So, now, we are going to study bell drives. Now, that is going to be important and what we will do? We will systematically look at all the free body diagrams. Now, we will study this based on first you know concept. So, we will take up a problem and try to see the concept can we draw the individual free body diagram and try to decide that where the impending slip will happen. See problem is like this. We have a motor. Let us say B has a motor. So that means it is a I will say this is a driver drum. This is my driver pulley and this is the driven pulley. So, ultimately motor you are applying some torque that torque is being transmitted to this pulley and in this pulley some machine tool is connected which is rotating. So, ultimately motor is helping that machine tool to rotate on the same direction do not forget. Now, what I will do? I am saying the velocity is constant. So, it is a constant speed problem. So, that means belt and the pulley both are rotating at same speed. But there is no slippage between the belt. That means there is no actual slippage between the belt and the pulley. They have some same angular velocities. Now, what happens? If you really try to draw the free body diagram very carefully. So, this is the free body diagram of the driver pulley. How do I decide on which side will be tension side? If the drum is rotating clockwise. So, here I am applying a torque. This is my motor. Now, that torque is simply balanced against the frictional resistance. You see that this is the frictional resistance direction. That frictional resistance as per the Newton's third law will be transferred to the belt. If you detach the belt try to draw the free body diagram. So, that is the direction of the friction on that belt. Therefore, which side should have a greater tension? It is this side. So, this side should have a greater tension. That means in this belt, this side should have a greater tension. Now, if you do not want to detach the belt from the body, then it is also clear that T2 minus T1 multiplied by the R should be equals to the moment applied. So, there is a clockwise torque. To balance that I need an anticlockwise torque. So, therefore, this side tension has to be greater than this side tension. Is that clear now? What happens to this? Ultimately torque is being transmitted here. How? Remember, I have this tension now is greater than this tension. So, therefore, I could say T2 minus T1 R. So, actually drum will be rotating like this clockwise fashion. No question about that, but how do I draw the free body diagram? Which is rotating the drum by the way? Which is rotating the drum? It is basically the frictional force that is acting. Now, look at the direction of the friction. This is helping the drum to rotate. Now, what is the M1 then? M1 is remember I have considered the free body diagram of the driven drum. So, for the driven pulley there is a machine tool attached. So, that machine tool will give a force back or torque back as per the Newton's third law on to the drum. So, that is shown here. So, ultimately you are definitely transmitting a torque T2 minus T1 R which is clockwise, but to show the equilibrium, I have a machine tool that is giving back the torque to the drum which is M1. But when you look at the machine tool which is connected here, that will have a clockwise torque at the immediate end. So, from this free body, you can clearly see ultimately this drum the driven pulley is rotated by the frictional resistance and the transmitted torque is nothing more than T2 minus T1 multiplied by R. Now, here is the question. What is the maximum power that I can transmit? What is the maximum torque that I can transmit? So, the maximum torque will be determined by the condition of impending slip. Impending slip means the belt is just trying to slip over one of the drum such that the maximum friction force has been attained. Maximum friction force is already being achieved and that is the capability that you have to transmit the torque. Now, question is where should I have the impending slip of the belt with respect to these two drums or these two pulleys. So, impending slip as I said it will be completely controlled by two parameters. One is the mu s that is the static coefficient of friction and the beta. For in this problem remember it is a constant velocity problem. So, we are going to use the static coefficient of friction. So, mu s and beta now if both have same mu s then ultimately wherever I have beta small that means contact angle small they are impending slip prevail the impending slip will first happen over there. So, with that now you can quickly solve a problem just look at this problem. So, a flat belt connects pulley A which drives a machine tool. So, now this is again the machine tool I have there is a machine tool connected here. This is the motor that is that is my driver this is a driver drum this is a driven drum as we said. Now, here we are really interested in finding out determine the largest torque which can be exerted by the belt on pulley A. So, what is the largest torque that can be transmitted? So, as I said it is very simple first we find out that where the impending slip will happen. So, we have to decide on the fact that which will go undergo the impending slip first. Remember we already know which side has the higher tension. So, it is given already maximum allowable tension in the belt is 600 Newton. So, if the allowable tension is given maximum then which side that will happen? It has to be on the top side. So, this belt here you will have the higher tension and we have already shown that based on the logic because this is a driven drum. So, here I have the maximum tension and then we decide on the contact angle since mu s remains same then from the contact angle I can determine which one will undergo impending slip. So therefore, now if I find out the impending slip where it happens first in this case you will be able to show that B will slip first because there you have a less contact angle then we have to then we can impose the friction lock condition that is T2 by T1 equals to eta mu s B and find out the other torque in the belt and once that is found then we can say that what is the torque transmitted to the pulley A is that clear? Now, you can further show that there will be no slip in this case if the impending slip is at B then there is no slip at the at pulley A by saying that T2 by T1 is less than e to the power mu s beta or the mu s if you calculate based on the relationship of T2 and T1 if you calculate the mu s that should be less than the mu s max. Mu s max is actually what is the static coefficient of friction. So, now we can easily look into this problem and we do not want to get into more detail as I said first main target will be to find out the contact angle look at the contact angles carefully. So, here I have total contact angle equals to 240 degree here it has to be 30 plus 90 that is 120 degree. So, in radiance we measure the contact angles and as I said where the impending slip will happen wherever I have low contact angle.  So, it is always controlled by mu s and n in this case it is controlled by mu s and beta now you have two parameters. So, beta was less here impending slip happens here. So, therefore, I have one unknown in this problem which is T1 and I know this is going to be the higher tension side. So, T2 by T1 equals to e to the power mu s beta and I can solve for T1. So, now what we have to do we can check that impending slip is actually not happening here. So, how do I check it I already know the value of tensions on the both sides. So, we can check that the check would be we simply calculate the mu s that mu s should be less than 0.25 ok. The torque transmitted can be found the torque transmitted is really T2 minus T1 multiplied by R, but that is a very simple operation T2 minus T1 multiplied by R is what the torque is being transmitted. Remember this MA this is given by the machine tool to the drum I again repeat this MA is something that is given by the machine tool that is connected here to the drum ok. And this part is simply a verification that impending slip is not happening at A this is one way of doing it. Otherwise if you just do T2 by T1 that has to be less than e to the power mu s the mu s that is given mu x beta of this pulley clear. So, can we have a quick discussion on this problem specially any question on this problem ok. Just to clarification there is a question why the rotation of the driven pulley is in the opposite direction that is not true at all what is shown is the free body diagram there driven pulley will be on the same direction as that of the driver pulley. So, what is given is that is the torque if we go back to the slide this is just the torque ok this is a driven pulley torque is actually being applied if you can see this torque negative this torque multiplied by R that will of course rotate the drum in this direction. It is a constant velocity problem do not forget we have always assumed that it is a you know constant velocity is achieved. So, as per Newton's first law the torque transmitted is T2 minus T1 R. Now, this is shown as per the free body diagram because this torque is given by the machine tool to the drum. So, the machine tool that is connected will see the torque in the same direction. Direction means clockwise direction machine tool will see the torque on the clockwise direction, but drum will see the torque on counter clockwise direction, but pulley is rotating clockwise do not forget because you have T2 minus T1 multiplied by R ok. Any question just go visit? So, we are it is a camshaft. So, let us say you have a camshaft then what happens ok. So, question is it becomes complex see friction itself is a complex aspect and if you try to now in the very first class tell students that what happens in a camshaft I think it is not going anywhere. We have to be very you know kind of specialized on telling them how to draw the free body diagram. Let us not try to get into complex problems. In fact, you know camshaft is itself is in a research oriented field. Can we draw the free body diagram? Have we understood the free body diagram? Have you understand the constant motion problem? That is what we need to tell the students. As a teacher is fine we can always gain our knowledge you know through different research aspect, but my request to all of you would be keep the topic to a simple as simple as it can and try to analyze the free body diagrams. Can you see the slide now? Rotation is happening on the same direction again what I have drawn this is the free body of the forces nothing to do with the kinematics of the problem. There is a difference between kinetics and kinematics kinetics deals with the force. So, what I have shown here it is all the forces. Forces is a general term that also include the movement. So, now tell me what is missing here what we do not to rotate this drum to rotate the motor I need a torque that is being applied. Everything is rotating clockwise that is the kinematics of it fine. Now, I am trying to understand is that the torque has to be applied applied torque is this. What balances the torque? If you really take this drum out give it a thought it is balanced by the frictional resistance that is coming into play it is a constant velocity problem. So, therefore, something has to balance that torque that torque from the body is going to the pulley sorry the body from the pulley it is going to the belt. So, on the belt you see the direction is reversed that is Newton's third law. Now you can clearly see if my frictional direction is this way. So, free body of the belt if I do then this side has to have the larger tension because the resistance is in this way clockwise. So, this is my T2 greater than T1 is that clear now. Similarly, in this one this torque is a consequence of the machine tool giving back to the drum. If you are detaching isolating the drum this is the torque coming from the machine tool to the drum because everything has to be in equilibrium it is a equilibrium problem constant velocity Newton's first law. So, therefore, this is the torque, but it does not mean it is rotating the drum in this direction it is just the torque that is coming into play this torque is balanced by T2 minus T1 multiplied by r because this is a higher torque. So, this is going to give it a clockwise torque. So, what the purpose of saying that this is very helpful to understand why this thing is rotating what is making it to rotate it is simply rotated by the frictional resistance you see that this friction force will always rotate that drum clockwise it cannot rotate counter clockwise clear minimum contact angle that will be determined by what you tell me now see your question is that what is the minimum contact angle you tell me give the answer tension it is determined by tension. So, it depends the question should be posed based on the problem framework see if your question is what is the I want to drive this much of maximum torque let us say your question is like that I want to drive this much of maximum torque what is the contact angle necessary that makes more relevant minimum contact angle that is desired okay thank you yeah that is a you know. So, your question is how do you draw the free body diagram of this pulley see here first of all you have a T2 and T1 right. So, based on that remember this is a fixed this is not a hinge right. So, do you want me to draw the free body diagram quickly I will draw it for you okay I am now drawing the free body diagram okay both the pulley and the belt okay. So, in this problem now let us say first of all understand we said the kinematics of the problem is that it is slipping in this direction right okay. So, this is the slip let us draw step by step everything is clear what I will do I will try to detach the belt first. So, I have detached the belt if I detach the belt what kind of friction force it is going to see since the slip direction is this way the friction force is going to be is that clear if this is my friction force direction then which direction the tension will be higher is that clear now okay now consider the drum drum is fixed means it can take a reaction as a torque do not forget that if I have to fix it that means it can take a reaction as a torque okay. So, now you transfer this external resistance in here. So, that means this is the you know complete detached free body diagram. So, here you have this contact angle right that contact angle was there. So, this area we have the friction force right then you have the reactions reactions and how the moment should come into play moment should come into play like this way this is the moment reaction. Now if you combine these two together if I really combine these two then all you see is do you do not see the interface friction force friction force at the interface. So, your free body diagram becomes okay. Now you tell me what is the problem to solve for these three reactions if I know T2 and T1 is there any problem I take sum of force along x0 sum of force along y0 and moment about O right sum of forces equals to 0. So, remember this m0 will therefore be simply equals to T2 minus T1 multiplied by R. So, remember the entire thing here is it is a fixed drum if it is not fixed that means you make a pin here it is going to rotate okay then you have a acceleration or deceleration depending on what you are doing on the system. So, again see you know dynamic problem if say constant motion problem those things can be analyzed based on the fact or very slow motion can be analyzed based on static problem whatever static problem we have done based on those concept it can always be solved is that clear just one more problem of that of a break okay band break we have discussed. So, let us say I have a band break now again remember we are posing the problem in a such a way I can solve it based on equilibrium and I have thoroughly told you that each and every free body diagram can be drawn free body diagram can be drawn and equilibrium can be taken no question about that okay. Now in this problem I have a differential band break what it does it is rotating at a constant speed. So, there is let us say some axle is there and it is just rotating like this does not matter okay it is pin about this point it is rotate what we are doing essentially that this band okay this belt is allowing it to maintain a constant speed again how it is maintaining a constant speed because remember for a given value of force I have some tension induced here therefore I have friction force that friction force will be you know fixed for a given value of P in other words for a given value of P I am going to get some given tension here and therefore the torque can be controlled. So, to maintain a constant speed I need basically let us say Ta minus Tb equals Ta minus Tb multiplied by R the problem is clear now what is being asked determine the magnitude of the force P that is exerted on end A of the lever arm when the drum is rotating clockwise and the drum is rotating counter clockwise remember it is rotating at a constant speed and for that we are transferring a couple of magnitude 125 pound-foot that means a torque is already being said to be there and this torque is going to keep the speed constant. So, the only question is if the torque is clockwise if the torque is counter clockwise then what is the value of the force remember this band break this band will be constantly slipping over this drum that means there is always a relative slip between the band and the drum. So, as I said there is a relative slip between belt and drum what we have to do moment equilibrium of drum about center of drum will give the tension generated in both sides of the drum again moment equilibrium of lever that means this is the lever ABC ABD about point B will give the force P how many unknowns do I have in this problem see I have actually if you look at it carefully very very carefully this is my unknown P tension in B tension in A three unknowns plus there are two reactions if I just look at this right. Now, how many equations now for this lever how many equilibrium equations I have three that means I have two extra unknowns those two extra unknowns how I am going to solve basically I have to invoke the friction law that means there has to be a relationship between T A and T B as well as remember we are also given with a condition here that the magnitude of the couple is given that means T B minus T 1 multiplied by R is also given. So, to look at the problem in this way we can clearly draw all the free body diagrams. So, first problem was it is rotating clockwise that means a clockwise torque is also given you see that clockwise torque if a clockwise torque is given that way then which side of the tension should be greater T A T A should be greater than T C has to happen to balance that torque. Now therefore, from the first part I just solve the moment is given that torque applied torque is given. So, I write down that T A minus T C multiplied by R that must be equals to the torque remember it is just converted by this tool do not look at the numbers here T A minus T C multiplied by R equals to 125 and it is converted in inch. So, this is pound inch. So, I get a relationship of T A and T C what is my second condition for slip in belt actual slip relative slip. I have T A by T C that should be equals to e to the power mu k multiplied by the contact angle. So, T A and T C can be solved clear. So, similarly you can now think of once I know the T A and T C I can now take the equilibrium of this arm lever arm. So, this lever equilibrium suggests that I should be able to solve for the force P since T A and T C is already known I take the moment about point B to solve. So, ultimately we are going to get the answer that is the P required equals to this. That means, to maintain that constant speed at that value of torque and the drum is rotating clockwise I have to apply a force P equals to 146 pound. Now, the problem can just be reversed. Reversed mean now it is rotating counter clockwise. So, if it rotates counter clockwise in the anticlockwise direction then what happens then I have T C greater than T A that is the only thing. So, I will just reverse the problem T C and T A is reversed this will be exactly same. So, you are going to get an answer of 9.41. So, that means, to rotate it clockwise I need larger force than to rotate it counter clockwise. Now, I leave it to for you in homework then why to rotate in clockwise I need a larger force than that of this when I am rotating counter clockwise why do I need a smaller force. So, let us take that as a homework and we can discuss later on. So, 2 minute discussion 2 3 minutes anyone has any question regarding this everything as I am saying that as long as static is concerned we can also include in static constant velocity constant motion problem no issue and we can simply try to draw the free body diagrams to get the desired forces. Remember every time I am solving a statically determinate problem in engineering mechanics I cannot deliver a knowledge on statically indeterminate. I need to go to the advanced level of studies where the statically indeterminate problem is solved based on the concept of kinematics that means, actual deformation of the body. Yes 1 0 8 8. Starting problem number 2 why the weight of block A is greater than tension T 2. Your question is in this problem why the tension in this side is greater than this side. Look at the problem statement who is direction rotating it is rotating clockwise that means, you are actually applying a torque. So, if I apply a clockwise torque to balance that what needs to be happened what we have to do I need a counter clockwise torque. How do I generate a counter clockwise torque W A minus this multiplied by R is in that clear therefore, W A has to be greater than this clear now good question. Sir why the weight of belt is not considered in the derivation of belt friction what will happen if I even consider that we are not physicists we are engineering we do not care about 10 percent error in our solution is that answer to your question usually tension will be much higher than if I have to include that effect of load 1 double to 4. Sir I have the answer for second problem you asked that because the weight of the AB should be lifted up that is why for rotating clockwise it is more difficult than rotating anti clockwise. 1 0 3 7 How the friction between belt and pulley can be reduced if we use oil or grease then well we will start slipping how to reduce friction between belt and pulley. Your question is how to reduce the friction between belt and pulley why do I want to do that I want to transmit the maximum torque possible then why should I try to reduce it I should try to maximize it right. In case of fluid friction sir when to take dynamic viscosity and when to take kinematic we are not talking about fluid mechanics here. So, we are limiting our set to only static coefficient of friction and kinetic coefficient 1 0 4 3 can you rear me yeah just go ahead please. Yes sir you already explained in the problem number 2 that WA the weight WA is more it is more than tension in the rope but still we are not getting it. See what we are trying to look at the problem statement what is being said in the problem number 2 right I am applying the you know pulley is rotated very slowly clockwise. See I am trying to raise the load remember I have one load here on that pulley and then there are other connections through that there is another load 16 pound right. So, I am slowly rotating it to raise the load. So, rotating direction remember is clockwise now how do you rotate a body first of all I have to apply a torque that is not given but I know that applied torque has to be balanced by the tension produced. So, now you think of it I am applying a clockwise torque which is not given in the problem that is not necessary. Now therefore, to balance that clockwise torque I need a counter clockwise torque. So, now how to counter clockwise torque will come into play WA multiplied by R negative tension on the other side multiplied by R because therefore WA has to be greater than the tension on the other side okay clear. You can also look at the way I have shown the friction right again if you think if you detach the belt if you detach the belt way belt then what is actually causing that rotation what is helping this rotation friction right the friction is causing that rotation to happen is not that. So, from that also you can get this but simple way to look at is that you are rotating it clockwise but I need a counter clockwise torque to balance it clear okay. I have another question sir if what happened if rope is wound spirally on the capstone rope is what will be the effect on wound spirally sir spiral not horizontally in the circular form spirally fine no that it is the. So, your question is if the rope is spiral in the sense what that means you are trying to tie it many times like the Bollard problem bouncing spirally sir many times yeah. So, that is a wrap right how many wrap you have in a let us say Bollard or a wrap in spirally yes yes. So, in that way it is all depends on the contact angle nothing else we just have to figure out what is the contact angle and we have solved that problem in a simple way right that Bollard problem you remember when you go to the jetty no when you go to a fish jetty you see the boats are coming and someone suddenly jumps from the boat and try to put the you know rope around the that Bollard or you know. So, that is a wrapping problem practically they are wrapping like that only but what we studied in that they must be wrapped closely. Okay I mean yeah. So, that will make it more complex yes yes that will make it more complex nothing else I mean okay yeah I think we can now take a break I think.


Tip number one, use concrete language. Say what you mean. Do not tell me that it's raining cats and dogs. What does that even mean? Just say what you mean. Number two, keep it short and simple. Don't tell me any more than I actually need to know. Simplify instructions, keep them brief, chunk them. Three, talk, then stop. Allow some breaks in the conversation so I've got time to process what you've told me or asked me. Four, don't be afraid to repeat things and check that I've understood. Five, communicate with me in multiple different formats. Don't just talk to me. Show me with words or pictures as well. Six, give me time. I might just need a little bit of time to process what's been asked and to follow up on any instructions given.


Hi everyone, Joe for Jasper's case breaks.com coming at you with some hoops basketball 22 23 edition Random team break number two the last filler we got to do to unlock that select tiered random team break That's coming up in a different video We'll do that randomizer at the end with the different dice roll as well big Thanks everybody here for making this happen appreciate it. There are the teams right there. Let's roll it Let's randomize it snake eyes two times different dice hole for the giveaway part one and two for the teams one and two All right. Here's the first half of the list right there and The second half of the list right over here and no trade windows. Let's just print and rip Quick little opportunity to see some of the current draft class Like this guy all right, good luck everybody we got Nets in Boston on in the background With 917 left in the third quarter Boston's up 84 to 50 and went crazy in the first half There's some of the let's get another score update on some of these basketball games here At the end of the third quarter sixers are up 82 78 on the Orlando magic magic Hang in touch here Grizzlies up Grizzlies are up 88 82 at the end of the third Got thunder at Rockets Rockets up 48 44 five minutes left in the first half Timberl's up by one on the Warriors five minutes left in the first half Kings up 53 44 on the Spurs a few minutes left in the first half A lot of games approaching halftime And then we got Raptors at Jazz later tonight. The other ESPN game is going to be Hawks at Suns Like Kyrie should have stayed with Boston Yeah We probably should have but I don't know if that was a good fit with him and his teammates out there, but Celtics are doing fine without him Kyrie is a free agent. I think after this season some rumblings at the Lakers We're gonna have a lot of cap space. We're gonna want to We're gonna end up picking them up Which would be interesting reunite him with The LeBron because that guy's big paycheck is off the books And it's really it's really looking like It's really looking like I don't think they're gonna trade Westbrook There's Paolo Bencero Nice one for Orlando Adam. I got to get used to looking for the the new names Not last year's names Keegan Murray for the Kings is gonna go to Jose Yeah, Keegan out. He's been he's been getting minutes, right? There's Chet Holmstrom for OKC. We'll see him next year Dan With a thunder. Oh, is that was that what's happening out there? People say Keegan. I say Keegan. You say Murray You really go bare to 75 for Minnesota Max Christie's been getting some minutes for the Lakers and we got an autograph. It's a rookie auto. That's a Malachi Brannum For the Spurs that's gonna be for Brandon in San Antonio. I don't know what's he what he's been up to but Hopefully he's playing I'm playing well some Jaden Ivey for Detroit Raphael with that AJ Griffin to 199 That'll be for Daniel and the ATL And here's a Jaden Ivey nice so that other Jaden Ivey was more of an insert But this is a proper rookie card here for Detroit. That's Raphael. There you go. It's like that is that alright Not a bad box Now let's see who's gonna win those spots let's grab Everybody's names one through 30 new dice new list So this is gonna be a lot of sad faces here because only the top two are gonna be in the next break top two after 12 six and a six fingers crossed good luck one Two three four five six seven eight nine ten Eleven and twelfth and final time a six into six makes 12 All right. Thanks everybody for taking the risk on this Super sad times for unless your name's up there Brandon. I know you got a lot of spots But sad times for Brandon very close. No cigar Appreciate three through 30 for giving this shot But only the top two can be in the next break and that's gonna be Brandon. You're in and Raphael Ruiz nice So Brandon and Rafa in the next break select basketball tiered random teams. I'm Joe I'll see you in the next video for that break Jaspie's case breaks.com


Good morning to everyone. Can I encourage you to please take your seats? Thank you very much. So we move now to the second session of this morning. And if you haven't had a chance to look at the program, the title of it is, and I read to you the title, is a new world economic order still conceivable in the foreseeable future. That's what we're going to discuss. And before I get into the substance of it with our esteemed panelists here, I'd like to make two observations to get us started. The first is that, in fact, we've already been discussing this topic in the first session, because it's very hard today to discuss the economic outlook without talking about changes in the structure of international relations and what that means for economics. And we've already got a few insights from that session, which will play into the conversation we have here. And the second point I want to make before we start is that, in a way, the question itself is a new world economic order conceivable in the foreseeable future. Next, another question, which is, is the current international economic order a stable one? In fact, you could argue that every year as we meet, the international economic order is already changing. It is already fraying. So the question is not whether we can conceive of a new world international economic order, and whether how we cope with the pressures and changes that are happening sometimes in a not very orderly way. And perhaps we might be moving from an international economic order to a period of international economic disorder during which countries will conduct their relationships without the same set of rules that has governed those relationships for six, seven decades. And so those are kind of the questions that we would like to get into today.


Hello, welcome to the Cube Pod episode 15. I'm John Furrier with Dave Vellante. Dave, good to see you. I'm back in Palo Alto and Pod. Good to see you this week, bro. Great, it's been a couple of weeks there. Red Hat Summit. Now I'm back in Palo Alto after being in Vegas with Cisco Live, the Apple event this week. A lot going on and episode 15, we're getting the groove. Feedback coming in. They like the banter. They like the rant section. So we're going to do that every week. We get down the news. We're recovering. This podcast is just Dave and I riffing and sharing what we're looking at every week, what's on our mind, where we've been with the Cube and it's looking at Angle Media. And then what's our rant for the week where we kind of lay out and bitching a moment about things that are getting under our claw or things that we think is important that may or may not be in the Cube wheelhouse. Just so much going on this weekday. The Apple Vision was launched by Apple, WWDC, the developer conference from Apple. First real big thing since the iPhone in my opinion some will say Forbes had an article about Sequoia, the best VC firm on the planet in my opinion in terms of returns and investments splitting into three companies at a pressure of the scandals around China and India or the scandals in China and the opportunities in India I should say. And then the big crypto news is that Binance got down to hit with security law violations, coin bases under suit as well. And Elon Musk's Twitter sales were cut in half and hemorrhaging, they got the new CEO, we've covered that. And then another feature I'm watching that I like is Apple's I Watch has got a new OS, which I'm fascinated and I look to get your thoughts on what you use for any kind of device. And then a weird story out there that a psychologist, Rachel Cowart says that gaming's good for you. And I said that years ago when my kids were young, multiplayer gaming will be the future of work. Everyone's got a headset on like you right now and do that and there's a lot of other great stuff going on in the round here. So, and of course my rant this week will be about Mark Andreessen. So if you want to stay tuned for that, he's got the AI, not so much the software eating the world article, Dave but really more of a different kind of rant. Mark Andreessen's kind of lost it, I think. And we're going to get into that rant section and I'll have some data to share there. And then Oracle, Starlink, great lineup. Dave, Generve AI continues to rock in the enterprise. Generve AI continues to be the conversation. Will the large language models be the success? All of this on tap episode 15. Yeah, well, so, and Google made some announcements this week.  Although, you know, I think it was there at Cisco Live this week, but it wasn't, you know, front and center, definitely wasn't the lead, but it was there. But basically the, I think their strategy was sound. It's like, okay, we're going to infuse AI into everything which I think people have been saying for years. So they don't seem to have been radically changed their strategy as a result of open AI and panicking and saying, this is Cisco saying, oh, we got to do something here that's different. I think they're basically saying, hey, we've been doing this whereas I think Google, similarly, or somewhat differently said, we got to do something here. There's code red, but the reality is they were probably already ahead in many respects. So that's kind of an interesting dynamic. And now you see all this money flooding into the zone which is always fun to see. Well, I think that, I mean, first of all, Google has been ahead. So Google and Amazon on the AI definitely have been ahead. I mean, it's all about machine learning. A large language models came out, it's been around for a while too, by the way, people don't know that, but chat GPT caused everyone to see the ubiquity of it. Oh, it's magic. So I think that brought mainstream, mainstream computer user to the table. But all the insiders we know have been doing AI for a long time, Google's one of them. Google has so much AI.  Now, the question is, can they hold on to their engineers or will they flee to join a hot startup? And can they get out of their own way to create good products? We'll see that at Google next in their event in San Francisco coming up in about a month or so. But they're doing some stuff. Google Cloud's making waves. I think there's going to be some announced with MongoDB coming up, got an event coming up there. You'll see Mongo. Multi-Cloud's going to actually help Google Cloud go from third place up a notch a few maybe. They got to deal with the Mayo Clinic this week for healthcare. They're bringing the logic and reasoning skills to chat bots and barred. You mentioned that. So you started to see better improvement there. And they released their secure AI framework to help companies protect their AI muscle and hacking. So, Google's got a treasure trove, Dave, of stuff. And I'm telling you right now, Google's its own enemy right now. They have so much potential. AWS, rightly so, I think it's got stronger management relative to kind of competing and executing than Google does. Hence they're on point. They pivoted, I won't say pivoted, bad word. AWS had the machine learning. They had SageMaker. They had all that AI kind of under the covers internal, but quickly moved and generate AI. And they have Bedrock, which is their product. And they have advantages. And people right now are afraid of their IP leaking. They're afraid of their data. Data will be the intellectual property of the future. And it is now seeing that. I think Amazon Web Services and Google Cloud and certainly Azure with open AI are going to move to make their environments secure and programmable and agile. So that's going to be the key. It's going to be a war, Dave. It's going to be who of the hyperscalers will be there. Now, Oracle came out with Starlink this week. Well, wait a minute, wait a minute. Before you go there, you were talking about those leaders and it's AWS, Google and Microsoft. Microsoft is there because of their relationship with open AI. Microsoft's in the last place in my opinion. But because of the business model that they have that they sort of cut the line. But so technically, I would agree with you. And then you got Databricks and Snowflake from a data platform perspective. They're making moves. And then you mentioned about will people, will engineers stay at Google? I wanted to ask you, it's kind of like just popped into my head when you said that, you know how the NFL take the quarterback out of the equation because if you don't have a good quarterback, you're in trouble. Just think about them in the Patriots. But I think about all the years as a Patriots fan watching Belichick get rid of like great players like Ty Law and Logan Mankins and Richard Seymour, you just let them go. And what do you do? We replace them.  Just come on in. Is tech industry similar in that if enough talent stays in place and there's enough tribal knowledge and you bring in new talent, new younger talent, maybe that's undervalued or underpaid, they step up very quickly. Is there a similar dynamic in the tech industry where a company like Google can actually turn over and still be incredibly successful? Or is it sort of same old, same old dynamic in the industry where companies get more mature and they start to lose their luster? What do you think? That's a good question. First of all, I love the metaphor with NFL because we love talking sports, but not always exact, but close, right? So let's kind of break it down.  You're different category than say a hyperscaler. So the New England Patriots, when they were in their prime, they're the Amazon web services. They had the best system. And if you're going to use that talent thing, in the NFL it only worked if the system works. So Belichick had a system where he had a lot of fungible capabilities you could move people around and he built a system around versatility of players. So in that system, you can get someone and cut a salary cap person or a high level person to another team and still not lose the system. A node gets replaced, but it's the balance of the system. That's the hyperscalers. They have that system.  You're in trouble. So it really comes down to what that looks like. Now I will, that being said, that's just kind of just general, architecture 101 systems thinking. However, with the cloud right now, a lot of the best talents in their 20s. If you look at like Lang chain, for instance, the guy Harrison, the young kid, you know, he's a kid, he's an adult, but like compared to us, he's what I wanted to be 25 years old, right? That's what I want to be right now, be 25 again. But so what I would be, so I think there's a crop of new talent that absolutely is what I call bomb throwers. They're the people who are throwing bombs at the old guys like us saying, get out of the way, I'm taking over. And so I think that's the thing that's going on in this industry right now. Can the hyperscalers maintain that position where the young disruptors are going to come up, the bomb throwers, I call them, the disruptors are going to take territory. It happens in every single inflection point. PC took a territory away from the old mini computers. The web took territory away from old business models. And then it goes on and on. And you're seeing it now with iPhone, killed the BlackBerry and Nokia, these are the number one phones in the world, right, before then. So right now that's the war. And that's why you see people like Sam Altman in Microsoft going to Washington saying, regulate, we should regulate. You know why? They don't want the startups to get any traction. Those guys don't want startups to win. They want them to slow down. They want to control them. They want to put them in the ecosystem, into a bucket like a cage and feed them and let them become the next meal for them. They need to subsume them. Amazon, quite frankly, is interesting. They might have an alternative approach. They might take the different approach to say, hey, we want to enable value. And Matt Garmin, who I interviewed, has access to, got an exclusive interview. I asked him directly. He wants to be open to all foundational models, all Gen AI. So Amazon's playing the open card. They're playing, I want the startups to be back on my, my camp. And that's what made Amazon. If you look at Amazon Web Services, they would not be where they are today without startups. So clearly that's the game. So to me, this is all a kind of interesting dynamic, a power dynamic in the industry. The big guys want to promote regulation because they want to be the evolutionary leader and be the sustainable model versus disruptive technology and the innovator's dilemma, Dave, right? The startups are the ones that are going to make it happen. That's the silent war going on right now is that the startups are surging and the big guys are stuck in the middle between. It's a decision between, do they enable them as customers or they keep them in a cage? And that's going to be the tell sign. And we're going to be covering it. We're going to go into Amazon, reinvent Microsoft's show. We'll see what they're doing. And if Microsoft doesn't invite the cube to their show, then they're the, they're caging people.  Amazon, you know, so many things about the cloud, you know, agility, shifting CAPEX to OPEX, but innovation, when people talk about innovation, okay, yeah, there's innovation inside of Amazon, but a big part of that innovation flywheel, as you just pointed out, and Amazon had this more than any other cloud vendor, by far had startups building, every startup would start the company, where do you go? You didn't start by saying, oh, I think I'll go to Azure. Maybe not happens now sometimes. Could maybe, you know, Microsoft makes it attractive for them. But in the early days, you know, last decade, you would start with AWS. No question about it. I think still today that's where you'd start and we would buy a sun server and install a bunch of Unix and Oracle licenses. No, you went to the cloud and you went to the Amazon cloud and that was an innovation engine. And so I often, when I talk to customers and companies in, you know, that have an on-prem legacy, IBM, HPE, Dell, even Cisco last week, et cetera, very heavily on-prem, where are the startups in their ecosystems? Where are the startups in terms of, you know, coming on board and driving that innovation flywheel? And there's bits and pieces, you see them, you know, every now and then, but they're few and far between. And this is what's going to be interesting to see if a snowflake or a Databricks or a Mongo, who are, as we know, John, they consider themselves platforms, because they are, they're not products, they're not ISVs, they're not ISVs, they're not product companies, they're platform companies. Can they attract, will they attract startups? That's going to be a key enabler to their innovation flywheel. Yeah, and in fact, on SiliconANGLE, David Strum is an article called the Cloud Conundrum, the Changing Balance of Microservices versus Model Look Applications, riffing off your breaking analysis and also highlighting that article that went out that said that Amazon Prime's not using microservices as much and his point is not so much as containers and microservices and Kubernetes versus a Model Look, it's situational decision-making, right?  So what's happening is that you have old legacy environments that need to move from VMs to say containers, that's complex. There, microservices, you build everything. And then if you've got a small team, you can build a Model Look as long as you plug it into something that's architecturally sound. So they're not mutually exclusive. The point is, we're in the era of choice, right? That's what's happening here. And I think that's the story that's coming out of the cloud players is what Gen AI is going to highlight very quickly. And I said this in my last, the last pod, it's going to highlight very quickly and reward those who can create product market fit and then go to growth, okay? And what's happening now is that it's at the top of the stack, not the physical layer. So Gen One cloud of Amazon, as you pointed out, was for starters because the choice was build a data center, spend 50 to $100,000 of cash before you even get started to provision servers and software and a data center. Well, you put a credit card down, you get the product market fit. Well, the demo works and then VC gives me money. That was the choice, spend a hundred grand, do a demo, get funding, put your credit card down, spend $10, get traction, get funding. So that was the multiple. Now that's that physical, that changed the game, storage, networking, servers. So Gen One cloud was all about making the infrastructure better, undifferentiated, heavy lifting, as Andy Jassy calls it. Now scaling differentiated heavy lifting is what AI does. So now that the game shifts to who can create the value with customers faster, right? That's the new game.  He's the founder of a company. He's got multiple startups that he's done by himself. One of them is three employees. They already have product market fit and doing millions in sales. Millions, three people. And that's because they use AI to refactor the application layer used on top of AWS or cloud. So the game is going to shift to the top of the stack where the product market fit is going to accelerate to growth. And that's going to change the game. And I'm telling you right now, that's going to really bust people up a bit on the legacy side when young kids, when they're friends in the dorm room, come in and build the product and the people sitting in the boardroom, the big company, who are these kids? And I tell you, that's coming fast. So I want to pick up on something you said and you mentioned microservices and it sort of triggered something in my brain. I just did a breaking analysis with George Gilbert. We got the scoop on Snowflake through our research and just some digging. And we're going to drop that tomorrow on breaking analysis on what's coming up in Snowflake Summit, which by the way, we haven't been in the eight on this, at least not yet. So we want to break it before they end the head. There we have go. We hear it right now. Yeah, and so, but basically, if you look at the web 2.0 model, you know this very well, you got separate analytic and business intelligence platforms, which you see a BI and you got AI and ML and they're separate to different platforms. And then you got microservices that sort of organize that application logic together. And in the future, these are going to be integrated. Operational and analytic systems are coming together. You're going to have unified business intelligence and AI and ML. And you're going to organize the application logic as a digital twin of your business, like a real world representation of your business in a semantic layer. And what, for instance, we sort of our epiphany is that what Snowflake is doing is enabling all these different data types to be able to compose the next level of data apps. And so, and you're likely going to be doing that using generative AI and natural language processing. And you're going to dramatically compress the time it takes to develop applications. And the other thing, John, is it's a new breed of data apps, which is the completely different way to think about it. Think about Uber for businesses, across all businesses, not just a custom Uber app. And that, we think, is going to be the next big battleground. And who's going to be there? Yes, not only Snowflake and Databricks, but AWS, Microsoft announced fabric, but by the way, it's way behind where Snowflake is. But they're working very closely with Databricks and they've unified the analytic piece that you guys got to go somewhere else with a transaction piece.  I mean, it's just not true. It's a lot of legacy stuff, but they've done a good job with that legacy stuff. But it's also AWS, Google and Databricks and Snowflake and Microsoft all battling for that next generation of data apps. That's going to be a really interesting and fun thing to watch. And you're going to see a lot of it now accelerating because of generative AI. Yeah. I mean, I think that you're completely right. The model's flipping, right? So again, the script is flipping, the top of the stacks, some headlines I got going on right now for article I'm considering using for the Matt Garmin scoop is the first headline says transforming businesses with generative AI and interview with Matt Garmin. That's one. The other one is commitment to silicon, compute and model diversity, meaning foundation model diversity, fuels generative AI advancements. Third headline I'm looking at is fueling open source innovation and partner collaboration in generative AI. The fourth headline is empowering, secure innovation and safeguarding data. Okay, so again, I'm playing with headlines and there's our fifth one choice, driving innovation, enabling choice. This is interesting and once one interview generated six potential headlines, six. I've never written a story like that ever before where I could roll with three different titles in one interview. That means is generative AI is hitting so much diverse landscape, whatever you're looking at is going to change and I call that beauties in the eye of the beholder model where it's like if you look at something, depending on who you are, what beautiful is is what you think it is and what you want it to be. So if you want choice, you got choice. If you want silicon advancements and compute, you're going to get there. You want foundation model diversity, you don't want that. And by the way, that's the big debate right now, Dave and the industry. Which foundation model or LLM is going to rule the world and or how do you combine and mix and match those? They're calling them cocktails, right? So or ensembles is the word that they're using. You know, it's an ensemble of models or cocktail because it's not one, it's a combination. So this generative AI stuff is totally legit and it's completely Wild West moment, right? It's crazy. I mean, it's running wild right now in a good way. Let me ask you a question. You were a decade ahead when you said data is the new development kit. I mean, it's like so far ahead because that data is the new development kit now. So if I had to ask you, where was the best place to develop applications in the last 10 years? I think web 2.0, web 2.0 plus, where was the best place to develop apps this past decade? The cloud, of course. Cloud, in which cloud? You say the Amazon cloud, right? Let's just do some examples. Dropbox, it's file sharing, it's FTP with a UI on it. That was the original product, right? So the battle, in my view, is going to be where is the best place, where is going to be the best place to build data apps in this new generation of apps? And I would argue that's going to be a combination of a cloud and the data platform and it's going to be the data platform that makes it the easiest, fastest, best performance, lowest elapsed time, and most cost efficient and productive to build apps. And it's going to be done, there's no question in my mind, it's going to be done on top of the cloud, most likely AWS cloud, but other clouds as well, who are kind of maybe not, yeah, they're catching up. And, but there's going to be another super cloud layer on top of that, where you're going to build data apps. I think right now, Snowflake is an obvious participant player, front runner, as is Databricks, as is, as are the three cloud companies, and as are TBD, if somebody will emerge. Well, if I have to look forward and try to guess the next, by the way, that was 19, 2007, when I wrote that post. Okay, so that just put it in perspective, okay? 15 years ago, 20 years ago, coming up on podcasts, and it's interesting how the journey's been, but I tell you, to me, I always look at innovation in two flavors. You bolt something onto something, or you build an abstraction layer on top of it. That's like the architectural operating model of innovation in technology. You either make something, abstract away something complex and make it simple, and then you get adoption, or you bolt onto something to accelerate something else. So you either bolt on or overlay on top. So to me, I think, we look at AI, I'm thinking to myself, okay, why was Amazon successful? Because they created an alternative to getting something up and running fast, and more performant, AKA a SaaS app, and cheap. You know, credit card swipe, you're on Amazon with phishing your desktop app into the cloud. You can go show a VC demo, that was my example earlier. AI is going through that same kind of moment where how fast can I stand up something, a value, and how expensive will it be? Can I do it for less? Okay, so there's going to be an Amazon Web Services moment for AI. The question is, you can't just build a CapEx Cloud for LLMs and foundation models, it's too expensive. So it's going to happen on top of a cloud. So it's either AWS, Azure, or Google in that order, or now Oracle, people who have CapEx. FitSea would love this conversation at Platformomics because that's whole premises that the CapEx is the advantage. Our super cloud premise came from the fact that Snowflake and or these companies can build on top of the CapEx and be the next AWS on top of AWS. So this is why I said the disrupting model versus the stainer. So if you're going to build on something, you either build on it and leverage it. And that's what I think AWS is going to do. And I think Microsoft's probably in their boardroom right now going, you know, like this, what do we do? What do we do? Do we open up to Kimono and build on top? Or do we go in and try to cage all these people in our ecosystem like our old way? You know, and keep them in the ecosystem and milk office and all of our apps. Well, they're more an innovator's dilemma than AWS is in my opinion. Microsoft's got to make that choice. If Amazon stays true to the startup, then your question would be, which company will build that service? ML is the one example that Madrona invested in. Jerry Trenn at Greylock's got an investment in this area. Whoever can stand up that service where I can just deploy my data and get the benefits, will win. That's- And I think that data is going to be real-time data. That's going to be a key. And you're going to use, organizations are going to use data and AI to actually create or orchestrate that what I was calling before, the digital twin of your business, that Uber for business, the people, the places, the things, and all the activities associated with that, where these real-time data products, if you will, are elements that can be brought together to actually do stuff. And that's going to be really interesting. Well, it's got to be an overlay. It's got to be an overlay. But wait, but wait. But it says a lot of that data is going to be in the cloud. But a lot of data is not going to be in the cloud. It's going to be at the edge. Now, the edge is messy right now. We know this. We were actually talking to one of the folks, one of the engineers who was in the, at Cisco Live, when he was asking us, he was over here. He overheard us at dinner talking to Zeus. And he's like, hmm, that's interesting. What do you think of the edge? And it's true. It's messy right now. It's real-time, too. It's real-time. But that's the thing. It's real-time. And so I think some new type of, right now it's all the rage is, who's got the best LLM? I think that's going to evolve, quote unquote, up the stack. Who's got the best user experiences based on great data and great LLMs and foundation models? But then combining that into a user experience, that's going to be where the value is created. It's not the LLM in and of itself. It's the user experience that's going to be built on top of that and how you apply that LLM to create a great user experience and user value. Well, yeah, well, first of all, you're exactly right. But I would also add to that and say that the user experience with the LLMs, whether it's an ensemble or cocktail, whatever you call it, it's going to be a combination of models. And those combinations of models got to be selected properly so that you have all the IP rights protected and that the licensing are lined up. You don't want to put your IP into a public LLM like open AI because you lose the rights to that IP. So you're going to want to have some sort of relationship of single tenant meets public. So private cloud, public cloud kind of dynamic. Number one, number two, those apps also are going to not change the laws of physics. You still got to store stuff, move packets from point A to point B. So you're going to need to have physical layer innovation. In other words, if you're at the edge in real time and you got your watch on or you got an app or whatever in your factory floor with a robot making Audi cars, whatever it is, they need data. Like you still have to get data to the spot. So you have availability of data, highly available, high availability. Those two words mean things. High availability doesn't mean highly available and it's a semantic definition, but. You're talking about IP. Did you see that TikTok thing with the CEO of Ford? Did you hear this? Which story? I wonder if I can play this. Hold on a second. Let me try to play this. I'll put it right up to the mic. This is unbelievable. Listen to this. Hold on. If I explain to the listeners how crazy our software system is and why it's so difficult for legacy car companies to get software right, you'd be just, well, I'll do it very quickly. Say probably $500 a vehicle or let's say 350 quid a vehicle. We farmed out all the modules that control the vehicles to our suppliers because we could bid them against each other. So Bosch or do the body control module, someone else to do the seat control module, someone else to do the engine control module. And we'd have about 150 of these modules with semiconductors all through the car. The problem is the software are all written by 150 different companies and they don't talk to each other. So even though it says Ford on the front and I actually have to go to Bosch to get permission to change their seat control software. So even if I had a high speed modem in the vehicle and I had the ability to write their software, it's actually their IP and I have 150, we call it the loose configuration of software providers, 150 completely different software programming languages. You know, all the structure of the software is different as a millions of code and we can't even understand it all. So, you know, that's why at Ford, we've decided in the second generation product, completely in source electric architecture. So he was talking about basically saying, that's Ford CEO basically tipping the hat to Tesla for having the advantage. Lawyer told me five or six years ago, I think it was when Tesla made the decision to not go with Mobileye and that's coincided with them doing their own, you know, ARM based architecture for chips because they wanted to be able to control their own data and IP destiny and now you hear the Ford CEO. I mean, everybody's going to be facing this problem. That's just completely validates everything that I've been saying about open source. So this is why open source wins, okay. What that highlights is Ford and whoever they are companies want to be involved in open sources, open sources where the fastest innovation is and once it's in the open, you then bring it in and you harden it. Open sources where all the eyes are on is collective intelligence. It's a great algorithm for having things mostly secure but to the extent that you can customize it, that's key. And why I'm bringing this up is because the advantages of that helps the Fords of the world, which are the big enterprises, it could be for banks as well, but they need security. So here's what's going to happen. Open source is going to completely turbocharge growth, more growth than we're even seeing right now. And number two, the business model of venture capital will move to open source because the people that nail those projects will end up starting commercial companies to support Ford and the companies. So the Red Hat model, which we always say, will there be another Red Hat date? Well, guess what? There might be in this generation because of that specific reason. And that's funny. You used to say Red Hat will be the next Red Hat. Well, I mean, we were looking at the landscape of the current, but if you start to look forward and look at that trend and that video right there, to me, puts an exclamation point on the fact that proprietary software is dead. Now you can take proprietary software and embed it into your own stuff, but buying off the shelf proprietary hardware and software, probably not going to be viable. And again, JJ would love this. Joseph Jax would love this because he runs OSS Fund, big VC fund around open, commercial open source. But to me, that is the play.  Explain that. Yeah, explain that because people are going to be confused by what you just said. They're going to say, well, wait a minute, John, doesn't that speak to doing your own proprietary software? If I'm open, isn't that going to be subjecting me to more IP leakage? Explain why that's not the case. Okay, so here's why it's not the case. Let's just say that you and I come up with the QBAP and we open source and we say, we want to have a new kind of knowledge system called the cube where it's the best thoughts from all of our guests' brains that we've interviewed over the years. Hey, good idea. Hey, good idea. It's called the cube AI, thecubeai.com, check it out. Waitlist only right now. If we open source that we create a community, let's just say then 10,000 developers jump in and work with us and we create open source. That software's on GitHub. It's free for everybody. People are contributing and making the software better. It becomes the most kick-ass thing than anyone can use it. They can take their own YouTube videos and do that cube library for them. Okay, and they can take that and use that benefit as a collective donation if you will or contribution to society. We might want to have the intimate knowledge with our engineering team to pull that out and build on top of it our own cube specific thing. Okay, and then hire the foundation and the open source to support it or create a company called thecube, Inc. That sells at the corporations and we charge support because we know the most about the code. That's what Red Hat did with Linux. That's the business model that you think you're going to see more of coming out of the woodwork with this new way because the upside for the corporations is to have more open source and have a supporting vendor like a Red Hat type to support it. And that's why I think that's going to increase the open source. So we'll see, but all data points to that because that Ford interview just absolutely proves the point that that market is selling license and proprietary IP can be replicated in open source and then deployed and supported by a company. That's a better scenario if that makes any sense. Yeah, it does. That's really interesting, John. I think, look, I mean, the future is changing right before it's happening, occurring right before our eyes. We've talked about this before. I don't want to beat a dead horse, but we've seen so many waves. I've been this wave is moving so, so quickly. You know, maybe the funding environment is not as insane. I don't think it is as it was in the dot-com days. It'll probably get there. I kind of like that, that it's more of a slow roll. It seems like the funding environment's more like what we saw in the cloud, mobile, social, big data. Maybe a little bit more concentrated than that. And maybe in that sense, it's bubble-licious within AI and not as broad-based as the cloud, mobile data and social and big data.  And so it's a different dynamic, but it's happening, I think, in terms of the pace of innovations happening faster than anything I've ever seen before. It's insane. There's some China news here on Get To, but there's some breaking news around AWS. I mean, Amazon that I want to get to. Did you hear that Sequoy is breaking up their firm? It's a three companies, one for China, which is under scrutiny for their partner Chen there, who's been accused of mishandling and redirecting funds to China and all kinds of corruption. That's interesting news coming out of that. India fund, which is going to be for that emerging market, which is booming, and then finally their normal fund. And I just saw that people are moving, OpenAI is moving their engineers out of, or Microsoft's moving their engineers out of, China, they're moving their top AI researchers from China, Beijing, to Vancouver, and part of a way to stop the Chinese companies from poaching them. So interesting dynamic, Microsoft doing that. So it's a China dynamic going on there, Dave, continue to be politics. Now the DOJ, I'm sorry, the Microsoft, I'm sorry, Amazon, I can't control all these big tech companies. Amazon and Apple, okay? Federal judge rules that Apple and Amazon must face an antitrust lawsuit, accusing them of conspiring to inflate iPhone and iPad prices on AWS Amazon's website. Just hitting, just hit. Roy does got the story. And Western District- Why are iPhones more expensive on Amazon than they are on other places? The Western District of Washington. The Western District of Washington, Floyd versus Amazon and Apple Inc. United States District Court for the Western District of Washington. Yeah, but, I mean, I don't know, I've never purchased any, I might have purchased headphones or something from Apple. Lawsuit that claims Apple and Amazon elbowed out resellers will proceed. I don't know what brought that up, maybe to trigger your rant. Well, that's different. To trigger a rant. But that's different, right?  It doesn't make sense to me. I mean, you can just Google them and find the best price. Go to an Apple store. Yeah, the price is always pretty consistent for anything new. I know, it just seems ridiculous. And there's a good black market, black market, but use market for this stuff. I mean, I don't know. Is that really a problem that we're trying to solve is iPhone prices? More and more government work announced. Your favorite topic, blockchain and crypto, because you love crypto as do I, but you're more bullish on me, but the hammer's coming down on crypto. The SEC sued Binance and the founder CZ, Chengping Zhao on securities violations. And the SEC is suing Coinbase, alleging that it's operating an unprecedented unregistered, I'm sorry, unregistered exchange. Well, Binance is gonna say, SEC chair offered to advise the crypto company in 2019. So the guy who's the chairman, SEC chair, Gary Gensler, offered to be an advisor to Binance. Now he's suing them. Yeah, Gensler is out to get crypto. I mean, let's see. So I think Binance and Coinbase are two different stories, but they're getting lumped together as bad people. I don't necessarily agree with that. I think Brian Armstrong's always been pretty forthcoming about, hey, we want your guidance on being regulated and lay down some guardrails, or some guardrails, but guidelines. And Gensler has said, well, the guidelines are already there. You should be regulated by the SEC just like any other security. And so for obvious reasons, Coinbase is saying, well, we're not though. We're not a security. We're just, you know, we're this exchange. And in Gensler saying, yeah, you are, all I got to do is find one example of a crypto that really is a security and I'm coming after you. And there probably are. They probably pushed the envelope a little too hard, but Coinbase is, I think, a good company.  I think Binance is a totally different situation. I think Coinbase, I'd call it like, don't ask, don't tell, you know, tell us what to do. And he throws that back at the government because he knows they're never going to solve the problem. And I think Gensler's smart. Gensler's saying, hey, we have the rules. You got to follow them. And I think that's probably going to end up okay. And it's going to probably cost Coinbase more money. Binance is different. Binance is international. By the way, I have experience with both platforms. I've been, I've invested on both. I've purchased crypto on both platforms, you know, years and years and years ago. And Binance, interestingly enough, so there was, there used to not be a Binance US. It was just Binance. And then when the US started coming after them, the US government, they said, all right, we're going to ask all the US customers to move their assets into Binance US. Okay, so if you're a US customer, you got to move your assets into Binance US or you're not going to be able to access them. So I said, uh-oh, this isn't going to end well. And I decided not to move my assets. I moved a bunch of them out into an air gap vault. But I kept some in there just for kicks because I like to pay attention. It forces you to pay attention. But I decided to keep those assets into the Binance classic, okay. And you can get around it. You're going to VPN, you could mask your IP and you could actually still log in for a while. And then that stopped recently. And then the emails emerged where the CEO of Binance is basically talking to people in his organization saying, we got a big customer in Chicago and let's keep servicing them. As well, when I leave the country, I can log into my Binance classic account, okay. So Binance very clearly is breaking the law on purpose and there's evidence of that. It appears allegedly, but allegedly there's evidence and it appears that they're screwed. Which law, US law? Yes, US law. Yeah, yeah. And so, yeah, the international law, they're still cranking. The siliconangle, siliconangle.com, that's our site, the old news there. Binance story up there. Binance US to halt customer dollar withdrawals amid SEC lawsuit. They informed users that they would lose their ability to withdraw their dollar funds from its platform next Tuesday. Yeah, right. And they also no longer accepting dollar deposits. So here they are, boom, freeze. Right, so you could tell years ago, you could tell Binance was gonna, that was not gonna end well. Again, Coinbase I think is a completely different situation. Coinbase is legit. They gotta just, Coinbase should just, I mean, I think this is an example. We'll get to the rant section. Now I've got two rants, I'll start with Coinbase. It wasn't planning on ranting on Coinbase, but I'll start. Now let's get to the rant section. So let's go. Coinbase is legit. They need to be out there. The government should work within their legit entrepreneurial venture. Yeah, do the audit, do what you gotta do. Binance, they're international. That's a black box. I wouldn't even go in there out of, nope, nope, boom. But Coinbase, they're in the Bay Area. They employ a lot of people. They're doing the right thing. The government's the one that's screwing them over. So that's my rant on the crypto. You want to rant on crypto? I do. I want a same rant, but different. So I heard Gensler on TV with Kramer this past week when we're out in Las Vegas. And Gensler, I mean, for all the duplicity, like you said, he was trying to advise Binance, but he had a strong case. He basically says, I got these guys dead to rights. And I think he's got Coinbase too. And I think they're gonna have to play ball. So they will.  These things are worthless. Now, one thing I don't agree with Gensler, by the way, is he said, we have currencies. We have the US dollar. We have the Japanese yen. We have the Euro. We have the British pound sterling. Why do we need another currency? Well, let's see, 2008 financial crisis. Let's just print more money. I mean, it's the poster child. It's basically the case for Bitcoin. Now, and of course, Kramer threw all crypto under the bus, said they're all worthless paper. Of course, they're not paper. They're digital assets. And he just started ranting on all crypto, like he's the guy to protect the little guy. Kramer made a bunch of dough in crypto. Okay, no regrets would come on CNBC and talk about how great crypto is. And the guy's like really compelling. And after that, the price of crypto always goes up because he gets people excited. He's a great salesperson.  Okay, so that is really- You think he's hiding the ball on that one? No, I think it's known. It's well known. He talked about it. He's not hiding it, but he's not advertising it now. He's like flipped and he's like, I'm for the little guy. Get rid of these assets.  And so it's just, he made his money just like Chimot. Now they're out onto the next thing. But here's my, then Cathy Woods was on today. She owns Coinbase and she was saying, and has said in the past, she thinks Bitcoin, she said, Bitcoin's going to five or 600,000. Her positive case is Bitcoin's going to a million. I love her. I think she's awesome. I think she's really smart. She's ballsy. And, but I still, you know, Chimot on all insid cryptos dead. I don't think it's dead. I think a lot of cryptos are gonna be dead. Chimot was the hardcore crypto guy. I know. He made so much money. And he made a lot of dough. Well, but he, to his credit, he's, he's ahead of the game. You know, he, he, he made a lot of dough on Spacks and then he got out. So wherever Chimot is probably going to make a lot of money and it's probably going to blow up and there's been a lot of scams, but he's going to be, you know, squeaky clean. It's, but I think that the bootlegger. Yeah. I mean, Joe Kennedy, right? Joe Kennedy made hundreds of millions of dollars, basically bootlegging. Okay. Hey, they're entrepreneurs.  And I think Coinbase is going to be just fine. And I think Binance, you know, maybe I'll get, I got a little bit of dough in there. I'll get out next time. I'm in London, maybe. So my other rant is the Mark Andreessen article he wrote on AI. I know Mark Andreessen VC at Andreessen Horowitz, Palo Alto guy. His wife is the daughter of a big developer in Stanford. He's a hermit. Everyone knows he kind of stays in his house. Doesn't go out much. Hates going out in the world. He wrote the seminal post years ago on why software is eating the world. It's almost 12 years ago. He just penned another one. Says AI is going to save the world. 7,000 word blog post.  He blocked me on Twitter. So that's one. So it's no reason to block me on Twitter. So he's a tool for doing that, Dave. That's my rant number one. So Andreessen Horowitz blocking all the media people, which by the way, I was a fan of him before he blocked me. So now he's got, I've been unfanned. So I'm not a fan given, he blocked me. So that's the logic. This article is a little bit out there, but he's basically saying that regulation, AI will save the world. And he brings us interesting comparison about, he calls it, you know, during the Luddites come out of the woodwork and that he calls it when regulation comes in, you get the bootleggers. The bootleggers would take advantage of the regulation, like during the prohibition. And then you have the, you know, the people who are high society thought leaders, they don't make any money because they're too busy, you know, pontificating about thought leadership. So he calls them the moral panic missionaries. He used the word baptists. He calls the moral panic missionaries baptists and those who take advantage of the hysteria as bootleggers, they earn the money from the regulation. James Farrell and our team wrote a great post on this on SiliconANGLE.com. But Mark's kind of out there. He's, I think they've been very weird. They do all their things direct. They've always been a wall of Silicon Valley. They always wanted to be their own vertically integrated Silicon Angle. And I mean Silicon Valley, I don't like the post. I think it's out there. It's not as clean as software eating in the world. I thought it was a great post. That one set the agenda. This one was more of a FU to the industry and kind of a very self-serving post. You know, Mark Andreessen got lucky, built the browser. What has he done lately? So come on, come on, get on the ball. Made a lot of cash. So I want to give a plug to Mugly, Bob Mugly, his book just came out, Data Pernerse. He's got something going on in Silicon Valley. I'm not around that week, but he's got a book signing or something, he should go. But he had this great curve in there, this, you know, the innovation of data. And he had a line, you know, an arrow going to, here's where we are now, it's LLMs. And not too much further, you know, 10, 20, 30 years, like all by 2050, the thing ended. And he had general artificial intelligence in there and singularity is not that far away. So basically the end of humanity is he didn't say that, but I inferred from his chart. And then a guy from, I think the CEO of Coursera said, you know, basically we got nothing to worry about with AI, which I wouldn't totally agree with. But that was kind of an interesting little angle that I wanted to throw in there. Everything AI is only as good as what we make it. I mean, I think the human plus AI is better than AI has been what we've been saying on theCUBE. I think everyone we talked to that's smart is all saying that you got to let it run. And this is why I'm hardcore about this big war between the big companies like AWS, Azure and Google, as they fight amongst themselves for supremacy. You also have the dynamic, if this is truly an inflection point, again, by our definition, an inflection point is a seminal structural change at tectonic shifts, plates are shifting where something new completely takes over the old. PC generation, Steve Jobs in his 20s, Bill Gates in his 20s, that whole crew replaced a complete generation of computer leaders before them. If that's the case right now, then Amazon, Azure and Google will all have to fall to the side or keep up with the new talent. And the question is, will the startups capture that or is it an environment in the first time in history where both can participate, given these a level playing field on agility? So if everyone's, all things being equal or agile, they both should be able to coexist. That to me is what we're watching right now. I'm watching that very closely and squinting through the PR of those hyperscalers because you can see their moves. Microsoft is very closed, very much putting people in the cages. You don't see a lot of ecosystem startups coming out of Microsoft, they're very scripted. Meanwhile, Amazon's got people all over the world on there, LinkedIn, spread in the word, they're all open. Matt Garmin on the record says, we're open, we'll run every single model on AWS, including open AI. Google, they have a chance to completely change the game, they open the Commono with their AI, with Bard, they could then influence this next generation of developers. And so all that going on with powering open source, Dave is going to be a rumble in the next five to 10 years. So I would say, I don't think it's the first time in history by the way, I would argue that the internet was an example where the incumbents, I'd say the incumbents took more advantage. Who, name them. Well, flip it, who emerged in the internet as disruptor? IBM didn't do that, right? Hold on, who emerged in the internet as the disruptor, Amazon? Google, well, yeah, who started, let's go, let's go. Amazon, okay, let's name them, Cisco through them. Amazon, Google, keep going. Cisco, Cisco. Yeah, that wouldn't have incumbent. No, they weren't, they were started in 95, they're basically in the 90s. They had a router that connected offices, that weren't really the internet. Okay, I'll give you Cisco. So Amazon, okay, if I'm going to give you Google, I could argue Google was cloud, but I guess it was before cloud. So Amazon, Google, Cisco, who else? Google basically invented cloud, Salesforce. Amazon, Google, Cisco, who else? Salesforce. Companies like Salesforce was cloud before cloud, they had their own cloud, basically with Oracle. Salesforce was, if Larry Ellis, Salesforce wasn't internet, was Salesforce internet a company or would you say they're a SaaS company? You could say the first cloud. I consider SaaS part of the internet revolution. See, I think it's more cloud, SaaS. Okay, hold on, cloud wasn't, the internet was a generational shift, cloud was not. I agree, all I'm saying is that the incumbents, big companies, got a lot out of the internet, Walmart. I would put, well, yeah, well, Walmart is a physical goods too, but they were smart, they put physical and digital, but then they got killed by Amazon. So, look, I think you put the internet from- They didn't get killed? Walmart didn't get killed?  Well, I mean, Amazon came in, took over the e-commerce piece. Disrupted retail, but I'd give you Amazon. No question. eBay, eBay was a winner, yeah, in that generation.  That was when the internet was connecting people. So the web came on around 95, 96, 97, kind of kicked in and it was early growth and it was very minimal functionality. So put that as a marker, that's a marker. And then take that through cloud, say 2010. That to me is a generational shift. PC 78, 77, 78, say 80, you know, okay, two, 94, right? A 15-year run. So you got these 15-year windows, 10 to 20-year windows. iPhone was an exception, I think that was a game changer, but that built on top of the mobile web 2.0, which created the SaaS at the same time. So the SaaS exploded, cloud exploded, iPhone moment, boom. Now cloud comes here and now we're at AI. So I think that compressed there and you put it all there and now you got the next wave coming. So the next wave to me is why people are freaking out, why Andreessen wrote that post.  So I think that's what's happening. So the question is, is this an inflection point like those moments where it's like PC, internet web, AI? Well, so again, so I'm going to try to, as you're talking, I'm making my case here. So we got Amazon, Google, Cisco, where they're sort of disruptors and they're the benefit of it. I got on the incumbents, that's what we're talking about. Can the incumbents take advantage? I got Dell, Walmart, Apple, Microsoft. Well, Microsoft really didn't take advantage of the internet. They almost, they missed it. And then they came back later. So I'll take Microsoft on this. Dell, Walmart, Apple, the banks, JPMorgan Chase, City, Fidelity, B of A, Goldman, FedEx, Intel. These were incumbents that took advantage of the internet. They're implementers of it. That's what I'm saying. Oh, I'm sorry. When I say incumbents, I mean existing companies, like the buyers of tech, right? Who become tech companies. I'm referring to enablers, like the supply chain. You're talking about pure play tech companies. No, suppliers of technology. Yeah, but everybody's a technology company these days. But yeah, okay. Fair enough. Well, that's because they began. I see what you're saying. That's why I was kind of triggered me because I'm saying no. I'll talk about IBM, Digital Equipment Corporation, Prime Mini-Computer, ULT-Packard, Silicon Graphics no longer, MIPS. It's Generations to Storage Company. Okay, who got screwed during the dot.com? Which incumbents got hosed in the dot.com? Well, I mean, everyone got hosed on the dot.com bubble, right? No, no, no, not the bubble. I mean, which like, so Amazon, but that was, again, industry. That was retail, right? I think if you look at an example of the web and that bubble. So Cisco, really. Walmart would be an example of a company that rode that wave and crossed over, but still had the two-pronged strategy of physical and online, okay? Companies that went out of business with like all these sun microsystems went out of business. I guess what I'm saying is that the PC era, completely disrupted Prime, Wang, DG, Apollo, killed them. Killed, right? The proprietary network operating systems. The microprocessor-based architectures destroyed the mini-computer business. And enabled TCPIP, which became out of the OSI model, Open Systems Interconnect, and that would standardize the physical layer to the transport and session layer, right? And then the internet comes out and so Cisco took advantage of that and disrupted all the existing network, SNA, and all that stuff. Yeah, husband and wife and Stanford, and they funded and they jumped and they jumped, it was quite a bit over. But the internet didn't do the same. Netscape, gone. Yahoo, irrelevant. AOL, gone. Well, I'm not gone, but irrelevant, right? So all the granddaddy technology companies of the internet really didn't have a lasting impact. Well, the durability question comes down to were they durable in their differentiation sustainability or was it incompetent management? Some would say Yahoo had incompetent management, but they had the brand position. Google's ongoing lead killing it. They're doing great. So they can survive. Which companies got disrupted? Which companies got disrupted by the internet? Like, not really. Microsoft didn't get, that was, they didn't really even ever get disrupted. They just became irrelevant. So that's all I'm saying.  I mean, that was IBM was self-inflicted for other reasons. Well, that's why. Or HPE, HP, HP really wasn't hurt by the internet. Dell was helped by it. I tried to explain this to you before. You kind of argued, and maybe you weren't getting it. I'll try to explain to you. So here's what I was saying before. That's really condescending, but bring it on. No, okay, okay. So you have vendors that supply people. And you was just saying about Citibank. All these people have applications. The internet killed old school, old guard ways of doing things, business models. And that's what I was saying earlier in the pod about the AI having impact. So for example, the entrepreneur I was just interviewing today, he's got a healthcare app with three people doing millions of dollars in revenue. Okay, for healthcare. Okay, he's disrupting healthcare himself, his application. That is an example of what that does. You're trying to put it in a box. Say, oh, the vendor IBM got replaced by this company. You just made my case. No, it's too pronged. You just made my case. You just completely contradicted yourself. It doesn't happen. No, Dave, I'm talking about technology companies. And now you're just talking about healthcare. Yeah, but Dave, the enablement of the internet definitely shifted and took people out. We just talked that through those companies. The suppliers, the incumbents, and there's a long list from Sun Microsystems for proprietary gear. That wasn't internet. That wasn't the internet. They fucking, they capitalized on the internet, Sun and those guys because- Not Scott McNeely was on the queue. He said, I should have called it the cloud, the network is the computer. They actually had, they actually had the clouds. And they didn't- Tell me which companies, which tech companies, specifically got disrupted by the internet the way the mini-computer companies got disrupted. It's hard to name. They benefited from the internet is what I'm saying. And so I think the same thing can happen with AI. The internet didn't have a supplier, right? The internet is the supply. It's like the oxygen. You used to mention Cisco. You mentioned, I mentioned Netscape. They were internet companies. They were internet enabled companies that built software for browse websites. Okay. Well, Netscape did. There was no websites before Netscape. So they didn't really disrupt anyone. Well, no PCs. They disrupted the Boston Public Library. They disrupted the Boston Public Library. Netscape. Yeah, Amazon. Netscape was a browser that surfed websites. There was a handful of websites, not many. And those websites had information on them. Okay. There was no internet. I'm just saying, the way it's- It was a net new- This all started with your saying, you said for the first time in history. Yes. Right? Yes. And incumbents might be able to take advantage of this new way. Because there's- And I'm saying- Because the suppliers in the market, like I compare more of the PC revolutions, why I use that analogy, because there were suppliers like IBM, Deck that sold computing to big companies like Ford. And Ford's going, I don't can't handle my license. I got too many things going on. I had business problems. So those companies were eliminated or reduced to rubble by the PC and what came after it. Right, and that didn't happen in the internet. I think you agree. Because it's new functionality. There's nothing to disrupt. It was computing serving people for companies to do stuff. And so the debate we're having, I think, is what's going to happen with AI? And I'm saying- AI has suppliers right now. You got open AI, went with Microsoft, but they went the other way around. You have cloud out there with AWS and Azure providing computing power. So is open AI going to disrupt Google? That's a good question. Not when they did the mafia deal with Microsoft potentially. We'll see what happens. Again, what we're watching- I think what's going to happen, here's what I think is going to happen. I think you're going to have new disruptors come out. No question about it. But I think the existing guard, which the old guard, you know the Amazons, the Googles, the Microsofts, the old guard is going to be able to take advantage of AI for their business because they have such massive businesses, they're going to be able to drive productivity right to the bottom line and they're going to be doing just fine. And they're going to miss something that maybe it's open AI or some other startup here. Somebody's going to come up with some new business model. So I think it's going to be a tide that lifts all boats. I mean, I know it's a bromide, but I think that's what's going to happen. And that's probably the first time in history. I mean, I think the internet is more similar in that regard is what the debate we were just having. The first time in history would be referred to that DEC, IBM and those guys would not die. They'd all adopt. And the reason why they do die is because they have either bromide or dogma or don't see it or can't react fast enough. Self-inflicted wounds, or what I'm saying the same thing happened on the internet. My premise is that if this market where agility is all equal, assume that there's some decent management, they could then capture it. So again. I agree. I agree. But let me try to summarize my statement. This is where I think we disagree. I think the AI wave is going to be more like the internet in that it's going to, the incumbents are going to be able to take advantage of it. I think the difference is going to be, you're going to see more disruptors come out of the technology industry, whereas I don't think you had a lot of disruptors coming out of the technology industry per se. You certainly saw it with Amazon, but the incumbents took advantage of it. I think it's more like the internet than it is like the PC era. That's what I'm saying. Well, let me ask you a question. What's the difference between a sustainable enablement and a disruptive enablement? Which is quote, we'll do some Clay Critchison. You know, that's a good, that's a good, really good point to bring up. I think the sustainable, a sustainable. Enabler. And the word enabler, you're enabling something of value. The internet is a sustainable enabler. And I think AI is going to be a sustainable enabler. Do you agree? No, I think it's going to be a disruptive enabler, which is why you see in those markets where there's disruption like the PC or even the internet, although it was net new, the functionalities defined by it's embryonic, it's early and it's not adequate. People complain about it. It's not good enough.  Like for example, and let's take the Cisco example, the TCPIP, that revolution that was enabled by the microprocessor and then ultimately that standards body of PCs and whatnot, lands, local area networks, wide area networks. TCPIP and Cisco was a disruptive enabler because more people were able to get in the game and took out the two big players. IBM, which had systems, network architecture, or SNA, and DEC, Digital Equipment Corporation, which had DECnet. These were proprietary network operating systems that were ruling corporate America and funding, powering companies like Ford. Okay, complex proprietary protocols. Sun Microsystems had a server that was proprietary, sold to companies. They were disrupted by open standards. So disruptive means someone gets out. Sustained means the big guys just sustain that going. And in the past, it's been hard for both to have both at the same time. So it has to tip one way or the other. Does it lead by sustainable or is it lead by disruption? Or is it equal? And that's going to be something that's unknown. It's unknown to me, at least that's what I want. We just had, John, we just had a whole another podcast. So I would say this, you would, I think you'd agree, that the PC, the microprocessor-based revolution was a disruptive technology. The internet was more of a sustaining technology. And I'm arguing that AI is going to be, maybe I'm making your point, for the first time in history, will be both. I think the internet was a disruptive technology because IBM and HP and Sun, and those guys didn't take advantage of the value. They rode the wave. They came on later, they came on later. No, I think you're missing it. What contribution did those guys have to the internet? IBM- They didn't build the browser. They didn't build- No, but IBM didn't disrupt them. IBM gave- They had e-commerce. It's monopoly. Remember the ATOM and AT-commerce? Yeah, but IBM gave its monopoly to Microsoft and unwittingly to Microsoft. Dave, we're going to have to save this for a rants podcast. We can just do it together and debate the history of what's disruptive. To me, at the end of the day, the scoreboard comes down to value creation. Who captures that value? The big guys or the little guys? And I think, in my view right now as I'm seeing the big guys, if they don't, if the market can't let startups come in and rule, then it's not disruptive. So- Well, nobody went out of business because of the internet. I mean, some companies did, but I'm saying the technology business, Sun didn't go out of business. They didn't go out of business, but they didn't get acquired because of the internet, right? I mean, it was just- The internet killed old functionality like going to the library because they can look it up in a browser. I don't need to go to the library to research something. Okay, that's how you- Well, again, are we talking about the broader industry or are we talking about the technology industry? It's just, in general, technology has an enablement and has impact and that impact either has value and that gets captured by somebody or not, right?  So where I'm getting confused in this conversation is we're jumping from the narrow tech industry, which I think is hard to narrow down in 2000 and this day and age. Not narrow, Google. We have a Google, Microsoft and Amazon. They're not that's not narrow. That's those are big players. Yeah, I don't think any one of those three companies is going to get disrupted by AI. I think they're going to take advantage of AI. But at the same time, I think there's going to be another player that comes out of the woodworks that 20 years from now is going to be the next Amazon, Google or Microsoft. Yeah, and exactly. And the question is, I don't think that's, we're going to debate this another time, but we'll leave it. That's never really happened before. That I agree with, that both have a curve. Stragging the rents of the value extraction. We just took 20 minutes to agree. We argued and we finally agreed. No, you argued. Okay. All right, Dave, episode 15. If you're listening, give us feedback, DMS. Go to siliconangle.com. That's where all the videos are. The broadcast there, the stories are there. That's where all the users and traffic is. Thecube.net, that's where the video library is. That's where we can find out where the cube's going to be and get replays and check us out online. We'll be back next week. And we're going to continue this conversation, Dave. We'll carry forward the rents and the analysis and a lot going on. AWS Reinforced Big Security Conference. We got some big announcements going on in the city. There's over 44 different events happening in San Francisco next week for AI. Just goes to show you. There's so much action. And then we've got Databricks coming up this month, HPE Discover. We're going to be on the road. I'm home for two, four days this month, Dave. So we'll see you in SoCal next week. Yeah, we'll see you down in Southern California. I'm going to head up to Palo Alto with you. All right, see you next time. All right, see you. Thanks, guys.