Ladies and gentlemen the railroad hour and here comes the star-studded show train Tonight the Association of American Railroads presents the romantic Victor Herbert operetta naughty Marietta Starring Gordon McRae and his guest star Nadine Connors Our choir is on the direction of Norman Lubeau and the music is prepared and conducted by Carmen dragon Yes tonight another great musical success is brought to you by the American Railroads The same railroads that bring you most of the food you eat the clothes you wear the fuel you burn and all the other things you use in your daily life And now here is our star Gordon McRae Thank you, Marvin Miller and good evening ladies and gentlemen tonight in the title role of naughty Marietta You will hear the lovely metropolitan opera soprano Nadine Connors and I play the role of captain Dick Warrington Whose band of soldiers fought for country and for honor in New Orleans in the year 1780 The story of Marietta is the story of a girl a soldier of fortune and of an unfinished melody Listen to what I say Marietta and heed me well You will never find happiness until you find the man who can sing the other half of that melody you heard in your dream Oh, but where will I find a man who will complete the melody a ship of brides sails on the Marathon, New Orleans Forget that you're an Italian noblewoman go down to that ship and pay one of the girls to give you her place on the brideship Somewhere across the world You will find the man you speak But guard your identity Let no one know who you are. I will go. I'll do it So Marietta took her place on the brideship and sailed for New Orleans On the day the ship landed my men and I marched into town to see the governor and tell him that we had received orders from the king of France To capture a pirate who was terrifying the city Pirate named Bob Pete. We were in good spirits at the prospect of an adventure and we marched into town singing The world is dark with monsters and can talks with Indians and can talks Captain Dick's soul in fun free Captain Dick's soul in fun free Captain Dick's soul in fun free I dismissed my men so they could go down and have a look at the brideship As I turned to leave the square I heard someone singing I looked back and saw for the first time Marietta She had pushed herself on the edge of the fountain Though she had every right in the world to leave her just a minute young lady You're one of the girls from the brideship aren't you? Oh, I may be and then on the other hand I may not you have no business in the square You should be down on the ship letting some man choose you for a wife Are you coming down to the brideship me? I should say not I value my freedom too much Well, so do I that's why I'm here and not there. I have to run away. Oh, please help me help me I'm going to take you right to the governor and turn you over to him You had no right to take a place in the ship under false pretenses Mr..  I may be mature and then again, I'm enough What am I going to do with you? Look ahead there my friend. Good awful who runs the marionette here Good awful. Oh, no. It's good to see you back again. Well, well, well, good awful. How are things with you? Oh business is slow captain warrington thinks my son left me. I got to know singers How am I to draw crowds to my marionette to show without the singer? Tell him I am a singer. Oh, please. I beg of you. The old man's beard is below his knees. It's almost down to his ankles Well, I shall probably regret this the rest of my life Rudolph, oh this girl is a singer. Would you take care of her for a while as a favor to me? Would you sing sing your enough? Oh, yeah, I would be like to hear you. All right Can you please play the Italian feet song? Oh, of course we can play it. Oh, no momentum. I'll give you an intro to the one Who is your lovely new singer? Oh, she's my daughter senior etienne. You should not have kept her hidden for long She's very beautiful. Oh, good day captain warrington. Good day etienne You might advise your men captain the governor has just received a communication from the king of France Offering 10,000 francs for the return of Marietta can't be still Tina who disguised herself as a casket girl and ran away I'm going on the brideship now and look for her. Is that so? Rudolph, oh if you don't mind I should be calling on your lovely daughter later Rudolph will take the girl away before there's more trouble Goodbye Marietta Monsieur Monsieur just a moment. Yes, that's all. Where did you hear it? I heard you singing it just a little while ago Oh, sing it for me monsieur, please. I don't even know it. I oh please captain warrington It means everything is a word for me. Well, if it's that important. Oh, it is. I'll do my best Sorry Marietta. I haven't the least idea how to finish it I turned to the second act of naughty Marietta in just a moment but first Within the next few days a train will pull out of New York and start on a tour which will cover some 8,500 miles Involving carefully scheduled movements over many different railroads It will be a 12 car special carrying the eminent conductor Arturo Toscanini and the national broadcasting company Symphony Orchestra on a concert tour of 20 American cities While on tour my Astro Toscanini and his famed orchestra will be meeting a rigorous schedule They must arrive on time rested and prepared to play a strenuous program Rest clothing many bulky instruments and an extensive library must accompany the symphony orchestra and be ready for immediate use To meet these exacting travel requirements the orchestra naturally chose the safe dependable railroads Their special train will provide four living quarters for the 125 musicians librarian managers and others who will make the nation's spanning tour They will have a veritable hotel on wheels with comfortable sleeping accommodations rehearsal space lounge and dining cars This train is typical of many specials operated for organizations on tour or to conventions to public events and on excursions To almost anywhere people want to go But you don't have to charter a special train to get comfortable dependable transportation on the railroad For whether you travel alone or with your family and whether you take a short trip or across the continent There are swift modern passenger trains to serve you So when you plan your vacation trip this year plan to travel by train For in every phase of railroading continued investment is being made in new equipment new facilities All to the end that rail travel will continue to be the safest most comfortable most dependable form of transportation in the world And now here is the second act of naughty Marietta starring Gordon Macrae and his lovely guest Nadine Connor Yes, the story of Marietta is the story of a girl and of an unfinished melody I Kept telling myself the girl was no concern of mine Tried to convince myself that the only reason I kept going to see Rodolfo's marionette show was to be sure She wasn't being any trouble to Rodolfo But as time passed I found myself dreaming of Marietta more and more And at night I'd walk along the levee in the moonlight with the old New Orleans love song whispering in my ear Marietta had been with Rodolfo several weeks when the gayest event of the New Orleans social season took place The masquerade ball I wanted to take Marietta, but she had already promised to go with a team However at the ball I did have a dance with Very beautiful tonight Marietta. Thank you Captain Warren I was sure you had eyes for no one's beauty except must hear a team's beautiful slave girl Who told you that a team? What does it matter who told me? Well, you seem different tonight. What's wrong with you Captain Warrington? Perhaps the same thing that's wrong with you, Mademoiselle. Yes, perhaps It's true then you do like someone It's true Any man who wishes to buy sell or exchange his favorite slaves they take advantage of the court and view Is no one here brave enough? Well then I will open the stale with the most beautiful slave in New Orleans My friends I've been 500 francs for the most beautiful slave in New Orleans a thousand friends A thousand friends come that is better a thousand friends Two thousand is good for the ballada Captain Warrington if you bid again I shall never speak to you as long as I live I can't let agent sell it to that man I'm with twenty two hundred going Going three thousand Thanks, thousand francs sword to Captain Richard Warrington for three thousand francs Captain Richard Warrington who does not believe in slaves has purchased for himself the most beautiful girl in New Orleans You are to be complimented monsieur adi is indeed beautiful Monsieur etienne monsieur etienne is marietta You asked for my hand when you thought I was only marietta's the daughter of Rudolfo Now I confess to you that I am the contestant marietta daltana And I tell you that I will be happy to be your wife marietta. Remember, you've made me the happiest man in New Orleans Come we should be wed tonight. Whatever you wish, monsieur My master, I am not your master.  Oh, yes But how can I on etienne's right arm? You will find his name His name bra pic Bra pic the parrot bra pic Thank you, other you've repaid me a thousand times over Oh I didn't know you were here at the ball. I just came now when I heard what had happened marietta.  That's the only reason he bought her so he could give her a freedom He loves you. No No, he doesn't love me Rudolfo I used to hope that he would but I I have known for some time that it is quite hopeless I am going to marry etienne. Well, in any case you cannot marry etienne. He's already in jail In jail, what do you mean?  I must marry you But we're still told that when I found a man who could complete my song I would find happiness and fulfill my destiny Here will I say I'm lovely Gentlemen Lady and carnival we'll be back in just a moment and our thanks to the other members of our cast Jeanette Nolan and willard waterman for their fine performances tonight Naughty marietta with book and lyrics by reader johnson young and music by victor herbert Was dramatized for radio by gene holloway the railroad hour is brought to you each week at this time by the american railroads Remember that whenever you shift by rail your money is working in four different ways It pays for safe dependable transportation It helps ensure better and more economical service in the years ahead It promotes business for industry and jobs for people in all parts of the country And it means taxes that help pay for the education of your children and the general public welfare Yes for the country and for you It's good business to do business with the railroads and now here again is lovely nadine connor Our nadine is always a thrill singing duets with you Especially one as beautiful as our sweet mystery of life And we have another beautiful duet to look forward to week after next gordon the message of the violet Well, that's right. You'll be back with us again in the 24th to do the prince of pelton, won't you? So I hear and you're duetting with your next move gordon Well, nadine the little lady who made such a hit on broadway playing the leading role in brigadon a few seasons ago Miss marion bell and we're going to do madame sherry. Oh, and then that wonderful song every little movement So long nadine see you on the 24th Well, it looks is all ready to pull out and so until next week goodbye Hi Naughty marietta was presented by special arrangement with the tams whitmark music library Gordon mackray is currently starring in warner brothers technique on a musical hit the daughter of rosy old grady Our choir is under the direction of norman lube on and our music prepared and conducted by carmen dragon This is marvin miller saying goodbye until next week for the american railroad And I'll keep you to your monday night of music on nbc


This 10th year of Daily Tech News show is made possible by you the listeners Thanks to every single one of you including James C. Smith, Miranda Janell and Justin Zellers Coming up on DTNS Netflix begins its battle against password sharing and Samsung launches new flagship Galaxy S23 phones and some I'll say it smart looking laptops This is the Daily Tech news for Wednesday, February 1st 2023 in Los Angeles. I'm Tom Merritt in Salt Lake City. I'm Scott Johnson from Columbus, Ohio I'm Rob Dunwood and I'm the show's producer Roger chain. Oh My friends we have some stuff to talk about today. So let's get right into the quick hits Peacock will no longer offer its free ads free with ads tier to new subscribers That tier is the one that lets you watch a more limited selection, but still had lots of stuff in it Without having to pay new subscribers will only be able to pay You'll get either the 499 a month premium plan with ads or the 999 a month premium plus tier with no ads as a choice if you're signing up now the free tier However, we'll still be offered to current subscribers if they cancel or lose access after a complimentary Subscription expires. Let's say your cable company was giving you a year at the end You'd be able to keep going with the free one in other cord cutting news Apple launched its major league soccer season pass $15 a month $99 for the whole season on the Apple TV app gives you access to MLS matches Audi 2023 MLS Cup playoffs the leagues cup and a bunch of original content last summer Apple signed a 10-year deal for streaming rights to major league soccer with no blackouts Tuesday PayPal said it plans to lay off 2,000 employees around 7% of its workforce President and CEO Dan Shulman blamed a challenging macroeconomic Environment for the cuts but added the company has made progress focusing resources on core priorities in right-sizing its cost structure But it's not just PayPal or Google or Facebook or Microsoft the list goes on Intel announced its cutting management pay across the company with CEO Pat Gessinger taking a 25% cut to his base salary And the rest of Intel's leadership team salaries being cut by 15% senior manager will take a 10% reduction mid-level managers 5% reduction Making a big deal out of your manager pay cuts smart move Intel in this climate Rivian also had some layoffs today So in a rough market for chip makers AMD announced it beat analyst Expectations to a pulp in Q4 earning 69 cents a share on revenue up 16% of the year But really the point is AMD did well the growth didn't come from the client group That's the group that does the consumer CPUs the CPUs that show up in the stuff you buy Sales were down 51% in that group its graphics business revenue was not the source It fell 7% on the air with a fall in GPU sales That was somewhat offset by growth in its semi-custom chips used in game consoles its data center business They were selling chips to data centers up 42% its embedded chip business also Way outperformed it was starting from a small base, but up 1,868 percent on the air that is mostly due to sales from its xilinx acquisition, which is now being rolled into it In its q4 earnings snap reported it grew daily active users 3.3% from last quarter to 375 million just below analyst estimates It also reported it surpassed 2 million subscribers to a snapchat plus service The company narrowly missed analyst expectations on revenue of 1.3 billion virtually flat on the year While it beat estimates on earnings at 14 cents per share I keep thinking snaps just gonna fade away and it does not they keep they keep hanging on resilient Yes, I thought you said resilient for me Open I don't even know what that would mean. I don't know. Yeah open a I launched a pilot subscription called chat gpt Plus you may recall that earlier in january. They they were doing a private test of a 42 dollar a month pro subscription This is the result of that test. So it's not going to be called pro It's called chat gpt plus the free tier of chat gpt is not going away. They wanted to make sure everybody didn't freak out You're still going to be able to get there But if you pay you get access during peak times you get faster response time out of the thing Because your requests get put to the front of the queue and you get priority access to new features So new features of chat gpt will show up for you before they show up for the free tier open a I says It's looking into some lower cost plans business plans Data packs where you can just pay as you use it in addition to an api That's all in the works. But for now, it's the one plan chat gpt plus available for $20 a month in the us all right Let's talk Netflix the battle begins rob Yes, so netflix updated its help center outlining changes to its password sharing policy enforcement It will require users to connect to the wi-fi at a primary residence once every 31 days to make them trusted devices Users trying to sign in elsewhere from an untrusted device will be asked to create their own account Travelers can request a temporary code that will be used on other devices for up to seven days Users can transfer profiles to other accounts to migrate watch history and recommendations Yeah, so this is going to bring up a lot of questions. Uh, how are they telling if I left my house? Well your ip address mostly Uh, they're gonna know By that whether you're on your home network or not. They they say wi-fi, but if you're wired It's still going to work the same way. They're going to look at your device id's and say well, wait Do these device id's always login from an external, uh, ip address? Nah, that might might mean it's not in the household They're going to look at account activity to kind of be able to tell this seems like a different person And they're going to combine all that together to figure out. Okay Is this device at home or not now? Like you said rob You can request a temporary code if you're traveling But the nice thing about that 31 day check in you mentioned is that will put your Device on an approved list you'll be able to uh, if you log in once every 31 days on your ipad or on your On your windows laptop that device from then on will will for the next 31 days Will not be subject to that travel block So that that's good if you're just using something at home if you take it with you The seven-day thing is only like oh, I never use this. It's a corporate laptop or or it's a hotel Roku or something like that so theoretically Scott and I were talking about this on on tms this morning If you have a a son or daughter who's not living with you but using your netflix account and they live nearby They could just bring their laptop or a tablet over to your house log in and watch something Once every 31 days and be golden Yeah, I was I was thinking a little bit more about what that would mean for nick my son who does share an account and he's you know Upcoming poor and starving artist trying to save money where he can so I was like sure you can use our Our password and you need it. He's here once a week for laundry and food I may as well just say hey log in once and you're good And I don't know that may be a lot of people And maybe that's bad. Well bad for netflix that they're not covering that that particular outlier because Maybe there's more of those maybe there's more people like my son who are going to still get their free Access to the thing and all they got to do now is just make sure to log in once in a while Well, here's a question that I have because I have a child who lives with me but goes to school four or five states away So they don't come home every 31 days So does this mean now that because they can't come and log in and become a trusted device every month that they have to Get their own account and when I say they I mean me because I can On this person's life Yeah, yeah, hopefully they can work around that because this person still lives with me. They just go to school somewhere else Yeah, no, I I think you're going to run into that question quite a bit Where you where you have someone who's in that exact situation? You got thousands and thousands of people in that exact situation Those are the edge cases. I'm curious about amos Our technical producer lives in alaska and his wife is stationed in washington They travel back and forth. They're not always in the same state, but they are definitely the same household How are they supposed to keep their do they need two accounts one for the alaska house one for the washington house? Granted that one's probably a little less common than the one you're talking about rob But I think that's where we're going to see the headlines here Which is netflix estimates around 100 million accounts out there are being shared They know that if they block those most of them aren't going to pay It's not about that. It's about getting the one percent, you know, that's still a million accounts If they can get a very small percentage to pay Then they raise their their cost a lot of people are saying Well, I'm going to cancel and I know you who just said that to your podcast player Are telling the truth, but a lot of people who say that they don't they don't end up canceling They just go ahead and and take the easy way out. So and netflix knows that My question is how many of these kinds of edge cases or unique scenarios Is netflix going to push And then cause a backlash and then have to have to scale back What what are those things when it goes to scale they're going to discover Are bigger pain points than they expected the one thing I was thinking about earlier today after we spoke on the morning show was In cases like rob and I where we've got somebody in our family who is sharing the account And we're paying for it Maybe they just need to be more creative about what a family plan might look like And there are plenty of examples out there of family plans with Spotify, apple music other other sources of entertainment where you can save a little money spend a little extra money But save money on You know multiple people or whatever and I just think maybe a little more fluid that way and maybe that will follow this When they're presented with whatever the results are and they can make some of those adjustments for I think our common situation that we just both described But until then I think we're going to have to wait and see what the You know what the aftermath is of the change and they tested the ability to do a low-cost add-on for an out-of-house Old member and apparently that test did not prove useful because that it does not look like they're rolling that out As part of this what they are doing is saying hey if you are on the top tier Platform will keep you happy with new features Netflix announced spatial audio now available on more than 700 titles with plans to add it to popular new titles at launch The full spatial audio catalog is available on the premium tier. There's some available on standard and basic Uh, but all of it is available on the premium tier and they expanded The number of devices you can have downloads on from four to six Uh, I don't know how many people that really helps, but you know that that does loosen it up A little bit and each device can have up to 100 titles downloaded. So it's it's it's a it's plenty of room To download stuff. Uh, so yeah, maybe that will just keep you all happy as long as you're paying $20 Samsung galaxy unpacked happened this morning and uh, we got exactly what we expected A couple of laptops and a handful of phones Rob Dunwood, are you still a galaxy user? Oh, I am definitely still a galaxy user and tom. I actually did my due diligence I got up and I watched That one hour. I appreciate that they kept it to 59 minutes and 47 seconds. It was right on target It actually ended abruptly.  Uh, you know at the end of it, but um, Here's my my big take. Uh, these phones the, uh, you know, that's 23 line They all look beautiful. They all they all are probably going to be great phones But I just got the feel that unless you really just have to have a new camera like for me. I've got an s22 Um ultra I didn't see a compelling reason that I would upgrade because it was literally camera camera camera camera camera camera camera camera camera and a few new things that the the phone can do That seems to be the case with phones upgrades from everybody these days. Everything is incremental over the last version. So yeah you've got a little nicer screen, a little better brightness, a little better battery, and almost all of the major updates are in the camera. When you're looking at the Samsung Galaxy S23 Ultra, it's a 200 megapixel camera which you're never going to need. But the point of that is that it bins those pixels into 16 pixel bins and makes like a really good 12 megapixel image. There's optical image stabilization improvements. Interestingly, they dropped the resolution of the selfie cam from 40 megapixels to 12, I think pointing out that you don't really need more than 12 out of your selfie camera. But yeah it's a slightly less rounded design for easier grip on the S23 Ultra. You may or may not even notice that. The S23 and the S23 Plus are both exactly the same design. These are great phones. Don't get me wrong, but I agree with you Rob. They don't look materially different than the S22. I mean there is the whole thing of like what do you want out of your next phone? And the answer is almost always incremental. But the one place you do feel like Samsung and others show off the biggest jumps are in image processing, AI stuff and the camera itself. And so I feel like that is going to be the number one thing moving forward for at least the next 10 years on our handhelds. Sometimes it'll be cool innovations like scrolling displays or folding displays or whatever new cool tricks people have up their sleeves. Samsung certainly doing that with foldables these days. But at the end of the day, the thing you're using the most on your phone often is your camera and that's a place you can show real progress. And so I'm not surprised that that's happening here. It's happening with Apple. It's happening with everybody. And I still think that's a reasonable reason to upgrade. If you're a couple of years behind and you're like, yeah, I could use a new camera. I think this is just kind of where we're at. It feels like it's almost like with computers and desktops, it became how fast was your video card and how big is your screen? But for a long time, that wasn't really in the mix. It was all sorts of things. It was motherboards and CPUs and everything else. It's storage and all that's all that all kind of narrowed down to this interface thing of what am I looking at all the time? And what am I doing all the time? And that's usually video and it's usually display. And in a way, this is marrying that it just happens to be camera. Yeah, the camera, the camera improvements seem pretty impressive. And I got to say, you know, I was impressed by, you know, Ridley Scott made a movie. I think it was no, you know, no, no Kim Jong made a movie. Yeah. And it was really impressive what they can do when they take these 1000 to 1200 dollar phones and attach them to millions of dollars worth of production equipment, you know, the kind of movies that they can produce out of them. So that part was like, okay, you can really do some cool things making movies with these phones. But this is not just when you put it on a selfie stick and go do stuff. I was looking at literally ND filters that costs three to four times with the phone's cost. So you kind of have to take that, you know, with a grain of salt when you can absolutely make movies on these phones that are production quality that could be shown in theaters, but they're still an enormous amount of equipment and production that goes into that just like whoever color graded these things were wizards, I would love to, you know, to meet those people who did the color grades on these movies. Yeah, these are these are good phones.  And when you go to the store, the new ones have some new features that weren't around the last time you were there. But you don't need to get a new one every year. These are where we're moving into that commoditization where, you know, just just like with, with dishwashers and washers and dryers, you don't run out and buy the new one every year because it's got new features. But when you do need a new one, you'll look and see like, oh, there's some cool new features in these dishwashers now that I can take advantage of they run quieter. I got smart sensing, water efficiency, whatever, right? And I think we're at that point where Samsung's pitch seems to be more about come into the Samsung universe than it is that Galaxy S 23 itself, you know, is a phone you need to replace your S 22 with. I think that Samsung, even in the event, they kind of made some overtures to we know that everybody's not going to upgrade to just bought a phone in the last year, maybe two. So one of the things that I thought was quite refreshing was that a lot of the software features that you're going to see coming on these new devices, well, they're going to come to your old devices as well. That's not available today. But they did say that you're going to actually be able to get like one UI 5.1 relatively soon. So that for me means that well, if I can upgrade my existing 22 that is not even a year old yet, if I can just upgrade that with, you know, with software and maybe not get the finest of the camera refinance, but everything else kind of works the same. Then I don't really need to upgrade and you know, one thing that Samsung did is at the end of their presentation, they really talked a lot about sustainability and just making sure that they're using recycled, you know, you know, you know, glass or using recycled plastics. That's all good for the environment. What is also good for the environment is not buying a new phone every single year. Yeah. And, and honestly, I think what Samsung's doing there is saying, well, we'd we'd rather keep you on an old phone and happy with us, and maybe sell you a laptop or a tablet that works with it. So we want to push that software out to the old phone. So you might widen out into our universe, which leads us to the laptops. Just in case anybody's interested, the S23 Ultra starts at 1199.99. The S23 Plus, which is the 6.6 inch display, starts at 999. And the 6.1 inch S23 starts at 799. All of those are available to order now shipping February 17. Let's talk a little bit about these laptops, because I think this is their play to convince you to come into the wider Samsung universe. They talked a lot to the press about how these compared to MacBook Pros. So the Samsung Galaxy Book 3 Ultra 16 inch laptop 2880 by 1800 120 Hertz refresh rate screen 16 nits runs off of a core i7 or a core i9 h series Intel processor has Nvidia RTX 4050 or 4070 graphics. If those don't mean anything to you. These are these are good specs, maybe not the very best. These aren't like video game playing specs, but very good specs for a laptop. Lots of connectivity HDMI micro SD Thunderbolt for USB C 3.5 millimeter audio jack. But the thing they pushed the most was the capability. So Samsung has something called multi control, which means you can control multiple Samsung devices, your phone, your tablet from the laptop keyboard and the laptop trackpad or an attached mouse. Samsung second screen can use a galaxy tab as a second monitor. Quick share let you transfer your files between Samsung devices. You can share cut and paste you can you can move web tabs between the browsers on the various devices. Book 3 Ultra starts at $2,399.99, which is exactly $100 less than an entry level MacBook Pro 16 and is shipping February 17th. Rob, what do you think of this? Did this did they tempt you to widen out a little bit in that Samsung universe? Put potentially on the PC side, I have been for decades a Dell person, but I did raise my eyebrow because what I noticed and you may mention to this, they're really trying to get you into a Samsung ecosystem. So one of the things that made me say, oh, that's kind of cool was you have this new laptop, you have your Samsung S 23 your S 22. You set it down next to it and you can just automatically are now Wi Fi tethering to the phone. You don't have to actually manually go through the process. First world problem. I know that it saves you 12 seconds, but that was kind of cool. So it gave me that Apple feel to where when you're inside the walled garden, it's awesome in here, you know, with with Samsung devices, things like you get the spatial audio when you are listening with earbuds or the Galaxy Buds Pro 2. You know, those type of things, those all just gave me, you know, kind of feelings of like, this is how Apple would do this. So it was like when I saw the price, I was like, that's interesting, exactly $100 less than a comparable MacBook. So I didn't see anything wrong with these devices. I really would want to get them, benchmark them, put them through the paces and compare them clearly against, you know, Apple devices, but also compare them against other PCs as well. Now, if that $2,400 makes your eyes water, there is the Samsung Galaxy Book 3, which starts at $1,499 for the Pro and the Book 3 Pro 360, which starts at $1,899, both those ship in February 17. But those are 13th gen core processors, IrisX graphics, up to 32 gigabytes of DDR5 RAM, but that's not the entry level spec there. And decent looking screens, 2880 by 1800 as well, 120 Hertz AMOLED. But you know, those are steps down from the Ultra. Scott, did any of these lure you away from the MacBook universe? How did you think they compared? Well, I keep looking at Samsung for the potential of taking more care for creatives and doing the kind of stuff that would like drive software development on their platforms that would rival things like Procreate and various other kinds of apps. I'm speaking mostly of digital art here, but so every once in a while when something like this comes out, I'm like, okay, what are we doing over there? How are we doing with styluses? What's going on? Okay, well, Photoshop's an option, but how about the tablet? That's a little bit different and Android development for those kinds of apps is a little bit slow. Nothing here's jumping out at me, but I'm with Rob on the ecosystem play here. I really like that with my Mac ecosystem and iPhone and iPad. I like being able to have all those things working together, mirroring screens, moving information back and forth very quickly and easily. Having that be more of a grouping of devices rather than three very separate disparate devices. And this is a move in that direction and that's really interesting to me. And it's something I think even Microsoft suffers from not doing very well with their various devices. I'm always looking at them for the same thing. It's like, how are you doing over there for creatives? And they never quite get it, but these are nice.  I wouldn't mind a black notebook. I'd love that look. So they have me there. Nice job, Samsung. They're nice looking. They kind of look similar to all the laptops these days. They've all sort of converged on a style, but I don't mind that style. I like that style. Also, the world's biggest phone maker made a VR AR headset announcement, and it was an Apple. Samsung at the very end of this said they are working on extended reality wearable devices. So that's AR and VR. It will run on Google's version of Android for wearable displays. Qualcomm CEO was on stage talking about chipsets, and this is going to run on a Qualcomm chipset. They also said there's going to be partnerships with Meta and Microsoft. I'm guessing for software. So access to the VR worlds of those two companies. More to come there. They didn't really make any detailed announcement. I think they just wanted to get out there and say it before Apple did some time later this year. No details. That's a bummer, as you mentioned. I just wish we would have got a little something out of those guys. Because in some way Samsung's on the forefront of that. They did the thing with Oculus early on, and it was a little janky and weird, but that Oculus put your phone inside your headset thing was kind of cool, and it was new, and nobody else was really doing it, and everybody kind of followed suit after that, and we've tried a million things since, and it's come a long way. So it's nice to see them saying, hey, we haven't, you know, completely forgiven or forgotten all of that. We still have ideas. Yeah, I think it's good, but I'm with you, Tom. I think this was announced because they just want to be in front of Apple making the announcement. I think those plans are still real loose. It felt a little like first, you know, just want to be first in the comments. If you're having a bit of a time putting your vacation itinerary together these days, well, why haven't you tried chat GPT? The amateur traveler did. Here he explains. This is Chris Christensen from amateur traveler with another tech in travel minute. Some people are trying a new use for chat GPT in the travel space and that's itinerary planning. There's even a site you can go to called journeyai.com that will combine chat GPT's output with Google Maps, but you can do this yourself by just going to chat GPT and saying something like generate a 10-day itinerary for travel to Japan displayed as a table with one column being the place name and the second column being how many days to spend in that place and it will generate you a nice table of an itinerary. Now it wouldn't do it in this order. It doesn't seem to know how things are organized, but you could switch it around and it's an interesting place to start. I wouldn't use it and immediately book a ticket and go there. Certainly blogs and podcasts can help with that as well, but it might give you some ideas of some places that you weren't thinking about. This is Chris Christensen from amateur traveler. Thank you, Chris. Yeah. I just, what can't it do? I just had a thought that maybe that's not even Chris. That's an AI version of his voice that he wrote the text for in chat. He said write my next amateur traveler and the chat GPT wrote it about itself. Yep.  And I think, I don't know, man, now it's no longer, I now, I now no longer assume that these things are real. That's just in case someone surprises me and you say, oh, by the way, Chris was generated by an AI today and I'll be ready to hear that information and I'll lose my mind. I've been saying it for a couple months. The world changed November 30th. The world changed. Not wrong. You're not wrong. If either one of you are real, I don't even know anymore. I don't know. Yeah. All right.  Let's do it. There is an email address that went to feedback at dailytechnewshow.com. This is Rob, not our Rob that's here right now, but a different Rob also with two B's. He writes in and says, hi, Nikki and DTNS crew. I have heard you all talk about the haiku box many times. I have been using the Raspberry Pi with a $10 lapel mic and it runs outside and runs freely, or sorry, and run the freely available software from BirdNet Pi. I have a pretty good experience with this. It's not as clearly presented as a commercial product and everything is done through the web UI, but it works and is very good at a significantly lower cost. That is very cool. Thank you, Rob. We'll pass that along to Dr. Nikki as well. We'll have a link to the GitHub for the BirdNet Pi project as well in the show notes, dailytechnewshow.com, so for anybody that wants to check that out. Big thanks to you, Scott Johnson, for being with us. What you got going on these days? Oh, so many things. I'll just send you to the central hub for it all. It's at frogpants.com. Lots of stuff on podcasts. My board game is coming along. My new one, everything's going a little crazy over there. Do you want to follow any of it? Find a podcast that's to your liking or otherwise, just hang out. You can find it all at frogpants.com. I spend a large portion of my listening week with Rob Dunwood between the SMR podcast and the Tech John, and it is worth every second I spend on it. Rob, what's going on at those places this week? Well, you know what? Lamar Wilson worldwide, the world famous superstar that we all know. He actually listened to the last episode of the Tech John and sent me a nice tweet saying, man, you guys did it on this one. So yeah, go check out our latest episode of the Tech John. You saw it at thetechjwn.com and you can check out what I'm talking about over there. Yeah, you can pretend you're just hanging out with Rob and Terrence and Stephanie and me and Lamar because you know we're listening as well. Go do it, thetechjohn.com. Also, brand new bosses. We had a couple of days without anybody signing up for the Patreon. I was getting a little wordy, but Michael and Nicholas came to our rescue. Thank you, Michael. Thank you, Nicholas. Our most recent bosses and you are very welcome. Join the club. There's a few thousand other bosses in there to welcome you at patreon.com slash DTNS. Big thanks, Michael and Nicholas. Patrons, like Michael and Nicholas, stick around. I'm going to find out a little more about what's going on with Samsung and Android with Mr. Rob Dunwood here. We're going to have a longer conversation. You can catch the show live Monday through Friday at 4 p.m. Eastern 2100 UTC. Find out more at dailytechnewshow.com slash live back tomorrow with Justin Robert Young. Talk to you then. This show is part of the Frogpants Network. Get more at frogpants.com. Diamond Club hopes you have enjoyed this program.


To a degree, yes. Tell that to the poor mice that are being churned up when the carrots are harvested. Yeah, you've already made this hug. I think it's a false equivalence to drawing. I disagree. I think I've got you. You think you've got me? You know what? You always made me think that. I think you're overusing that word torture for effect. I guess it goes back to why is that bad? If we're okay with it. Why is suffering bad? You've told me you're against torture. Yeah, I am. So how much torture is that? Lovely to meet you. Nice to meet you too. What's your name? Dean. Dean, good to meet you, Dean. I guess, Joel, I would never argue with you in terms of nutrition or in terms of sustainability. Okay. Maybe even ethics. Are you not vegan? I'm not vegan. Okay, okay, cool. Do you want to sit down and talk to me? Yeah. Come on then. So you're not a vegan? I'm not a vegan. I'm a meat and dairy. You read the sign? Yes, I did the sign. So if you're not vegan you support animal abuse? Yeah. Do you agree or disagree with the sign? Yeah. Yeah, I guess I agree with the sign. I probably do support animal abuse, don't I? Yeah. Again, I wouldn't argue that point with you. I guess the question I've always wanted to ask you is, what would you say to someone like me who's just, at the end of the day, I'm just cool with killing an animal for food. I'm just down with that as a concept. You just don't have a problem. I'm just okay with it, yeah, yeah. So you personally don't have a moral issue with it. So your subjective morality, so let's say my morality, my morality, I have a problem with it. Your morality, you don't have a problem with it. Correct. Okay. I would say, let's unpack that because I want to see if you're consistent. That would be my answer to that.  Okay, that's probably extreme example. We wouldn't be able to have a civil society if we went around doing stuff like that, right? Yeah, but all I'm saying is that's my subjective, you know, it might be insane. You might think it's insane. You might think it's inconsistent and crazy, but that's my morality.   I guess with your, it's not straw man, I guess, but your extreme example is, we just wouldn't be able to have a society like that. If you went around killing people in pink shirts, there wouldn't be a society of people. I get what you're saying. We wouldn't be able to cooperate.  Correct, yeah. Okay, okay, saving that. So you just look at human beings as one group and every other species is another group. So it only matters if human beings are functioning. Not only, no, it's not black and white like that, but I'm not religious either, right?  I'm just saying we shouldn't be going around killing humans because you and I can both agree on that, right? Of course, of course I'm consistent.   All of them? Essentially, yeah. Okay, so anyone, so basically, if they're not human? Yeah. So let's categorize this as a human, you know like a human species? Yes. So anyone outside the human species is okay to kill and eat? Yeah, I would say so, yeah. Okay, okay. So an elephant? No problem? In theory, okay. But in practice, in my subjective morality, in theory, yes. In practice, no. Because an elephant is a certain type of species, it might be threatened, it might, the meat's not very good, it might not be efficient. Oh yeah, I only care about the, I don't care about the pragmatic point and the practical point, I care more about principally. So let's talk about principle because we could make practical work with elephants, actually. We could breed them and, you know. Yeah, so, okay. So if the practicals bore out, in principle, in principle, yeah, okay. So what about gorillas? Yeah. Same thing, yeah. Yeah, so principally, you wouldn't have a problem with me shooting a gorilla in the head and eating them? In principle, no, I wouldn't. Okay, so in reality, we're in reality. There's a gorilla there, just chilling. They've got a couple of kids with them. I shoot them in the face, shoot their kids in the face, start cutting them open and eating them.  Do you know what, if you ate it, yeah. That's cool. Because you said you killed it, you could have been an etiquette. Yeah. Right, so you're taking on protein and you've had a meal in theory, yeah. Okay, interesting. So it's okay if I eat them and they're not human? Yeah. Okay, okay, that's cool. I think we just fundamentally disagree, don't we? I'm really, no, no, no, let's unpack it. This is really interesting what you're proposing right now because I really want to get to the bottom of this and this is a really interesting line of discussion, actually. You might not think it is, and we might just say, well, we just disagree, but we can really get into the depths of this. What if I torture the animals first? No, I'm not into the suffering. I'm not in it for the suffering. I don't like torturing. Let me ask you a question. Say there was zero suffering. We found a way to eat pork or chicken or whatever and there was zero suffering and it was somehow measurable and there was no suffering.  Yeah. So we don't really need to talk about suffering, do you know what I mean? Because even if we eradicated it, you would still be vegan. No, we do need to talk about suffering because you know my position, basically. Yeah, yeah, yeah. And I want to find out your position because I want to know why you have a problem with me torturing a cow before I kill them if you don't have a problem with us eating the cow. Because it's unnecessary. I don't want you to torture a cow. No one wants that. So do you have a problem with being unnecessarily cruel to an animal? Correct, yeah, yeah. Okay. So then define necessary, I guess, yeah. So and killing him to eating is necessary? In my view, yeah. It's okay. I'm cool with it. Is it necessary? Is anything necessary? I mean... Yeah, that's a bit, it's a weird thing though because this phone wasn't necessary. We don't need electricity, yeah. Yeah, yeah. Okay, is it justified? Yeah. It's justified too. If you're eating it, yeah. I would argue that it's not just unnecessary, it's cruel and unnecessary. That would be two different things. You know, those two things together, cruel and needless. Right, right. Yeah, needless. Necessary is a weird word and I get what you're saying, actually. So you're against me torturing a cow because it's... 100%, yeah. Why do you care about the cow? It's a sentient being that has feelings. Yeah, I get that. And why are sentient beings important? Like, you're sentient, I'm... Because that's everything, isn't it? Sentience is everything. That's what you feel, yeah. Yeah, that's what you feel and what you... What you perceive, yeah. Under this umbrella of sentience, it's like, you know, you're experiencing the world as well. Yeah. So that, and you're a subject as well. Yeah.  Thinking about me, perceiving, judging, wanting desires, you're feeling if it's cold or hot and you're hungry is cold. Okay.  No, because that's going back to humans, isn't it?  Because you'd be worried about leaving your house, everyone could be like Mad Max, everyone could kill everyone. And what if that... There'd be no society. So even though a cow experience is very similar to us, you don't think killing a cow just like that is wrong because it takes away their sentience. You don't think it's wrong. I would have a problem with just like that. I would kill it for food. Yeah. So as long as you eat them. Yeah. But with human beings, you've got a problem because it would ruin society to do that. Listen, Joe, I think you and I can agree that we, you and I agree that we don't go around killing people. Wait a second. No, no, we can do this through the human lens. What if we take some humans, remove them from society.  Because that's what you're saying. So we keep society fully functioning. We take these human beings and they're just like me and you fully functioning and we breed them in a factory farm like we do with animals. You're against suffering. You're against suffering. Let's take the suffering. They're not suffering, but they're existing. And we are doing it for the purpose of food.  It's a really weird hypothetical, that one, isn't it? No, because what I'm doing is I'm narrowing out your, like you have a few requirements in order to be okay with eating animals and it was, we can't go around killing other people because it ruins society. Right, so you've constructed a way where it won't ruin society. To see if you're consistent. Yeah, yeah. If society really is the justification, that's all. Okay, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. I've not heard that argument before and I guess I'd still be against it because just because they're still human at the end of the day and you have constructed an artificial way of removing them from society. Yeah, I'm saying if I were to do that, would you be... If you hadn't have done that. Do you know what I mean? You've made it sort of... I've created a hypothetical in order to see if your moral system is consistent. And right now I don't think it is. You don't think it is. Because you're still saying... I would still say don't kill them, yeah. I've removed your requirements. Yeah, yeah, yeah. We've created a scenario... I guess because you've done it, you've done it artificially, that they were people that were in society, right? No, no, no. We've taken two people from society, we've bred some babies, we've removed them and now we've got this fully... It's like essentially farming people. I get what you're driving at. Is it wrong to kill them? Yeah, I'd say yes. Okay, now we've... I think it's a weird hypothetical, though, Joey. Because you've got weird... Because you've got specific requirements for your moral system, I've had to isolate them out to create this type of people. So this is how I'm finding if your moral system is consistent or if it contradicts itself. So now, you're saying no, it's not okay to kill them, even though we've removed them from society, we've still got laws protecting people within society. It's wrong to kill them, even though they don't get cause-suffering, it's just wrong to rob them of their sentence, to murder them. Because they want to live, essentially. Is that why? Why is it wrong? It's wrong to kill people, I think we can agree that. Well, I need to know why it's wrong. You need to tell me, is there something about people? My argument is, there's a societal argument right there. Removed? Removed. But I think it still holds because you wouldn't say, ever, it's right to kill people. So we agree. No, no, no, I'm trying to find out why you think it's wrong to kill a person and not to kill an animal. Yeah. Because you're saying because we're human, but that just tells me something about DNA and about our species.  You're just saying it's because we belong to this species. You're not saying it's because we value our existence and to rob someone's existence is wrong. A religious person will tell you that human life has intrinsic value. Oh, well, I would say that, too. I'd say that, too, as well. I'm not religious. Yeah, I'm not religious. But to me, that and the societal thing is enough to just say that we can't kill people. So why don't you...  What's the word? You're creating these very, very weird and complex hypotheticals to make a point. It's very simple. Yeah, so... It's very simple. It's just removing your requirements. It makes your pet weaker, in a way, because you're constructing these. You're having to construct these. I'm taking someone out and breeding them and then killing them, is that all right? Well, no, it's all it is, is a consistency test. Right.  You've said, I don't think it's bad to kill an animal because they're all different species. So I'm like, OK, so species in my head. What if we... And then you said, well, OK, can we come up and kill a human if it was for food? So you said, no, because it would ruin society. So I removed society. I've still kept. We're killing them humanely. We're doing it for food. We've removed them from society. So what I'm doing is this is for a very simple... No, yeah, I'm kind of with you. In a philosophical debate, you have to be able to entertain... In a sense, OK, maybe I will. But see, now we've come down to what... The reason that was so important is because we've realised that it's not the society thing. It's not because we're going to eat them. There's something intrinsic about humans.  Yeah, but I do think that. But I think that's quite hard. We need to know what that is. Yeah, it's quite hard to articulate and quite hard to prove. Not for me. Well, it's weird that we're arguing this point that we agree.  No, no, just because we can't articulate it. We're trying to find out what you feel is important about people and see... Maybe I don't know, or maybe you're probably more far out than me. I know, yeah, yeah, yeah. And I think the thing that makes a human's experience important and valuable and that we shouldn't rob that from them is the same thing that makes an animal's experience important and that is its sentience. And that is that their experience... Yeah, I've got to admit you are consistent. I 100% agree with you on that. Let me just tell you why I'm taking you down this road. We share common things with animals. And it's the things that matter that I'm worried about. Totally, yeah. I'm concerned about the fact that a cow, they're human beings that... Like a child, right? Small child, younger. Let's just say three. They're about the intellect of a cow. Four, you know?  We do it to cows all the time. They're like little children in their minds. Like pigs have got the... I think that they've got like the intelligence of a three-year-old child. You can't really compare us because we're different, but they're about, you know? There's someone in there that we're taking away their existence. Like I think that people should have a right to their sentience and no one should be able to dictate who robs their sentience from them. Like in the farm scenario, the human farm scenario I created, once they exist, they should have rights protecting their existence from them. You know what I mean? Yeah. And once an animal exists, we shouldn't be able to just decide that we want to kill them for a sandwich. I think it's a false equivalence, Joey. I really do. I think there's enough of a difference to justify killing the animal. What is that difference? I would ask. It goes back to, I'm just cool with it. I'm down with killing a cow for food. You haven't shown me what that difference is to justify it. You're right.   No, that would be a psychopath. It's weird that we... Well, that's your justification for killing a cow. I don't want to argue this because we agree. No, we're not.  No, but let's just say I did. And my justification was because I'm just cool with it. Oh, you get locked up. In a world where it's a hypothetical. So you think it's crazy, don't you? But so what should I think you're crazy for saying it's just cool to kill a cow? That's your justification? Maybe, yeah, maybe. Because think about the cow. The cow doesn't want to be killed. Cow doesn't want to be killed? No. One doesn't get it. Yeah. I don't agree with the equivalence. I think it's a false equivalence you're drawing. I disagree. I think I've got you. You think you've got me? I don't think... You always make me think. I don't think you can justify it. That's what I think it is. Definitely. OK, let me ask you a question. OK. No, no, you can go.  OK. So you're saying how do I justify killing a cow for food? Yeah, because I think you shouldn't even care about the cow being tortured if you don't care about killing them. No, 100% care about it. I don't want the cow tortured. Because... I don't want the cow... Yeah, I know, but... I'm not in it for the suffering. So you care about the individual that's experiencing the torture. That's my point. It's... It's... There's no reason to torture a cow. Yeah, but I'm just...  I think it's OK. There's no justification. There's no justification. You can live healthily as a vegan, yeah. There's no justified reason to do it. You might have a reason to do it. OK, let's bring it back to what the questioner was going to ask you. And how do you justify...  You could go and... You could grow all your own carrots in your back garden and be really careful about picking them and stuff. But you don't. You go to Sainsbury's and buy them, and all the mice and hairs that churned up when they're harvested, right?  It's just too much of a hassle for you. It's too inconvenient. I would argue that asking people to grow their own food would cause, like, mass starvation and a huge human tragedy. Well, tell that to all the mice and hairs that have been churned up when the carrots are harvested. OK, what are you saying? OK, what are you saying? And I can justify it if you'd like me to.  There has to be a civilization. There has to be an amount of harm that's going to happen. Yep. OK? So my moral system is something called, like, threshold deontology. Yeah. So you and I, like, right matter, like our rights matter, animal rights matter, up to a certain threshold. Yeah. If you say to me, like, everyone should just grow their own carrots. Right? I don't have the facilities to grow my own carrots.  Right? And this has happened before and certain civilizations are like, I think it's Russia. Where was it? Is it China? Were there people who had to grow their own food? Yeah, everyone starved. Yeah. Yeah. So that's huge amounts of human suffering. Wow. Right? So when you talk about growing, cultivating crops, it's the reason we have civilization, actually. Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. So before we cultivated crops, there was no civilization. Yeah. So you're saying, like, we should remove crop farming because I know that animals die in crops.  You mentioned a threshold, right? So your threshold's here. My threshold's here. No, no, no. You don't meet the threshold.  Both of us don't like bullfighting. Right? Yeah, but you don't cause bullfighting. But I eat meat, but you don't eat... Yeah, but you're saying... All you're saying is it's a continuum and you're here and I'm here. You don't even meet no way near the threshold, like... No, there's a continuum. There's crop deaths and then there's... what happens to animals in the meat and dairy and egg industry. That's nowhere near the threshold. That's not even meeting me close. No, no. Sorry, what I'm saying is there's a continuum of where we are. Yeah, and you're on the opposite end of you. You're not meeting me. Okay, but you could be... You could be less. You could do less harm. Yeah, but I don't think... You could do less harm. I'm not convinced that it would do less harm. You say, how do you justify killing the cow, Dean? I said, Joey, well, how do you justify buying carrots and Sainsbury's? I can justify. I'm trying to. I'm trying to justify... You're just saying it's slightly better. No, it's not slightly better. It's incredibly amount... It's magnitude. Tell that to the poor mice that are being churned up when the carrots are harvested. Yeah, you've already made this argument. Let me just dissect this for you and let me finish so that you get a good grasp of this. So, crop deaths, yeah? Yeah, yeah.  Yeah, yeah. A lot more than human beings? Yeah, yeah.  There'd be less... There's gonna be way less. I'm with you, I'm with you. Okay? So already about eating animals you're causing... Correct.   Yeah, crop deaths if I went vegan. Magnitude's less. Yeah. So 83% of the farmland on Earth that was the Joseph Poor study at Oxford University showed that 83% of the farmland is used for animal agriculture. Yeah. I mean dairy. And that includes animals grazing and crops being fed to them. Right, they harvest grass. They harvest... Listen, I think you're preaching to the converted here. Okay. I will concede that there'll be substantially less crop deaths. And not just crop deaths. So there's between... If I went vegan, right? Right. And there's not just crop deaths. There's something like 80 billion chickens that are slaughtered every year. Yeah. There's between one and three trillion marine animals that are slaughtered every year. Mm-hmm. 50% of the marine animals are farmed fish. They're fed fish too. Mm-hmm. Right? So 50% of the fish people eat are farmed fish. They're fed plants as well so that's more crop deaths. So then... And then you've got all the cows and the pigs and then you've got the pigs and the chickens in factory farms so they're incredible amounts of suffering which you're against. Mm-hmm. All the torture that happens in a massified torture, you told me. Most of the animals that you eat are tortured, guaranteed, or the hens, pigs that are gassed. So you're not just talking about crop deaths. You're talking about a huge mass murder of trillions of animals every year on top of the crop deaths, right? Yeah. And what I'm saying is people should eat plants and then you go how do the mice feel about that? Right? So what happens in a crop? A harvester comes, churns up the crop. Most of the mice run away. This has been studied. That is a... Yeah. Insects. Because it's been sort of... Yeah. You're not really actually showing that there's any more death being created. I don't need to show that, though. No. Yeah, you do. No, you asked me how do I justify killing a cow? Yeah. And I say, I can't really. I'm just cool with it. And how do I... And then I said how do you, the same way that you justify killing when you buy carrots from Sainsbury's? Yeah. But you're responsible for only a scale, isn't it, Jack? No, no, no, no, no. There's nowhere in it. Because I would say that getting rid of plant agriculture would be the end of civilization.  So that's enough. I would never advocate for that in terms of veganism. Right. So that's what I'm talking about. You're saying it would cause... I could cause even less harm. I would argue that getting rid of plant agriculture would cause even more harm. Yeah. Yeah. So, yeah, of course I'm going to justify it because we can't have a functioning civilization without crop farm. Right. So that's why it's justified. Right. Walk around, not step on our ant. That's not what veganism is as far as it's possible and practicable. You know? It's not like cause no harm no matter what.  And there's always justifications for what we do. I don't think slaughterhouses are justified. I guess it's the word practical, isn't it? Practicable. Practicable, sorry. Yeah, sorry. Able to be practiced. Yeah. We just draw the line at different points. Yeah? We agree on... You're drawing the line of mass murder of billions of animals on top of the crop desert harm civilization causes. Yeah. I'm drawing the line at civilization. Yeah. Being able to function. Yeah, yeah, yeah. Yeah, it's a tough one.  Do you know that? Human beings. In accidents. Tractor accidents. Do you drive a car? I do. I drive a car. That's fine. Functioning civilization. Hard to operate without one. Some people don't drive cars. Yeah. I think without transport there's a sort of trade-off we make. Yeah, yeah.  Yeah, loads, yeah, loads.  No. Do you think it's justified to drive a car? Yes. What about the person who dies in a car accident? You're driving at high speeds? We're back to killing humans. Exactly. But we agree that that's bad. But you drive a car even though transport kills thousands and thousands of people every year. Yeah.  What I'm saying is, yes, plant farming kills every year. Yeah. So does transport. But I think those two things are justified for a functioning civilization. Right, I see what you're saying. Chucking these people in a slaughterhouse to murder them for burgers, I don't think it's justified. Chucking those animals, masquerading them and chucking them in slaughterhouses on top of the harm we cause. I don't think it's justified. So that's my threshold. Right, right, right. I personally still think it's just a continuum. Do you think I justified it? It's a continuum. Do you think I justified it? Yeah. Probably do, yeah. Yeah. But I can't get it out of my head, Joey, that I'm just OK with it. Do you know what I mean? I think you're OK with... I don't know if you're OK with it. I really don't know until I have an animal here that desperately doesn't want to die. Yeah.  Yeah. Or if like a cow nuzzles you and says I don't want to like they're your friend. I don't know if you have that type of callousness in your heart. Yeah. I think you might be so detached from this that you can say that. But... You're right.  I don't feel bad about outsourcing it to someone less squeamish. So just because you're squeamish, you could be squeamish by bananas. Yeah. It doesn't mean that bananas are immoral. Yeah, yeah, yeah. But bananas aren't sentient or conscious like animals. So I would still... I would say to you that most of the animal products you're eating now torture happens. Hmm. And there's standard practice that is mutilations and torture. The most humane way to kill pigs in the UK is a gas chamber which causes an immense suffering in the atmosphere. Is it hydrogen they put in? CO2. So fizzy gas. So it burns you.  That's not what happens in what you're eating. Yeah. So you're going back to suffering now. I mean, I don't think we need to talk about suffering because you say we eradicated it. You'd still be vegan. No, we do need to talk about the torture and the suffering of most of the animal products you eat. I'm not in it for the suffering. I would pay more if there was one chicken there and one chicken there and this one that was zero suffering and this one was hundred suffering I would pay more I'd pay double triple for the But you agree that the animal products you buy suffering happens to them? Yeah. The immense amounts of unjustified suffering so wouldn't you? Well, unjustified, yeah. Do you think suffering is justified for a seven?  So I'm not in it for the suffering. I don't want there to be suffering. Yeah, I understand you're not in it, but you know a direct result of consuming animal products you're causing a bunch of stuff that you're against. Yeah, yeah. So why are you still doing that?  No, no, you said it's okay to kill them. You didn't say it's okay to torture them. Not unnecessarily, no, it's not okay. So we're unnecessarily torturing animals for food to torture them.  No, no, bro, there's immense amounts of suffering in farming in the UK. Yeah. You can't avoid it. What industry what animal products do you eat? If you were out here, all of them, mate, yeah, all of them. There's suffering in all of them. If you were out here protesting cruelty, I'm going to support you anyway, I will support you. I am protesting cruelty as well as exploitation and killing. Right, I support that. Yeah, but you don't because you're you support, yeah, you support I would support your protest against cruelty. This sign here says when you're not vegan, you support animal abuse. Yeah, I kind of agree with that. You definitely do. I have to agree with that. Yeah. So how are you comfortable with supporting the torture that goes on in animal agriculture? I'm not massively comfortable with it. No. So do you think it's justified what you're doing? Yeah. But you're against torture, so how is it justified? I'm against torture, yeah. So by your own standards you should be, it should be unjustified what you're doing because you're against torture. But you're doing it. Listen, I'm against just someone sitting there and torturing a cow, yeah. No, well, let's just say they torture them. No, what they're doing is they're often mutilating them to dehorn them. Yeah. Yeah, so they dehorn them. Yeah. They take their calves away from them which causes them trauma. Yeah. They get mastitis and lameness in the dairy industry which is a form of torture. Yeah. In the pork industry 90% of the pigs are factory farm. They're in farrowing crates giving their piglets and they go crazy in there. The piglets are getting in their head smashed on the ground. Teeth clipped down, tail snipped off. Gas chambered, that's torture. In the egg industry, so in the egg industry they macerate the males, obviously. Yeah. They de-beak the animals. So if there was none of that stuff, Joe, if there was none of that. There is. If there wasn't you'd still be vegan. If we found a way, We're not talking about me. If we found a way tomorrow to just, there was a way to kill a pig without, with zero suffering and we could prove it, yeah?  You would still be vegan. Of course. But that doesn't exist but you still support it. I'm against it. If you want me to donate, I don't want any money. I'm against, I'm against. It's like, it's like, if you're campaigning for better conditions in slaughterhouses I'll support that.  So you're donating your money. So you would donate to stop the torture. I would support, I would support a campaign against, a campaign for better conditions in slaughterhouses. All the money that you you pay for animal products goes towards supporting torture for the animals. So even if we don't agree that it's wrong to kill an animal, even though I think that, I think that we got to the bottom of that already, the torture itself that happens right through animal agriculture. It's right. Like, you pick the industry. Yeah, but you're making this point when it's kind of moot because it's not really, if we eradicate it, you'll still be vegan. It's not about me. I'm talking about you now. I'm talking about you. If I could eradicate it like that, I would. No, why don't you eradicate your support for it? It goes back to my fundamental belief that I think it's okay. It's got nothing to do with your fundamental belief because this is about torture. You don't think torture's okay. You said that from the start. You said killing's okay. No, but you're using this word torture. Yeah, I'm saying it's torture. When I go and buy some bacon from the shop, right, that pig has been killed. Yeah. They've been tortured then killed. Well. More often than not, they're tortured while they're killed. Yeah. Because of gas chambers. So what I'm trying to say is you're isolating killing from torture, but they're both intrinsic parts of animal agriculture. I'm against any unnecessary suffering. You cause unnecessary suffering by consuming animal products in the UK. Yeah. And egregious amounts of it. Yeah, but you're saying unnecessary in what sense? Well, what did you mean by unnecessary? So for me to get the animal products that I want on my plate, that's necessary.  To a degree, yes. I'm okay for the animal to be killed. No, no, no. That's not what we're talking about. I've got your position on killing. I know your position on killing. Yeah, but you're saying if you can't kill it without torture. No, in the UK, if you're buying animal products, there's almost a hundred percent certainty they have been tortured in some way. Yeah. And I'm asking you... I think it's a bit... of a stretch to use the word torture. I think there's a process that they go through. What animal don't you think is tortured?  They shouldn't have been confined in anyway. We shouldn't be breeding them to eat them anyway. So we cause the problem that we're trying to solve by torturing them. Well... We cause the problem and we torture them to solve it? Yeah. I mean... Come on. I'm against that. I would want to reduce that. Were you paid for it? I would support reducing that. No, you support... You donate more money into torturing animals than you do to helping them. Right. Yeah.  Yeah. So by... I think you're overusing that word torture for effect. Well, then get me with it. Get me with it. Try to debunk it. The farmer isn't interested in torture either, right? They're interested in turning a profit. Exactly. They're not psychos torturing animals for fun. Well, they're trying to process a product. They're trying to make a product. Yeah. And there's rules in the UK, the standards. Right, maybe you're not happy with them. What are the rules? I couldn't tell you no more than me. Yeah. So... Say if you came to me and said, there's a campaign where I'm trying to improve the conditions. I would support that. Yeah. Well, I'm sure you would, but there's always campaigns about improving conditions, but what does that mean? What's an improvement? Yeah. I mean... What's an improvement? You can always improve it. Slightly less torture? Yeah. But still torture, but slightly less? Oh. As I said, I think torture is deliberately inflicting pain on someone for a reason, for the reason being pain. Right, that's what torture is. No, no, no. Just creating a chicken into existence the way they are, their very lives are torture. Yeah. Because they're Frankenstein chickens. Because they grow so fast, they can't support their body weight, and this is the majority. You're talking about 95% of chickens are in these Frankenstein bodies. Mm. So, but just by breeding them is torture, their bodies are torture. I actually don't understand, I don't know. I guess, I don't spend a lot of time worrying about that. The egg industry, right? Let's talk about eggs. Go on. Free-range eggs. Yeah. 55% of the eggs in the UK are free-range. Yeah. The rest are either enriched or barn eggs. Yeah. There was a period of time this year that they had a lot of problems, right? Not all of them get let out. They open the door, some get let out, some don't. There's a bit of a pecking hierarchy. Let's just say they all got let out and come back in, right? Just for argument's sake. They're bred to produce about 30 times more eggs than they naturally do. Mm. Right? So they usually produce about 10, you know, one a month or something like this. Yeah. They're produced in about 300 a year. Yeah. The very act of breeding those chickens so that they have to push our egg after egg every time.  A lot of them are dying from sucking nutrients and it's horrible. Yeah, I mean. They've got osteoporosis. Honestly, I disagree with the use of the word torture because to me, torture is, it's all about the pain. When you torture someone, it's the idea is to inflict pain on them. Yeah? I mean, what you would say is it's torture to the chicken. Right, yeah. What I would just say to you, like, let's just say I've got a different, I mean, you could put this in the human context and if you think that's not torture still, just because it's an outcome.  It's torture to me. Yeah, but it's different to you torturing me cutting off my ears because you're trying to get some information from me. Brother, the only thing I care about is what it feels like for the animal.  I care about the animals, how they feel. Do the animals want to live? They're human beings, right? This is what we do. Who we get to eat? Who matters? Who doesn't? Who the f*** are we? Think about it. Who are we? Who do we think we are? We have figured out a lot of stuff. You haven't? I haven't. You haven't built a rocket ship? No, but I've... No. I wouldn't take credit for the human race because we've also figured out how to commit the holocaust, slavery, incredible egregious amounts of poverty and starvation, hate crimes. Look at... Women couldn't vote until 50 years ago or something. Right. You know, like, human beings, yeah, we've done some great things. We've also done some horrible, dumb, immoral, like, stone age s*** to each other, like, wars. Look at wars. Children being bombed. I haven't been going off in a bit of a tangent. No, no, no. I'm not going on a tangent. I'm saying like... It's all good about women getting the vote now. No, I'm just saying that. Human beings, kind of notoriously... Yeah, but we're all we have. No, we have a notorious... We're definitely the best species on this planet, we are one of the most horrible, egregious species on this planet. No species... No way. Oh, okay, let's debate it. What species of animal causes as much suffering and killing as the human species? Name one. Mosquitoes. No, we're near. No, we're near. No, we're near. Even if the mosquitoes wiped out the whole human race, it wouldn't even be close. We kill more non-human animals in four weeks than the number of human beings that have ever existed on Earth. Yeah. About 110 billion humans have ever existed. We kill more animals in that in a month. Right. Yeah. More suffering. I guess it goes back to why is that bad? If we're okay with it. Why is suffering bad? You just told me you're against torture. Yeah, I am. So how much torture is that? I'm sorry, mate. My phone's going up. I've got to go. I'm so sorry. It's all right. That was awesome. It's all right. You left at the right time.  You got cornered, mate.  That's not me. That's not me. Listen, good luck. That was awesome. I enjoyed it. I really appreciated you sitting down and giving me a good back and forth. Listen, good luck. I hope you have some more good conversations. Yeah. It was lovely to meet you. Really good to meet you, too, man. Sorry I won't go. I wish I had a treat to give you a vegan treat to take with you. But maybe you can do a vegan challenge and tell me how it goes one day. I felt good for anyone, it'd be for you. Not the animals, though. The animals.  Mate. Joey's all right. Come on. All right, mate. I really appreciate it. Take care.


Sam, what I'd like to do is, I think you might not know I'm a budding and a closeted psychologist in that sense of the word. And instead of going towards the media numbers, I think I do a fair amount of on the side reading, on the side research, on the side work, on some of the very exciting stuff that's been happening, you mentioned Karen Nelson, but there's some exciting stuff happening in terms of studying of our core consumers, which is human beings, right? And I think there have been people like Dr. Ian McGillchrist who've talked a lot about about decoding why not only why trends are there, but why human beings behave the way we do, right? Why we, for example, asking the basic questions, why we have two different halves to our brains, why, if you may, post 2006, across the Western world and across the world, advertising effectiveness seems to have gone down, right? Sorry? Sorry, we're just trying to reach the presentation so that you can see it. So I think there's some fairly interesting and fundamental work that's happened in terms of understanding who we deal with and how human beings behave and how we make decisions. And finally, I think as marketers, as business people, our key job is not clicks. It's not GRP. It's not reach. It's not frequency. It's making some delivery. It's making some change happen, making some decisions happen, and actions happen at the other end of the pipeline. And towards which I think taking a cue from a few points that you've mentioned, I just tried to dwell into why sometimes we forget the basics and what some of the latest science is telling us in terms of dealing with the consumers and why media works the way it does, right? There's some interesting perspective. So as soon as the deck comes, also as an opener, I think I'd like to share something that I do as a ritual at these events. Is there somebody from the building construction industry in the room? So that's something that we routinely, I routinely do at these events, which is essentially, yeah, which is essentially reintroduce the place which I work, right? And let me help you make a little more money also along the way. So I heard, I think, and I wrote this fact that I saw in Novel's deck not too many building construction and cement players per se. But let me just introduce Ultra Tech to you. We are at about, last year we touched about 63, 64,000 crores in terms of top line. We are a 70% B2C player, okay?  Of that 70%, about two-third of that comes out of ruling. Now the fun facts, I think for the last six, seven years, and I've just put the time period that I've been here, we've grown at 16.5%, which is faster than, there I say FMCG, FMCG overall as a sector has grown at about a percent, percent and a half over the GDP growth rate, right? Last bit, like I said, I promised to possibly make you some money as well. So if you put a lakh rupees in stock of buying Ultra Tech around that time, about five, six years ago, you would have nearly tripled your money. The Sensex would have doubled the money, but you would have tripled the money. There are some other marquee brands, companies out there, but I think we've really, really outperformed that. For a request for Navel next time, possibly. I think we need to be up there from a visibility point of view. Now coming on to, what's the theory of advertising coming to the serious topic, right? This is Mahesh Mekhalam, and many of you who've studied media at college or in the 50s, he said something really, really profound. He said medium is the message. And those words are really profound, and they hold some true meaning, which I'll just discuss as we go along. So let's first go on to the basic insights, right? Let's talk about those. The first piece is there. I think we are very passionate people. Marketers and business people are very passionate people. And maybe that's where the problem lies. We forget oftentimes that our tg is not us or our friends, right? So the amount of involvement that we have with our brands, we have With our categories, don't exist with people that we are talking to. While this is a basic one, I think it's how often we forget. I think it's got to be remembered how often we forget this and how Often we miss the therefore of this entire insight, right? There's a gentleman who's called as the possibly the Greatest advertiser that you've never, advertising professional That you've never heard of, a gentleman called Howard Gosage, right? He talked about that nobody likes advertising. Nobody is interested in advertising. And people are interested in only stuff of their own life. And sometimes if that, these two collide or these two intersect, Only then people watch advertising. And that's a really, really important point among that. Now, i think that, therefore, which brings it to us to a basic Insight, sorry, basic insight is that we are not dealing with What i call consumers. I think the biggest fallacy is we Are not dealing with consumers, we are not dealing with Containers where our products need to be poured. We are dealing with human beings, right? And what that means is that we've got to truly understand how These people, how these decision makers, how these human beings Make decisions, how they process information. We are not mere delivery people of messages to our consumers, right? Till the time we understand how these people make decisions, Till the time we understand how they take calls, till the time We understand how their attention works, till that time i think We would largely be talking in terms of circles, we'll move in circles and we'll talk stuff which is slightly inane to an extent, right? Now, it's no surprise that while sam talked in terms of that there is increased amount of media clutter. But the clutter has always existed in the minds of the consumers. Because ads are no ads. Consumers have a million more things to do. They have a mother-in-law, they have a crying baby, they have e-m-is to pay, and within that processed piece of information, i think it is us who have to find our slot and our way, right? And if we've got to think from that point of view, we've got to understand some of the greatest marketers understood this. They understood that the consumers don't care about your product, your services, or about you at all. They only care about their own dreams and their own goals. And if i were to, i think, talk us not becoming completely inconsequential, there is a way out of this entire thing. The way out of this is if we truly understand this being that we are talking to, if we truly go to the latest science that has understood as to how decision making, how information is processed among consumers, and also we align ourselves to the goals of our consumers, that's some time where we have some headway to make. Now, what does the latest science say as far as human beings and their decision making? The first big thing, which this gentleman who got the Nobel Prize in 2002, Daniel Kahneman talked about, he said that human beings are to thinking as swimming is to cats. We can do it, but we don't like to do it. Now, somebody's carried forward that thought and asked as to, okay, if we don't like to think, what's the core purpose of a brain? Right? And what the latest science tells us, the core purpose of brain is not thinking. The core purpose of brain is to keep us alive. While you are listening to this presentation, you are breathing, you are digesting the breakfast that you had in the morning. You are regulating the temperature of your body and the brain is busy doing far more important jobs of that nature and thinking only comes as a secondary activity to them. Now, what does that mean? What that means is that among the various, as nature has fine-tuned our thinking, our brain and the mechanism by which we survive, finding out which flavor of fabric softener that you launched in the market is least of the importance for the brain to absorb and take down its memory. Right? So how do we make decisions? Whenever human beings have jobs to be done, whenever there is a task ahead of me, I don't start from base zero. When you talk about Mahatma Gandhi, I have a history of the entire freedom struggle in my head. All those memories, all those associations come forward. Right? And it's not the base zero processing like a computer starting 2 plus 2 is equal to 4 that you start with. Right? Therefore, our task is not providing more and more information. And we can never simultaneously, the bad promise that digital advertising has done, we can never simultaneously attract or identify the exact moment when somebody is thinking of the jobs to be done and provide the correct information right at that moment despite the much promise that digital advertising has done to us. It doesn't work that way. Human beings don't work that way. What it does, what our human minds do, it extracts meaningful information, what it deems meaningful from the memory and therefore our task is not to provide the messengers of information to our consumers but to build great memories which can be recalled, which can be easily retrieved when they have, when they are in the mode to consume our product or when they are thinking of a serious jobs to be done from their point of view. Right? So we are not deliverers of information. It's not about running a message 4 times and making sure that it has been received at the other end. Right? We are not, so to say, zomatos of information. Marketers are builders of memories. Therefore, we are far closer to storytellers rather than purely delivery people. And that is profoundly insightful and it's profoundly meaningful in terms of how we approach, how we craft our messages and what mediums that we use. Right? Going forward, Sam talked about, this is individual customers. Sam talked about the latest thinking in terms of how brands grow. It's not the, it's not the loyalist or heavy customers which dictate most of the volumes that we build, but it's typically the non-consumers and it is the light consumers who need to be reached out. It's not a pecking order of Pareto that you go across to the heaviest people and be done with the job. Right? So how do you therefore go to people who are not interested in what you have to say, who have a myriad of problems to solve in their life, who might not be in the process of buying your category or thinking about your category and yet build memories for those people? How do you do that? That's the challenge that marketers and business people face. Also, this problem is compounded, especially in case of India. When we think in terms of India, most of the categories are very, very low penetration. So your growth doesn't lie in the core consumers, the five, six percent of people who are already consuming you, because they already have a memory structure built for you. Your job requires you to reach out to people who have not thought of your category, but who are potential non-buyers or light buyers of your category. So how do you do this rope trick of building memory for somebody who is not interested in you? Right? Therefore, the key task from advertisers and marketers point of view are three. One is gathering attention. We are in the business, not of media, but we are in the business of harvesting attention. And dare I say, we all talk in terms of media, IPL is consumed so many minutes, TV is consumed so many minutes. We've got to boil it down as to the messages or the conversation that we are having with our consumers, with the people that we want to talk to. What's the attention span? What is the time spent on those per se? So in three, three and a half hours of TV viewing that an average consumer does, the attention that somebody gives to advertising is less than ten minutes. Right? That also varies tremendously by the medium that we go to. Remember the important quote that I talked about, that medium is the message. And attention, as Sam also talked about, is hugely dependent on the medium delivering the message, not the message alone. The second piece is the way to large memories, build memories in people's mind which can be retrieved later. The second large tool is emotion, right? And media are varied in terms of their ability to deliver emotion. Digital advertising where we are told the rules of the game are three seconds, five seconds or ten seconds is not prone to delivering emotion. Right? And the third large piece is we don't make decisions. Human beings don't make decisions individually. Remember what Byron Sharp talks about is that you've got to build mental availability and physical availability. What is missed is an important point that you've got to build both together. If the pipeline doesn't flow from mental availability to physical availability, there is no transaction at the other end. And for this to happen, a lot of astute investors, people, business people, They are very clear that at times you need advertising not for consumers, but to build distribution.  Right? That's what fame is needed for. You don't need fame for anything else. Second piece, when we are talking in terms of consumers getting into categories which are very low penetration, which I have not done before. Right? Especially let's say in my category, people most times 99% of people build once or their home once in their lifetime. So if you are getting into a decision which is not necessarily what they are familiar with or they are very deeply involved with, what do you do? You follow the heuristic that you follow the heuristic of risk mitigation. If I have heard the same thing across from five people, that must be true. And that's served the human race for a very long period of time. And we are no long, no, not going to leave that heuristic in a hurry. Right? Therefore, fame is of crucial importance. When I talk to consumers when that they've heard India's largest cement company or India's largest cement brand, their heuristic is very simple. Is that you've gone on national television and talked about this claim and if nobody's challenged it, this must be true. And it's a damn good reasoning from their part. They could be fund managers and manage risk because they've done a heuristic which makes perfect sense. If they've got to take a risk which is a very large risk, they at least know there are a million more people who've taken that decision before and they are fine. Right? So fame is another big piece which is there. And like Sam mentioned, all mediums are not great at building attention, emotion and delivering fame. Sam talked about this chart in terms of the amount of attention that various mediums deliver. There is another fun bit that is slightly more generic. Right? Which is the more you are not in a lean back mode, the more you are in an active search, active participation with the medium role, the lesser your attention is especially to the advertising, especially to stuff that you are not focused on. You are very focused on stuff that you are searching for. You are not focused on the advertising that you and I are going to serve. So the more the scrolls spread, the lesser is the attention. Right? What does that translate into? Sam talked in terms of cost per thousand or cost per, above a certain scale, cost per million or those numbers being at a scale from a target. Audience and numbers point of view. But if you translated this to cost per attention, I think TV trumps everything. Right? The other pieces for memory to be lodged into human brain, the minimum second age that is needed is two and a half second. Most digital mediums and most digital advertising does not cross that threshold. Therefore, it is no coincidence that worldwide since 2006 advertising as the share of digital has gone up, the share of the effectiveness of advertising has kept going down. Because you are not able to lodge something in people's memory and they are not able to retrieve it at the later point of time when they need the product or they are in the game of engaging with your category, Effectiveness typically goes down. Advertising, it's the biggest misnomer that I know 50% of advertising works 50% doesn't. Advertising works 50 to 90% in the long run. And if you are not able to establish memory and if you are not able to establish things in people's head, you've lost the large plot of advertising. Yeah, Sam talked in terms of the building not only having a high attention to start with TV also retains your attention for a longer time. If you had to evaluate the viewership of advertising and viewership of content on TV that falls only Sam, if I'm not wrong, by less than his attention doesn't go down. Right? It holds attention for far longer as a medium versus something which is a lean in medium which is digital. Right? Now it's a classical example. Let me kind of give you the trick. These are two things that I searched yesterday. Right? So the biggest search engine is not Google. It's not even Amazon. The biggest search engine is your mind. And that's the most precious real estate for an advertiser. Now only after my fingers type this, what came across, what I typed sx I'll choose, you got a full list. And you won't wonder on the sx brand manager's dashboard, this would be attributed to digital. I come from a farming state, Punjab. Right? So the farming analogies are very real to me. Digital does the harvesting job really well. So all the bits that Sam talked about long term, you've got to show the, you've got to plow the field. You've got to water the plants. You've got to put in the seed. And then you can harvest. So digital does the harvesting job really well but not necessarily you can't go on harvesting without sowing. Right? It has a role but it can't do, that is the real reason why it can't do long term brand building. But when both mediums come together, you are doing an equal good measure sowing and harvesting, you have a good crop. Right? Also I think mass reach is not possible. Let me demonstrate two small, small events that you would remember. This is 2008. Can you imagine IPL leave apart the brands being built on it? Right? That I might have a debate. But IPL being built without television. It provided a communal viewing experience not only to the 20, 30,000 people in the stadium but the entire country viewing it together. And like I talked, there is a value to fame of all this happening simultaneously. So three consumers watching it once together versus one consumer watching it three times is not the same. Maths doesn't add up. There is great value. Why impact is paid for? There is great value in aggregation and delivering a large sense of communal experience together. These are things that we'll remember. Right? At least those who are old enough. I would bet 22nd January wouldn't have happened without these events happening on TV. Yeah? The other important piece is it's a powerful signaling moment, signaling medium. When I talked about we are dealing with human beings, the big piece is not just the message, the big piece is trust. Do I take a message, multiply it with trust and then take the decision. And TV, because of the scale, builds trust. TV talks in terms of it's popular. If it's on TV, it's popular. Right? Oppo launched in this country just to achieve status, scale. They went on some of the biggest impact properties in the country. Right?   Dealers talk in terms of that look, if the company is investing and putting a bet behind being on television, I think it must be worth my investing my money into it. Right? It talks greatly about financial strength. And it talks about that if you are advertising on air and you are putting a costly signal out there, you must have some quality. Right? Those signals are very, very important. And therefore it builds great amount of trust. Okay? So that's all that I had to kind of share in terms of the why of... Sam talked in terms of some of the metrics in terms of delivering great attention, delivering great amount of audience, fame, distribution and why large advertisers are there. I've just tried to step back and see from the latest science point of view as to why these things happen. Because we are not in the business of delivering messages. We are in the business of delivering lodging memories into people's brains. So that when they are in the market, they can take a decision. We are in the business of building trust with people rather than just delivering features and benefits. We are in the business of making sure that the retrieval of emotions, retrieval of messages, retrieval of you being the solution happens far more frequently and far more conveniently when our mental availability and physical availability both become together. Right? Thanks.