Hello and welcome to my talk about TypeScript, JavaScript and your brain. Hi. I'm Peter. I'm a trainer for front-end web technologies. Whenever there's no pandemic going on, I'm usually traveling all around the continent to teach people about the latest in browser APIs. This includes HTML5, JavaScript and also TypeScript sometimes. There's a bunch of blue stuff on the screen right now. This is where you can follow me online. There's a blog you can read. There's tweets you can follow. I'm on a podcast called WorkingDraft. That's mostly in German, but we do English episodes sometimes. And you should also check out my site project Warhol. Warhol is a tool for automated design testing right inside your browser. If automated design testing in your browser with a browser extension sounds interesting, check it out because we are going to launch in just a few weeks. But today's topic is TypeScript. What's TypeScript? Well, according to Wikipedia, TypeScript is an open source programming language developed by Microsoft that's a strict syntactical superset of JavaScript and that adds optional static typing to the language. Well, what's all that about? Let's look at a practical example. This is a simple function that takes RGB values as its input and returns RGB values as its output. It converts colors. It turns white into black, black into white and so on. This is a JavaScript function, but it's also a TypeScript function. TypeScript is just like JavaScript, but with a few extras. In JavaScript, we can write the function just like this. In TypeScript, we can do so as well. But in TypeScript, we can also add additional information. This additional information usually takes the shape of type annotations, where we definitely define how the types in our program should look like. Invert, in this case, probably wants to work with numbers, but nothing in this program says that it can only work with numbers. But once we define an RGB data type, basically say that any RGB value must consist of three numbers, we can add type annotations to our function. This tells the program that Invert must always get an RGB value as its input and that it must also always return an RGB value as its output. And that's the only way this program is valid. If we then call this function and provide some input, the TypeScript compiler that takes TypeScript and turns it back into JavaScript can verify that the program makes sense. And indeed, in this case, it does make sense. Invert in the last line gets three numbers as its input and we expect an output of three numbers, which is also provided by the function. If our program doesn't make sense, if, for example, we replace the last number with null, which is not a number, so this program doesn't work, TypeScript will not turn this into JavaScript, but will instead complain with an error message. So TypeScript, once we've written a program that's valid, that works, that satisfies all of our types constraints, turns this back into JavaScript and we can actually run this in our browser. The debate about TypeScript and JavaScript usually looks like this. There's the fans of JavaScript that say dynamic typing like in JavaScript where you don't have to deal with type annotations is easier to develop. Maybe you're faster and static typing might lead to more correct programs, but it takes a lot more effort. And I don't know if this is true and I don't know if it is true, how important this distinction is. I'm more interested in another question, mainly what does TypeScript do to your thinking? And based on this, we can talk about whether you should care about TypeScript or not, but I'm not really interested in quantifying the advantages or disadvantages of TypeScript. I'm more interested in what it does to our brain. And this may be an interesting question even if you already are a die-hard TypeScript fan because it recontextualizes your use of TypeScript, maybe. So what do I mean by due to your thinking when we are talking about programming languages? Let's take a look at some JavaScript to set up my argument. This is just a bunch of numbers. Let's say we want to create a sum of all the even numbers in this array. There's two ways to go about this. The first is the imperative programming approach. We basically create a new sum variable called sum in this example, and then iterate over the array and for each even value, we add this value to the sum. This is imperative programming. We create some data like the sum and then we just mess with the program, mess with the data until we are done, until the desired end state has been reached. But there's also another approach, the functional approach. Functional programming, well, it deals with functions, but the most important bit is how we treat data. In this case, new data comes from old data. We describe functions that transform our old data, our inputs, our numbers into a new data, in this case, our sum. We do this by first filtering out all the non-even values and then taking the remaining values and then summing them up. There's no data that's being manipulated here. We just describe how we get from one bit of data to the next bit of data to the final bit of data. And this is how functional programming works. Both of these approaches work in JavaScript to some extent. And you might have come across the problem with that when you've dealt with asynchronous code. In the olden days, back before we had promises, we had to work with callbacks whenever we had to do an asynchronous operation. A function like do stuff might take a long while, but we can't do stuff that takes a long while on JavaScript's main thread, we have to be asynchronous. And this means passing functions into other functions like do stuff here. This callback will get called with a result or an error depending on the outcome when do stuff has done its, well, stuff. And this is quite a mess. It leads to spaghetti code and it also mixes the paradigms. We have bits of functional programming here where we pass functions into other functions, but inside our callback, we do basically whatever. We use imperative programming language constructs like if and else. This changed once we got to promises. JavaScript got promises a few years ago and this turns the way we work with asynchronous code into something that's basically pure functional programming. In this case, we call do stuff and then don't have one huge callback function that handles the errors and the side effects, but we chain operations and define transformations over data. How do we process the result? Well, we shove it into this function. How do we process an error where we shove it into this other function? This is a fundamentally different approach how you handle data. And even promises are out today because we have async functions. We have this await keyword that we can use in async functions to basically get rid of functions altogether. There's no callback involved and there's no promises anymore. It just looks like regular code, like imperative code. So we had callbacks back in the olden days, then came promises, then came async functions. These are just features, but what do they do to our thinking? How do they influence the way we write code? Well, an async function according to MDN is a function that leads to a cleaner style. This is at least what people say, but what actually is a cleaner style? A cleaner style is a value judgment. This doesn't really describe anything. It describes how we feel about using async functions. And I believe it comes down to having one paradigm and not being forced to do constant context switching. If we have our callback functions, there's no particular style enforced. Sometimes we have to write callback functions and shove functions into other functions, kind of like functional programming, but not really because in the callbacks themselves, there's imperative programming all around. Then there were promises, which is sort of an opt-in to nice and clean functional programming as far as that's possible with JavaScript, which is not very possible because JavaScript while functional programming isn't strictly speaking impossible, JavaScript is not really meant for functional programming. The important bit to remember here is that there's no way out of callbacks really because asynchronous code in JavaScript has to be processed off the main thread. We need some way to schedule operations. And this usually means dealing with functions, except when we have async await. Because with async await, with the await keyword right here, there's no function involved and we can use pure imperative programming. We don't have to context switch between imperative programming, which is what JavaScript is good at, if else for loops try catch and so on, and functional programming, which is not really JavaScript's strong suit, but it's something that we have to deal with regularly when we do asynchronous code, except when we have async await. Async await feels so liberating because you don't have to switch between two different ways of programming constantly. You can just stay inside your imperative world, which is where JavaScript is best used for. So this is what async await really does.  This is what it does to your brain. It feels liberating because it is liberating. You don't have to deal with functional programming and with callbacks anymore. And you don't need to be aware that this is what is happening. You don't even need to know that functional programming even is a thing to reap the benefits. It just feels much simpler now because it eliminated a whole class of problems, a whole bunch of mental overhead from your day-to-day programming. And TypeScript can do something similar. So let's talk about our invert function again. What can this JavaScript function do? Well, it can invert colors, probably, obviously. But this is something that we just know because we have written the function or maybe we've read the function. It's called invert. It takes something called R and G and B sounds like it's meant to invert RGB colors, but how do we know? How can we know that this actually does work?  So we would expect black to be turned into white.  And then we maybe add a few more tests and maybe even more and more tests depending on how paranoid you are. But if you write JavaScript and if you write tests, there's going to be somewhere in your test writing the point where you say, this is enough, this should do. I'm certain that this function now works as expected. Let's say we place this cutoff here right at the third test. In this case, we have three examples in our test that we've confirmed to work. Three colors that are being transformed like we intended them to be. But this being JavaScript, there's in our code not actually a way to enforce that the values RGB are actually numbers. So this is another case that might conceivably happen. We might pass in a string instead of a number. And this may work, may not work. I think in our code invert as written, this actually works. The string two is treated as the number two. But what about this? Should this work? If my JavaScript type knowledge isn't wrong, this should probably still work. But this will probably break in some awful way. But this isn't really broken because we haven't really defined that this is not anticipated usage of the invert function. This is more or less undefined or unconfirmed behavior. It's not wrong. It's just something that we haven't thought about. The problem with dynamic typing is that we can write all the tests we want, all day long. There's going to be some point in our development process where we say this is enough. I'm convinced that my function works as expected. So from three or maybe more examples, we infer that there's a whole bunch of values for which our function works. And everything outside is simply unverified, undefined. We don't care about it. And we cannot care about it because the possibilities are endless. There's got to be some point where you stop writing tests. There's going to be permutations of RGB inputs that you just don't consider because it would be totally exhausting to do so. It's necessary that there's unverified spaces in your program, that there's inputs that you haven't considered. And this is not to say that all the inputs are wrong. Maybe they are not, but there's nothing in your program that says anything about the unverified space. But if we are really honest with ourselves, even the okay space in the middle isn't really verified. Tests are just examples and we infer that there's an okay region in our program from this, but there's not really any basis for this. So in essence, our program consists of a whole bunch of undefined behavior. And we have three examples that convince us that the function works as intended. This is always the case in dynamic languages. Programming in dynamic languages requires some leaps of faith because at some point, you are going to stop writing tests. You cannot write tests till all eternity. Now, how is TypeScript different? It is different, but it's probably not different in the same way. But it's probably not in the way that you expect it to be different. So, let's go to our TypeScript function. Let's say our invert function RGB has its type annotations and has now a much more narrow-defined space of inputs that can actually go into this function. This function is meant to convert RGB colors again. And how do we know that this works? Well, again, we can write some tests, but we can also say, well, it has been defined to work. We have defined what a valid RGB input is, three numbers, and the function has been defined to only take RGB inputs and produce RGB outputs. So, anything else is simply not a program because if we, for example, try to shove null into invert, the TypeScript compiler will simply not produce a JavaScript program that we can run. So, there's no way to define a program to build a program that violates our type expectations. So, our program has been defined to work, even if we recycle our tests from before that confirm these three particular cases, we can be sure that everything we've talked about afterwards is simply out of scope. This is impossible. There can be no program that looks like this because the types don't allow this program to be compiled by the TypeScript compiler. So, this is gone. This is no longer our problem. But, there's other values that might conform to our types, but they, that may still be a problem. How about this? Well, probably the RGB values can be at most 255. So, 500 is a valid number, but this is somewhat out of scope. This is not defined as well. How about this? Negative numbers. This is not defined. And not a number in JavaScript is actually of the type number, so this, again, is a valid program in the sense that not a number in JavaScript counts as a number, but still is something that we haven't considered. So, if we go back to our circles, to the examples with the tests and the unverified space in the dynamic language, adding types to the language eliminates parts of the problem. And the problem that's being eliminated is that the unverified space becomes impossible. It's no longer unverified, but it's impossible. Programs cannot happen inside this impossible space. But what we also need to consider is that the okay space here is still just based on our assumption that our few examples lead us to believe that this will be okay according to our type system. But as we've seen, there's inputs that do confirm to our types because the type categories are not as fine grained as we'd probably like them to have.  It's an illusion. The okay space is also unverified. The only verified properties of our programs are those where we have concrete examples, the tests. So, if we compare the dynamic language to the static language, then the only thing that really changes is that a large space of the possible inputs that were unverified in the dynamic language are impossible in the static language. So, they are not part of the problem that we have to deal with. But there's still the unverified space in the center. And that's the same for the dynamic language and for the static language. It's probably a bigger space in the dynamic language in the sense that we can pass in nulls and so on into the RGB array. And this will probably work or not work or fail or explode in some way. But in the static language, the reactions on this are still possible. I can pass in numbers that are not conforming to my expectations, that are too large, too small, not a number, infinity, what have you. So, what this basically brings to the table is that what a static type system does for you is it allows you to ignore more of the cases that you did not think about in the first place. This is what it really does. Does it make your code more correct? Well, maybe sometimes. Does it eliminate a whole bunch of problems, provide better tooling? Yeah, yeah, probably. But what it really does, it reduces the amount of undefined in your program. It doesn't eliminate it. Remember, there's still this large hole in the middle of your program in any case, no matter if you're writing in a dynamic language or in a static language like TypeScript, the unverified space in the middle is always there. But there's this whole outer ring that you don't have to care about anymore. And probably in most cases, you aren't even aware of the outer region or at least not consciously aware.  And this is why programming in a static type language, if you're comfortable with that, feels a little bit liberating, feels easier because there's a whole class of problem that you cannot have. But it's important to remember that there's still no silver bullet. There's still undefined regions in your program and they may be larger than you think. So a type system doesn't eliminate all the errors, it just removes all of the problems that you probably didn't even think about. And of those that you think about, many are still there. You do not need again to be aware of this to reap the benefits. If it just feels a little better, well, that's a win anyway. But this is really what a type language does to your thinking, at least in my mind. So what can we take from this? Is this useful? Is having this mental overhead that we probably weren't even aware of in the first place is removing this really helpful? I would say so because any reduction in mental overhead is worth considering. Today's programs in front-end and back-end with JavaScript and Node.js are so fiendishly complicated that any reduction of complexity is something worth considering in my mind. And there's also the fact that there's other benefits to static languages like better tooling that may also nudge you towards TypeScript. Are there downsides to TypeScript and other statically typed languages? Oh boy, definitely. You have additional build steps. You need to work with the TypeScript compilers. There's dependencies. Newer versions of TypeScript can break.  If you are like me and you really wanna make sure that your program is as well defined as possible when there's many an afternoon that you can waste just simply working with a type system, defining types, making sure everything is covered and then suddenly the working day is over and this is not really that useful when it comes to the bottom line. Is TypeScript the future? Should I care about TypeScript in the future or in the near future? I think so. For the moment, it looks like TypeScript is eating the world. But tastes are bound to change yet again in my mind. They have been compiled to JavaScript languages before, if you think about stuff like CoffeeScript and they're going to be new ones, especially with WebAssembly. So if you write TypeScript, it's probably not going to be code for eternity in contrast to JavaScript, which will run in any old browser till the end of the universe. But again, for the foreseeable future, TypeScript is something that people are gonna use because there's upside, even though there's also downsides. But the important bit is really to understand the downsides. I think the downsides, build steps, dependencies, the type system rabbit holes, this is something that every programmer can in some way relate to. And the upside is also important to consider because what aesthetically typed language, apart from all the tooling really does for you, is to reduce your mental overhead. It makes the leap of faith that you have to do a little bit smaller. It doesn't eliminate the leap of faith, mind you. The only bits in your program where you can be sure that they work as intended are those bits that are confirmed by proper testing. And the type system can simply make a bunch of inputs impossible. There's always a leap of faith involved when you say this program is done. The only question is, how big do you want your personal leap of faith to be? Thank you for your time. Read my blog, write emails, and follow me on Twitter. And I'm happy to receive your questions now. Thank you. Hi, we're back. And we are also not alone. Peter, are you here with us? Hi. Yay. Oh, I'm gonna, oh, okay. Ah, hi. Now it works. So, Robert already just posted on the chat that as a JavaScript newbie, he will have to rewatch your talk on half time because it was interesting, but fast. Yeah, but that's normal and this doesn't really have anything to do with him being a newbie. This has to do with me talking really fast. That's just how it is. I get that a lot too. So, straight from your talk, type, what rabbit holes? Type system rabbit hole. Type system rabbit, what is a type system rabbit hole and where can I get one? I don't think you want to have type system rabbit hole. How do I say this without going too much into detail? Type scripts type system is very dynamic in a sense and you can write down types like I did in my example with a simple RGB type, but you can also create new types from existing types. Basically define a bit of base truth and then derive all your concrete types from that by doing a lot of transformation and mucking around with types. And this just with any abstraction and software can lead you into directions where you, once you're in there, figure out that you really didn't want to be there in the first place. That's the type system rabbit hole. Okay, I have a question coming in from the headquarters that I want to ask before I follow up with my next question. So type fester, the question is, do you expect JavaScript to implement most if not all typescript features in the long run? I expect JavaScript to implement exactly zero of typescript features in the long run. Well, there's a bunch of reasons for this. First of all, that simply the goal that typescript has is a completely different tool, a goal from JavaScript. And typescript is a strict syntactical superset of JavaScript, but not every JavaScript program is a valid typescript program. And every browser has to support every bit of JavaScript that has ever been written from the start of time until today. And if browsers were to implement typescript features in JavaScript today, they would break existing code and this will never happen. Also, there's really no need to implement this in JavaScript because we already have the features we want in typescript. So if you need types, if you need all the fancy features just use typescript and compile it down to JavaScript. Everybody wins. Yeah, I just have a comment coming in that this is the highest information density interview ever. Wow. I have another question. So do you expect to ever have, do you expect to see not a number ever being not a number? No, not a number is a number and this is perfectly fine and totally reasonable if you read the specifications. So that's not really useful, not a number being a number, but it makes sense in many different ways. And just not in the most intuitive sense if you're not a programmer, but that's true for most of programming's terms and features. Can we petition for a name change then? Like really not a number or something like that? Probably.  Not a number is a number, just like infinity is a number in JavaScript. Both are numbers in the technical sense, but both are not useful at all. So not a number is basically just a third kind of infinity. We have positive, infinity, negative, infinity and not a number. All three are just broken numbers, broken in different ways. I really hope that you can hear the backstage laughing.  Right. Now we've gone through a time where especially one-on-one training would have been very difficult. How has COVID-19 affected you?  I haven't really. Right now I'm basically draining my bank account over time and I'm totally not in any situation where this is a problem in this year and I also do stuff on the side. I write articles and stuff, but virtual trainings are a different beast and I haven't yet figured out for me how this could work and also the companies that I would do these trainings for, they are also affected by COVID-19 and they either have way too much to do because they do, I don't know, video conferencing or something or they are part of the rest of the economy and they have other problems on their hands right now. So it's basically just there's not much going on apart from a few conferences like this one. I have made very good experiences with big blue button except for the name. Try that. In the, no, I was more talking about not the technical solution, how can I do this whole video chat thing because as you said, this is a soft problem and there's other software as well, but it's more the whole way I built up my, how it works. We talked about information density and me talking really fast. This works kind of if we are all in the same room together, but over remote this gets probably really just tiresome and I don't get the feedback that I need for my numerous digressions that I usually have in my slides and in my workshops. So I don't think this really works for me, but this is more down to how I do workshops and talks and not so much a technical problem. So I just rather wait out this whole pandemic thing and then go on like before maybe. Okay. And then you were there for NaosCon last year, right? I was, yes. How did you like that? I think the right word is I was really impressed. I was impressed with this being a rather, you are mostly a small community compared to others and the conference is rather small compared to others, but size isn't everything and the sheer quality and the effort that obviously went into this conference. I was really impressed by and I've seen a lot of conferences in my time. Nice.  How do you like, you're so on top of very modern technology, do you work as, do you program on the side? Are you actively involved in developing or maintaining projects? Is that a thing that's still going on for you on the side? In a very small sense, yes, but not really all that much. I mean, it always looks like I know everything, but this is just because I pick the topics, really. Clever. And there's a whole lot of stuff that you have to concern yourself with if you work on real projects, mainly your customers' concerns, for example, so supporting old browsers, which is two bits of information that I really know nothing about. If anything breaks in Internet Explorer today and I have to fix it, I probably won't be able to because I haven't done anything like this in 10 years. I just cry. No, I write. Yeah. I just cry a lot. I'm back in the day when I did do projects, I always just went for a run whenever something broke in Internet Explorer that had to. No, I write my own software and I have, no, my knees are too broken for this kind of challenge. No, no. But I do write my own software, the slides, the code animations that you saw on the slides. This is all my own in-house software. It's not the greatest because it's in-house software and did never have to answer to any colleagues or quality control or customer wishes or anything. And there's also a Warhol, which I think was in the slides after my introduction where we do design testing in the browser. We are going to launch in a few weeks, so check this out if you want to. And this is something like diving into browsers and fixing bugs and trying to figure out why is this red and not blue like it's supposed to be. So stuff like this, it's not really customer oriented. It's not an everyday regular project because it's still extremely specific and extreme close to browser APIs themselves. But this is how I stay on top of things. I write my own stuff basically. Very cool. Peter, thank you so much for this very high density interview. Thank you for having me. It was a pleasure. Hope to see you again next year. You definitely will. Awesome. I'm already looking forward to it. Me too. Thank you very much, Peter.


The narcissist treats others better than you. The narcissist is a completely different person behind closed doors. They will do everything for strangers. But they won't do that for you. They will treat other people like they're very special and important.  They want you to feel worthless. They want you to feel like you're worth less than everyone else. Which is very unusual behavior. It's very confusing because you are the closest person to them. They should be treating you better than everyone else. Because you're doing everything for them. You may even be doing too much.  It's embarrassing because you're doing all of this stuff for them. And they don't appreciate any of it. They're too busy focusing on the morsels of kindness they get from people they don't even know. And people who don't know them. Because that's the main difference between you and those other people. You know the narcissist. You know who they really are. You know what they're really about. So they don't see any purpose in treating you well. Because they know it's not going to change how you see them. They know you're on to them. They also know that they already have you. They know you're not going anywhere. Because they figured you out. They figured out what makes you tick. They already know that you don't like it. When they treat other people better than you. And that is why they do it. That is why they ignore you. While being kind and friendly to everyone else. They do it to invalidate you. And they also do it to isolate you. Because while you're with the narcissist. You're giving everything you have to them. You're investing all of your time, money and energy into them. You're investing all of your goals, dreams and aspirations. You're trying to build a future with this person. So everything in your life revolves around them. But they never do that for you. They never share anything with you. They make false promises. They future fake. They lie and promise something about your possible future. In order to get what they want in the present. They tell you that this is future waiting for you. To keep you around. To keep you putting out. So that they can keep having a good time. They can keep living for free. They can keep indulging freely in their pleasures. While you're doing all of the work. Because they've led you to have high expectations for something. That's never going to be a reality. While they have high expectations for you. In the present moment. But while you're putting in all of this work. And trying to meet their unrealistic demands and expectations. They're looking for new sources of supply. They're looking for other people to replace you. Because they know you're on to them. They know you're eventually going to figure them out. And they know that once you realize they're not about anything. You're not going to want anything to do with them. They are opportunists. They see people as opportunities. And they take advantage of every chance for success. Without thinking about the consequences that it may have on other people. Which is why although you may be the closest person to the narcissist.  They treat you worse than everyone else. Or they treat other people better. Because those people don't know who the narcissist really is. And when the narcissist talks to an unsuspected person. It's like they found their shiny new toy. They found something to play with. Something that brings them amusement and enjoyment. So they will charm this new person. They will try to attract them. In the same way that they did with you when you first met them. But now they can't do that with you. Because now you already know what they're about. You know they're fake. You know they're not about anything for real. So why would they waste their time being good to you?  When you know they're not really about anything. They will save all of their energy and enthusiasm. For someone who doesn't know what they're about. Someone who is unsuspecting. Someone who believes in the illusions of the narcissist's false self. And this person will eventually be another person that they abuse. They will eventually be in the same position that you are now in. And the narcissist is also doing all of this to invalidate you. To make you feel worthless.  They don't want you to have any confidence in who you are. They don't want you to believe in yourself. They want to break you down. Everything you're getting from the narcissist is exactly how they want it to be. They're quite comfortable with the situation. And that is why they're not making any effort to change it. Because they're quite happy with how things are. They have no desire for things to change.   You're going to walk away. Or they're no longer going to have any use for you. After they've destroyed you. And that is why they're always treating other people better than you. Because they're constantly searching for their new supply. They're constantly looking for someone to replace you. Someone who doesn't know who they are. Because they're looking to take resources from someone who is unsuspecting. Someone who doesn't know what the narcissist is about to do to them. They can't do that with you. Because they already know you're on to them.  They will delight, attract and fascinate other people. And it will blow your mind. It will confuse you. Because you will wonder how they can be so kind and friendly to other people. When they haven't talked to you for days. They haven't made any effort with you. And yet they're able to be so involved with someone. They've just met at a restaurant or at a mall. They're being really nice right in front of you. While they're being really quiet with you. Because they're trying to triangulate you with this other person. So they will flirt with other people.  They will do it at a restaurant on your birthday. Or on Valentine's Day. Because they want to ruin it for you. They want to feel like they're better than you. And they want to get attention from someone who doesn't know who they are. Someone who doesn't know what they're about. Someone who may not even realize that you were together. Because it would be very shocking and disrespectful. For someone to treat you like that. When you're supposed to be together. But the narcissist treats others better than you. Because they don't need to treat you better. You already had your time with them. They treated you better in the first few weeks that you were with them. That was the love bombing. The honeymoon phase. And its only purpose was to trap you. So once they've trapped you. They don't need to do that anymore. Which is when they will begin to devalue you.  And that's just something that's never going to change. Because there's no reason for them to treat you better. They know it's only a matter of time until you figure them out or until they discard you. And they need a new person to make them feel better. So they will find people who lack awareness and experience. People who are naive. People who are gullible and over-trusting. And those people will be stripped of everything they have. And then the narcissist will just do the same thing all over again. The cycle never ends. Thank you for watching and I'll talk to you soon.


And welcome everybody back to the Independent Investor Channel. I just finished up the Q3 call, wanted to throw down on my reaction to the call. I'm quite certain that there's a number of you out there who listen to this conference call with different expectations, with no expectation one way or the other outside of just getting more color around the announcement from about a month ago to move in a different strategic direction for the company. My reaction is going to surprise a lot of you guys. It is in line with my independent thought. I went into the call with a different emotion than what I came out of the call with, which was relief. I was relieved after this call. I actually am one to give credit where credit is due. I thought this was Thomas Healy's best quarterly call by far. I told you, I'd surprise you. And as I worked through the 60-minute call and sat through the Q&A session that was put down here, we have redefined a company and a landscape going forward that of which I will not speculate on. However, it is absolutely worthwhile for us to spend a few moments in understanding my perspective, right, wrong, or indifferent, as I heard the explanation put down by the CEO discussing the less than $100,000 of revenue that was brought in here from hybrid sales that I saw in the balance sheet. I thought it was a typo. However, it speaks to my previous quarters of frustration and accelerating toward a proverbial cliff of cash burn that I identified a long time ago as unsubstantable, coupled with a investor's determination that the interest from the industry had waned, and it had waned heavily based on a number of different factors, that of which factors at the beginning were fairly balanced on the ESG front, the cost of ownership being augmented over time with the upfront cost to just technology and then having the fuel pay for itself over the life of owning the asset. All of that has completely changed. I saw it changing. Over the last three years, it has slowly degraded to a point where Hylian has been valued as a company that was going to continue to hold on to that legacy business until the end, until rapture, until the proverbial fate of others mentioned on the call that have suffered bankruptcy in this very space. Now, I just want to go on a little bit of a tirade for a moment, if I can, and just suggest that we have been through this effin circus before with doing what is right by the planet. I think you could ask anybody, should we be using technology to forward our stewardship of the environment and taking care of emissions profiles and requiring stricter regulation and not allowing companies to just operate like it's the Wild West and Pursuit of Profit? I think anybody would tell you that it is in everyone's best interest as a bunch of human beings floating around on this rock that it is in our best interest to acknowledge the same. Now, there's a political angle to this as well, where it is absolutely 100 percent, 100 percent expected that it is put out there in a way to gain favor, because it is an emotionally charged topic when we talk about saving the planet, going green, the green initiative, and changing the way we perceive things, changing our perspective about how we live our lives, how we question everything up and down. And then there is a third piece to this whole thing that I think when we look to evaluate the criticism over the green initiative or the ESG movement or the reducing of carbon footprint, whatever you want to say about it, the bottom line, my friends, is that the economics are not there. Let me repeat again, the economics of the proposed is not there. And for the last three years, I would suggest that this BEV movement, the hydrogen fuel cell movement, and the liquefied natural gas movement, or excuse me, the natural gas movement, compressed natural gas, as well as the renewable natural gas movement, are and have continued to be stuck in the first inning. We have got a long, long way to go. One of the analysts said, well, what are we supposed to do? Wag this out to 2027. I think that's at minimum a fair assessment of where this movement, if ever, is going to gain traction. And 40,000 of incentive per vehicle is not going to cut it. The cost of components was eye-opening when Thomas Healy walked through the product portfolio and discussed that it was almost, if not a complete across-the-board increase in cost of components and some of those components based on the lack of demand over the more expensive components have subjected to astronomical increases in component cost input. The 40,000 of incentive, I presume, my friends, was wagged out there for political gain and nothing more. At the time, certainly much more of an interesting proposition when paired against a hyper-truck ERX that was expected to carry an MSRP starting at 250,000. And so a 40,000 incentive on top of that and the idea of meeting customer demands, which all that has gone out the window if Thomas Healy, in his assessment and discussion with the Class 8 space, is like to hell with it, just forces to do it because we're not going to do it. We have freight to move from day to day and I've had these discussions through the history of covering this company and it has come to fruition now that the Class 8 space has called BS and has identified that perhaps maybe there is less of a desire to go green on the economics and what it will actually take to see real implementation in the space as opposed to it just being a politically correct initiative to be put out there for the voting boxes and the pollsters out there that I would suggest that a lot of people, this is very, very high on their list of important items and I'm not meaning to discredit that. It's very, very important to me, not so much or insofar as affecting my vote or governing my political political allegiances. But to the extent that I would like to see these things happen and it has become very, very apparent to me after the conference call today of relief that we are shelving this project because it would have absolutely been a futile effort to continue on this path to commercialization when the rest of the industry has hit a pause. There was a question about some of the discussions that Thomas Healy may have had with industry with regard to the appetite for purchasing the electrification business or what type of appetite was perceived out there in the environment. I thought it was a well-framed question and Thomas Healy said, look, if all of the companies out there are kind of digging in and putting their haunches in and not pushing with a forward-leaning initiative in R&D or new acquisitions or even the space in general, then what would be the perceived appetite to take on a business like Healy on that has just done nothing but disappoint in the marketplace for all the wrong reasons? And we're going to get into that a little bit as I contend that this Healy on story is not over. Now, this is going to be met with bated breath from a lot of people who will come to me and say one way or the other based on the goings on over the last let's say 30 days that it is absolutely over and that there's no hope for this company. My emotions, my friends I share with you are real. If I was upset, I would tell you. If I was disappointed, I would tell you. If I was anything else, I would tell you. I am truly relieved after this quarterly call and the last eight quarterly calls going back for the last two years I have been irritated after every single one of them. What makes this one different? The stock has digressed. We just got a notification of delisting from the New York Stock Exchange and that is the short-term hurdle that this company has got to overcome. Will the stock reverse split? Perhaps. Nothing is off the table right now. They need to avoid that like the plague because with the current financial strength of Healy on it will at least go into the quality board markets in the OTC if it does delist and then to get back to its glory to the New York Stock Exchange. The stock will of course have to be above that $1 mark. I didn't hear anything on the call nor with my expertise on covering Healy on fundamentally that it deserves to be taken off of the New York Stock Exchange. Will it happen? I don't know. That is the short-term hurdle that we have. I will tell you that they've got now nine days to respond to a letter that was sent out yesterday. Healy on a Heizen avoided it. Nicola avoided it. Now Healy on is going to have to avoid it. I have come to a rationalization in my mind after that call that of which my emotion has allowed me to think clearly on awarding specific credit and specific scrutiny not holistically on Healy on or not in its entirety on Healy on. What I mean by that is the industry is not conducive right now to accepting new entry players to the space. Electrification struggling. We'll talk about that. Bev doubly struggling. Nicola and the hydrogen fuel cell movement struggling. They are struggling.  Look at us. We're doing awesome. Every single one of these companies have come down out of the stratosphere. If you want to somehow speak from a position of strength right now, you're crazy. None of these companies are operating out of a position of strength. I would contend that even with Nicola, with the perception of strength, whatever that means, with their high cost of production and looking to seemingly go full force into this new wave of electrification space in the Class 8 space, I think they're looking to endure the same fate as the others. Lordstown, some of the other EV companies that Thomas Healy addressed that have subjected themselves to bankruptcy, and then many others who are seeking financing in the open market and are just not earning that nod to continually be financed in a market that has changed so radically over the last three years. It is noninvestable at this point. And so I look at the move in a couple of different ways, and I think, yep, okay, disappointing certainly. I'm not telling you how to feel. I'm giving you my insights on how disappointed I was in the announcement. I have trimmed back my position in reflection of that. I thought that we were going to get a little bump, a little bit of recovery rally in the stock, that of which never followed through. And I just don't know where the stock goes from here. With regard to the prospects of the company going forward, what sets Healy on apart in a big, big way is their cast position and their technology. Okay. There was a couple of things mentioned on the call, and I just want you guys to imagine with me for a moment that they, based on what was said, embark upon this Carnot journey over the course of 2024. They advance the technology, work out the kinks, dare I suggest get a few initial units in the hands of would-be customers or pilot users, recognize a little revenue, Thomas Healy said a few million bucks. Nothing to shake a stick at. I'm not worried about revenue anymore. I'm not worried about a capital intensive business of pouring money into a hyper truck ERX, only to turn back a negative 10% margin. There was no color whatsoever on when we were going to break even on the ERX, and there was absolutely no color on when that product could actually be profitable. And I'm here to tell you guys, carte blanche, the bottom line is it was in inevitable failure. It was an inevitable failure. Why is that Ryan? Was the product problem with the hyper truck ERX? This is the relief piece that I talked to you guys about. This is the first time that a customer in one day admitted to driving a thousand miles with the hyper truck ERX. Thomas Healy reported on the call that the product was incredible. They were absolutely pleased with the results that they were turning out to the fleets that had taken delivery of the fleet trials that have been going on for many, many months. Zero technical issues with the hyper truck ERX. Now mind you, these are being put into the rigor of class eight. Everything I was able to glean from the call and correct me if I'm wrong, and you can correct me in the comments section below, is that everything was a positive with the product, except for the environment by which the product was supposed to be adopted in. Furthermore, back to my incentive piece, the MSRP being driven up from $250,000 to over $400,000 with the cost of components, the high interest rates making financing almost impossible now to justify entering into finance games right now fighting inflation, supply chain issues, and then the anemic incentive that was put out there that was supposed to be a supplement or even a potential incentive for fleets to introduce where it made sense electrification, BEV or hydrogen fuel cell into their routes. That is a drop in the bucket and it is no longer carries any type of merit in us justifying the higher cost of technology when the appetite to purchase these trucks is gone. It's no longer there. We are currently in an environment right now that is not conducive to accepting this product. What do you do? Put a strategic hold to the project, stop the cash burn, $40 million expected for capital expenditures throughout the entire year in 2024 to pivot and take this opportunity to nod, wink at the market that is absolutely horrible, focus on your proprietary technology that you have with the Carnot and look to push that out in a commercial sense. Now, here's the bullish case for highly on guys. Is it worth $0.50? Is it worth $0.01, $0.02, $3? You can speculate however you will. I've always looked at my share base as just that, a share position in stock. I own a lot of stock. I have a lot of money in stock. I have a lot of money in cash. I'm an investor, but my highly on share position I look at here at $0.55 and I look at it and I say, okay, is there value in the company? Interesting. Thomas Healy said a few things. The technology scales directly to the Carnot. Wonderful. The cloud-based technology absolutely lends itself to application in Carnot. The interface transitions to Carnot. The technicians that were working on the cloud now shift over and focus their efforts on Carnot. If they can do this for $40 million, fantastic. I'm all about it. Slow that cash burn and preserve that existing $300 million that they have in the bank, which absolutely sets them apart in the eyes of a market right now that are being picked off one by one at the expense of a market that cannot accept this product right now. We are in bad times, my friends. If you somehow feel like we're in candy land right now and that the animal spirits are alive and well, you need to wake up. I'm here to tell you there are two currently two global conflicts and there's probably a dozen other conflicts, tension conflicts going on globally right now in the world. We currently have a non-tangible asset that gets complete favor in the market, Bitcoin. We currently have a stock market that can't get out of its own way out of the last three years. It hasn't moved. Down 20% last year will probably be close to up 30% this year in technology. NASDAQ and we're currently sitting on a slightly up market and I think after this is all said and done and the presidential election comes due at the fall of next year, I think we will be looking at muted conditions at best in the market with a looming recession in 2024 that has not been taken off the table. I do believe we are dealing with a Fed that does not want to introduce the same problem that we were subjected to over the last decade and start quantitative easing right away. So what do we do when we look at an environment right now that really does not in any shape or form look like it's going to change on a dime next year? I was relieved. I was relieved after the call. I turned off the call and I could not believe my reaction. It was my absolute natural reaction and dare I suggest being presumptuous on my part that it was the right reaction. It was the right reaction. Could I have been angry? I was thinking over the last couple of weeks, should I call into this call? What would I say on this conference call if I had actually called in and asked my question? There was an undertone of anger from every single one of those analysts. One of the questions to Thomas Healy was a pointed one. How do we not repeat what we did with HyperTruck ERX in the Carnot? What is to suggest that what was being discussed just shortly four months ago, everything was on track. We were printing hats 2023 launch for the HyperTruck ERX. How do we avoid that type of hype train for a lack of better terms? And in reflection of how things transpired, Thomas Healy had two opportunities to really sum up the last three years and the radical shift in the environment. And there's going to be people out there say, Healy stole our money, we need lawsuits, yada, yada, yada. We need to sue Healy on. It was absolutely misguidance and it was absolutely lies and conjecture. I do leave some of the culpability with Healy on. I'm not going to let him off the hook all together. Do I think there's potential for litigation? I do. I do. I think Healy on needed to be significantly more careful with the information that was projected and how much speculation was put around how much handle they had on the appetite in the Class 8 space to adopt electrification. So early on in the game, I think that the window of opportunity to come to public markets lent itself to that type of activity, only to degrade over the last three years in excitement to the point where the excitement is gone. It is absolutely gone when we're talking about how things did evolve. That's where it stops and ends with me with Healy on. Now the rest of the environment has changed and it has changed significantly. We are still dealing with the ramifications of the global pandemic from the spring of 2020. We are still dealing with high inflation, albeit is rolling off a touch, but is going to take a significant amount of time more to adjust to and to permeate through supply chains and allow for a little bit more appetite to come back for pulling some of these technologies off of the shelf and really looking at them with a fresh lens and saying, look, we really need to push this electrification, whether it be BEV, electrification, alternative power sources, whatever it may be, we need to push it into the next century. And holding on to the past now with diesel application is 100% more attractive. Yes, we are polluting the atmosphere. Companies aren't going to change for the intention of going green. I said that three years ago. The ESG march cannot be its standalone initiative in allowing Healy on a red carpet that's rolled out in front of them to sell X number of units to the fleet on a consistent basis going forward, unless it is economically viable for them to do so, my friends. And after listening to that call, do you honestly believe that it is absolutely economically viable for these fleets to jump on the bandwagon of electrification? And mind you, if one does it, the rest of them will look to follow suit. They are all collectively looking at this and saying the best thing to do is to acknowledge the price, high cost of entry, to look at the risks associated with that and make a strategic business decision. I just venture to guess that it is night and day what it appeared to be three years ago. And perhaps maybe this is the best thing that could have happened is that Healy on was along their path to commercialization. They were working with Peter Bell to turn out orders on the line only to have the supply chain shut down right in the middle or after units were turned off of the line and now it gets shut down and new orders can't come to fruition. Where does that leave us now? I would expect that marked progress is made on the Carnot in 2024. You can call that speculative if you'd like. It's no problem. Your bullish conviction or your bearish conviction could be based around your assessment that the Carnot will be a thing or not. Whether or not Thomas Healy is accurately depicting the total addressable market that is available to him in the stationary power generating space. Whether or not the functionality of the Carnot is as advertised and we expect it to perform up to a rigor as demonstrated through public facing news releases and what we understand and have been explained many, many times over about the possibility that exists within Carnot. But 2024 is going to be significantly less stressful than 2023. 2023 was an absolutely horrible, transformational, pivotal and the year that we can look at as the introduction of the catalyst that changed the trajectory of the company forever. Down up, I don't do YouTube because I have to do this to put food on the table. I like doing this product. I really like talking about this company. There's a few other speculative companies that I look at and there's many, many more that I look at that I do not invest in. I think the prospects that surround the early innings of stepping into a new era with the technology that is available to us now for the sake of and the good of the planet to address what Carnot is going after now with the need to generate and produce electricity at a cheaper rate to power the move for especially short and medium-haul electric trucks. As that technology evolves, I expect the demand to increase, conversely increasing the demand for those power-generating units. I expect that this time next year we will have a much better idea of how far along they have come with Carnot technology. I would expect my friends not to hear anymore about the Hypertruck ERX at least for the next 12 months. I would say I hope I'm wrong, but I don't. If the strategic downshift or shelving of the Hypertruck ERX technology is worth it and the move was correct, then I want them to have at least 12 months of downtime on this project and I would push it out indefinitely to suggest that if Hylian is going to reopen the coffin that was put to sleep in October of 2023, it better be for the right reasons because once they open that again, I would expect that the inability to close it back again where provided in 2023 for a strategic revamp and redirection of the company was actually fairly seamlessly executed but the stock price as recessed as it was, imagine if they were turning out units every single month at the Hypertruck ERX and lo and behold, guys, it was performing the way that Thomas Healy suggested on the Q3 call that it was performing. The problem is not with the product. The product is fine. The product is quite frankly revolutionary in its ability to move goods from point A to point B. The damnable misery of it is the price needs to come down and or and or the government needs to step in and provide a better incentive package to offset a high cost of input for the new technology. It is the very latter that I would presume is the only reason and the only reason alone that could potentially break the log jam currently in the adoption of the electrified vehicle in the class 8 space in that the cost of acquisition is just way too high. It's not even in the ballpark. To throw out the numbers that we're throwing out and to expect somehow that the industry is going to choke down such a high cost of entry and engage with companies with a $40,000 drop in the bucket incentive, the risk-reward ratio isn't even close to being worth it. It's not even close. Now, if there was a $150,000 credit, if there was a $100,000 credit, if there was double the current incentive to $80,000, each of those tiers would potentially make it a little bit more palatable. But I think the first $200,000 credit is the only thing that could move the needle. Do I expect that to happen? No, I don't. Because in 2023, my friends, we have a problem in getting things done in this country. We have a very difficult time moving the status quo. Wherever your political affiliation lies, there is traction and movement on hot button items that I can't believe gain traction. Other things that make perfect effin sense like this go stagnant. Is it highly on fault that the supply chain issued tightened up and the high cost of build surplus tightened up to where the suite of parts and components that went into the hyper truck ERX are so astronomically off the board right now that they have been priced out of pursuing this as an end? Is it highly on this problem? Certainly schools of thought, myself, involved as well. The tweets have been very, very pointed, very, very scathing in that did they move too fast? Did they move too slow? Could they have done more? In retrospect, how it's played out over the last three years. I very much was relieved by the explanation that the last three years has been so transformative that did highly on to some certain degree meet their intended goal of having a fully commercially viable product. In other words, in a different environment and we didn't have inflation, imagine we don't have inflation and we don't have supply chain issues. And the highly on hyper truck, hyper truck ERX priced out in an MSRP of 340,000 would that would that have changed the game to take the incentive off and put an MSRP on it of 300,000? What about 300 to 250 or 250 to two, right? And now mind you, the cost of traditional diesel has also increased proportionate to everything out there because the price of components that go in each whether it be diesel or electric electric trucks or anything of that matter have astronomically increased. So building products is just more expensive now. That's just the time that we're in now. Whether or not we get relief from that in the near to medium term is anybody's guess. I would expect that this is going to be significantly more prolonged than just a solution that is going to work itself out in six months. I don't see that happening. That's why the feeling of relief that I got after the call was such to look at this and say preservation of capital is absolutely imperative with no end in sight and a perceived optic on the Class 8 market that would suggest that where there was an appetite three years ago, that appetite is gone. That appetite has shifted. That appetite has shifted to survivor mode for a lot of these Fortune 500 companies that the logistics space in the transport industry is critical to all things national security to all things with the movement of goods and contributing to life as we know it here in the United States. It is critical. They cannot stop to smell the roses to piecemeal and count the beans hard enough or strategically or assess enough gorilla mass over the application of an electrified powertrain solution when the solution itself is so far out of whack with reality that the only thing to do is to shelf the product as good as it was. From the very beginning, the advertised mileage that a HyperTruck ERX could reach is a thousand miles. It's always been one of those bullish features over the product, the long haul application, the comfort for the driver. All of that still exists. Would I sell all my shares tomorrow if I got some sort of word that the HyperTruck ERX had such a flaw in it that it doesn't work anymore? Sell my shares tomorrow.  That's not worth keeping these two product SKUs going. Now, after 2024 and we have an evolved Carnot, we have a potential interesting divergence of product SKUs, two different verticals from this company that could intersect at some point down the line. I want you to imagine with me and then we'll wrap it down after this video, after this little scenario here. We put the ERX on the shelf. The ERX is a groundbreaking revolutionary product that's too expensive right now to implement. Will costs come down into the future? Don't know. Will incentives be increased into the future? Don't know. That's not entirely on sand. They have the product. If the lobbyists and the pressure gets put on the hill and they come and they announce that they're releasing $150,000 credit to adopt electrification, this game changes overnight like that. Presumptuous on my part? Yes. Could that happen? I don't know. Sure it could. Could that be one of those catalysts that Hylion will be in the driver's seat no pun intended to respond to? Certainly depending on how long it would take to ramp up the proverbial hyper truck ERX machine and again to go back and re-solidify if nothing else still intact relationships with OEMs like Peter built to re-engage in this product and start taking new orders with the idea that could be financially viable to open up that. But here's the thing.  Perfect timing on the strategic shift. Give you some insight on why I'm relieved. Perfect timing. It buys them a year in 2024 to fine tune their carno technology to potentially, let's say we do a first look in 12 months to suggest, okay, hyper truck is better on the shelf. We're still in an f-ed up environment. The supply chains are still out of whack. No problem. We're burning $40 million a year. We're fine. We're not burning $140 million a year anymore. My friends, we're burning 40. I'm relieved. I'll continue to own my share position in Hylion. Whether or not the stock reverse splits to maintain its position on the niece, I don't know whether or not they can pull a rabbit out of their hat to get above that dollar amount is yet to be seen. I don't know. I don't see that happening. I am very, very gray with regard to the short, medium term performance of the stock. You got me there. If you came back and said, we're going to jump 300%, I would agree with you. If you were to tell me that the stock's going to 10 cents and going to incur a reverse stock split, I would agree with you just the same. That's how gray I am on the stock performance. Okay. I have and always have contended to separate that very futile effort to try to make any sense out of the stock movement whatsoever, whether it be at $58 or whether it be at 58 cents. That doesn't really pay a whole lot of bearing into my financial analysis of the company. No bearing whatsoever. The markets are going to value Hylion the way that markets value Hylion. Buying interest in this company and the anemic volumes that it sports day to day does not justify that there's any buying interest in the company at all. Hylion has to use this as an opportunity to take that strategic pause. Well founded, I might add, and use 2024 to drastically slow that cash burn to the tune of 70%. These are statistics that are being thrown out for the first time. The forces, the valuation to be drawn up on Hylion in a different manner to suggest that if they can trickle in a few million dollars and start to forecast on a potential interest in the stationary generating power business. Well, then that 40 million cash burn looks a whole hell of a lot different than $140 million for a product that did not have any positive margin promise at all unless it was coupled with volume component purchases. What is the cost to produce Carnot? What are the margins going to look like? What is the MSRP going to look like on Carnot? How many volumes would need to be moved to achieve that break even? How many units could they potentially be looking to sell? Will they kind of run the same order book mentality where they start to solicit interested parties to take ownership of the Carnot? Could they move or shift timelines to the left? Are they being very conservative with the first commercial deliveries in 2024? Probably, probably. I think they're giving it their best strategic shot. I think this was the best quarter by far reported by the CEO, Thomas Healy. Have I been one of the most pointed critics of how this thing is unfolded in the public forum? Yes, I have, but I will be fair. In business, it is significantly less about emotion, which is hard to control. I didn't know how I was going to react. I didn't know what type of product we were going to get. I didn't know if he was going to take questions and answers. I didn't know if he was going to explain why the decision was made the way it was, how much buy-in or how much influence the board of directors put over the decision. And my friends, it was driven by the board. Relieved. My perception that there is a rogue at the helm of Healy on marshaling this steaming train toward the proverbial cliff only to end some magnanimous explosion was put to ease at the end of this Q3 call. I was relieved. Attached two, three, four, five years to this project. The question has always been and will always be where is the company, if you invested in it today, going to be in 12 months? Where is it going to be in 24 months? And a lot of you guys are going to come back to me and you're going to say, Ryan, it's the same old song and dance. The last three years has been blah, blah, blah. I'm pissed. I'm out. I can't do this anymore. I am going to come back to you guys and I am going to give you some hard, hard facts where you expect to have instant gratification in this life from some of the other activities that you engage with, which for most of you guys takes about 20 minutes to complete, you're satisfied, and then you move on to the next activity. Investing is not like that. And my friends, three years is not enough time for you to make a determination as to the long-term prospects of a company that you cannot come up with any type of bearish thesis over the product outside of the fact that they can't sell the product right now because the marketplace is not conducive to accepting that product. All right. Highly on cannot sell the hyper truck YRX for $150,000. They can't do that. They cannot make it for that cheap. They can't make it like Nike makes their pair of shoes over in China and then ships it over here or in Vietnam or wherever. It's made here in the United States. And over the last 70 years here in the United States, we have shot ourselves in the foot with regard to our inability to produce things at cost and produce things in a cost on an economical fashion. And highly on is the latest victim of that amongst many, many others who are stymied from bringing what I would consider to be probably a pretty good product, but we're destined to failure from the very beginning because they are trying to play in an environment that is not economically viable for them to take receipt in that environment of said products. And highly on is going to shelf this incredible product selling the technology was not taken off the table. What happens if Karno becomes an economically viable product? Highly on got quite a decision to make, doesn't it? Yeah. If they can cover the cost of operations and quite frankly, I don't know how they're going to operate this business with $40 million a year. I don't know how they're going to do it to drastically reduce their operating expenditures to $10 million a quarter is beyond me. I have no idea. I'd love to see Thomas Healy take a reduction in a salary. He's not earning a million point one needs to take a reduction needs to cut the cost and salary cost and explain to people, look, we're going to have to hunker down in 2024 and turn this thing out. I don't know how they're going to do 10 million a quarter. I have no idea. That's what the man said. $40 million of OPEX in 2024. I don't know how they're going to do it. It is certainly easy to cover OPEX and CAPEX at $40 million that it is $140 million, especially when it seems like the path to profitability in the Karno is significantly more achievable based on the explanation that Thomas Healy gave and that instead of trying to invent a market through electrified powertrain solutions, they are stepping into a well-established business with a standalone unique and far superior product than what is currently available on the stationary power generating market. Guys, thank you so much for tuning into this reaction to the Q3. I will continue to put down, there's been a few questions come my way and a few nails put in the coffin with regard to my expected exit stage left on this project. It goes back to my three-year lesson for you guys and I hate to put my boot in your ass, but retail investors need to get tougher and we need to start thinking about things the way that institutions thinking about things. Is Thomas Healy pissing his pants and shitting himself all over to offload his shares right now? No, he's not. Are institutions pissing themselves to offload their shares? No, they're not. The only ones that are doing that based on an isolated reduction in the share price are retail investors. Retail investors. Ah, they're not going to go anywhere. You sell the shares now automatically or against the company. I've been very scathing of the company, but up until this Q3 quarter, I was relieved coming it out of it. And dare I suggest a glimmer of hope on where this thing could transpire and unfold over the coming couple of years here, I will be closely monitoring my current position. I will be closely monitoring an expected digression in the share price, a potential for avoiding the stock split, and a potential for delisting of the Hylian ticker symbol as we know it to either go back and fall back to the quality board markets. They don't have any debt. They've got a phenomenal horde of cash. I don't see any reason why these guys can't get the share price up above a dollar to avoid the delisting. If they can't do it, then they'll be delisted. And we will deal with that as appropriate, what a story it will make. As we look to unfold this story going into 2024, guys, thanks a lot. Leave your comments at the bottom. If you enjoy the content, subscribe to the channel. I appreciate you guys over the years following the story, evolving and trying to revolve around all the opportunity that does exist nowadays in emerging markets and speculative growth companies like this. I appreciate you guys. Thank you so much for tuning in to the totality of the video. Leave your comments at the bottom and I'll catch you in the next one.