain. Like they would like to restrict the amount of chips that are created. And I'm wondering if should we not be pacing electricity generation? Does everyone agree that we should be building more solar thermal wind power right now? Is that uncontroversial? Is there anyone who says like no, we shouldn't be doing that because if we wind up in a world where you're pacing frontier AI development, current models are sort of diffusing and there's some economic impact there. But you're not blitz scaling the data centers and the frontier intelligence. Can you apply some of that capital, some of that human talent to just getting nuclear power online, getting solar power online, re industrializing the American energy supply chain, battery relieving grid tension. Because everyone who complains about higher energy prices would be happy with that. I don't think the AI safety folks would be upset about that because you could use it for a lot of things. Worst case, it's like, okay, you wound up with like, okay, we can never build, you know, AGI or ASI because it's too dangerous. At least we have a lot of cheap energy. Is there any reason why you wouldn't, why you would want to pace the build out of the American electrical grid? I can't see why. What do you think? I mean at some level, like, yeah, it makes sense because it is like an input, but it's like, seems like way too diffuse also because if you build a lot of chips, sure you can make more data centers that run YouTube or whatever, but there's kind of a narrow use case for chips where power, you can do whatever. I wonder if you. Yeah. At what point is there some sort of AI safety valve that's like, we need to regulate that company in South Korea that makes toilets that also makes films for semiconductors. Because if we can restrict them, then we can slow down the pace of AI progress going really, really deep in the supply chain for safety reasons, potentially. To summarize the events, Gavin Baker says Dario made the most maximalist proposal of the weekend. Embedded third party evaluators, national regulatory regime for models beyond a certain capability ingredient threshold. A broad international regulatory pact between democracies, stricter limits on compute distillation for China and then a different international regulatory regime that encompasses China before there is ever a national regulatory regime. He wants a Sherman act waiver so that anthropic can safely coordinate with OpenAI and other frontier labs without antitrust fears. To be frank, this latest proposal is much less maximalist than some of his prior proposals like policy on the AI exponential where he advocated for an FAA of 4 AI. Now people are talking about FINRA for AI, which is more non governmental regulation, but industry focused. I believe he is sincere in his beliefs and despite all the protestations, all of this would also probably be good for his business over the long term. Yeah, there's, there's, there's a lot of tricks here where people where something there. If there are, if there are multiple quadrants of like actions you can take and it's like it's either good or bad for your business or it's good or bad for safety. You can land in the good for your business and good for safety quadrant and everyone will accuse you of being cynical and doing it only because it's good for your business. And so it gets really difficult to say, okay, yes, like the thing that I'm advocating for is good for my business. Now Rune had another take which is like, no, if you're pacing the frontier, that's going to compress margins because everyone else is just going to catch up and it's going to become more oligopolistic. So if you hold like, yeah, there's this duopoly right now for the true Frontier amongst OpenAI and Anthropic. But if you hold that constant like watermelon from MSI, MSL is going to catch up, DeepMind is going to catch up. Like you're going to have three or four Grok is going to train to that level and so you're going to have four, five, six, seven really capable competitors. What was interesting is like R. Karazian was saying that AI spend declined a little bit in August and that was mostly because of price cutting. It wasn't actually people using less AI. So it's a not like people are pulling back on their use of AI, but there's more price competition. So OpenAI is discounting and people are being, we saw like the fable adoption was a little weak and a lot of it's like, hey, are we sure we want to use the million dollar model for checking the weather? Like, let's be a little bit more judicious about this. And so if you wind up with a world where there's much more price competition that could compress the Frontier's margins, which is not good for business. So it doesn't really put you in that top quadrant that you have to be so cynical about. The interesting thing is that he said that he doesn't think that it's open source Chinese models that are actually putting pricing pressure on the frontier. It's more of the duopoly dynamic. And I think that's because I think he sort of alluded to this, that there's just a lot of companies that are like, I am comfortable doing business with an OpenAI, an anthropic, a Google, of course, something that's on AWS, something that's on Azure. Yes, I could just download the weights for Deep seq, but I'm not really comfortable with that. I don't really want to deal with that. I don't want to deal with the scaling and uptime of that. And so yes, there are APIs out there that are reasonable, but none of them are as mature as the Frontier labs. Not in terms of the intelligence, but in terms of the actual. If I implement this in my business, will it reliably give me the right results? Is there high quality sla? Will the service stay up? Will uptime be good, et cetera. So there's. There is a world where you could get to a place where this is bad for the frontier companies, business wise. And Sam has talked about that in an interview with Fortune, saying, like, if it's bad for our business, like we have said to our investors at every step for, like, a decade that, like, this is kind of a nonprofit. This is a. This is a. This is a. You know, there are a whole bunch of different ways in which this is not purely aligned to shareholder interests like other companies. I forget the actual term for the structure that. Both anthropic and open PBCs. Yeah. Public benefit corporations. So they. So there. So I think both Sam and Dario feel very confident about being able to go to their investors and say, hey, we're doing something that's gonna slow down revenue growth or tank margins or just reduce the market cap of the company, but we think it's the right thing to do, so deal with it. And you can't really sue us because you invested in a pbc. But no one's really giving them credit for that. Everyone thinks, like, no, this is cynically what gets them to 10 trillion. This is what gets them to 10 trillion. And I don't know, maybe. Maybe it is. But it definitely seems like if we're on the mid curve, bell curve meme, like, the dumb guy thing is like, slowing down is bad for business, right? Like, the mid curve is, like, slowing down is actually good for business in the 4D chess. And, like, you don't want to be the best and have 100% market share. You want 20% market share because you let everyone catch up to you. I'm not super convinced of that, but there's plenty of people that are making that case online. Anyway, let me tell you about Cisco, and then we'll bring in our next guest. Cisco, Critical infrastructure.