think ourselves warm was a good starter. So I'm Gerhard Leonhard. I'm a futurist. I've been doing this work for almost 15 years. And I became a futurist by accident because I used to be a musician and producer. I went to Berkeley College in the US. And in the 90s, somebody came to me and said, do you know this thing called the internet? It was 1995. I had no idea what it was. And I wasn't interested. I was interested playing music. I hated computers. So then in 1996, I met somebody who said, OK, we're going to put music on the internet. And if I give you $500,000, would you start a company? I'm like, yeah, $500,000 sounds good. Let's do it. So we started internet music business in 1995, back in California. In Fonsar, we're going to hear about later. This Fonsar back there was involved already. And he still likes me, even though it didn't work out. But so we did the digital music thing. And it was amazing, the whole first internet boom and stuff. And I learned a really important lesson. In 2001, everybody went bankrupt. My company went bankrupt. That was a good experience. And in America, it's like a special decoration when you go bankrupt. So anyway, in 2005, I wrote my first book called The Future of Music. Some of you may know about the music business. And that became the blueprint for the music industry in the digital age. In the book, I had a phrase that was given to us by David Bowie. We did several interviews with David Bowie. And he said, music will become like water.  So that became part of my book, the main theme in the book. And when the book came out, all the record labels and the publishers hated me because they said, OK, music like water, that's bad because water is cheap. And we don't want music to be cheap. But nevertheless, Daniel X from Spotify started his company based on the music like water theme.  So that's how I became a futurist. And people started calling me and said, can you talk about the future? And since then, I've done about almost 1,700 speaking engagements about the future. I talk about many different topics. One of them has lately become the topic of what is happening with people and technology. And five years ago, I started working on this book, Technology vs. Humanity. And I wanted to call it technology and humanity. And my publisher, who was subsequently fired, he said, no, no, no, that's not, it has to be more aggressive, technology versus humanity. So now I'm stuck with the title. But it's still a very good book. It's available in 12 languages. And as three years ago wrote this book, and I can't, sometimes I torture myself and I read it myself again. And I have to say, well, actually, this is actually what happened, which is kind of interesting. So I have a couple of free copies here. If you're fast enough, you can get one. Otherwise, you know where to click. So let me start with one thing. Technology is not good or bad. It just is. It has no morals. It has no values. It's a machine. William Gibson said, technology is morally neutral until we use it. So we should not sit here and say technology is bad, or this is how we use technology. Remember that television is bad. You can be addicted to television. You don't need Facebook to be addicted or the smartphone. The nuclear bomb also had the same technology to use nuclear energy, which you may think is bad, but different discussion. So what we have today, three big technologies are coming. They will change our world forever. One is intelligent machines. Machines that can learn, that can hear, that can speak, that can understand us. I wouldn't call them intelligent for any means. We'll talk more about that. But they're machines who understand things like what humans used to understand. So artificial intelligence in the wildest landscape. And that's very big because most of the routine work that we do, anything that does not need human things, the machines can learn in the next 10 years. The second thing is genetic engineering. You heard about CRISPR-Cas9. It's a method of cutting the human genome that used to be $1 million for the operation, now it's $10,000. And it's basically possible to change our genome to avoid diseases. We don't really know how that will work, but this is not 200 years away. It's 20 years away. And the first thing was already done with a Chinese doctor who used CRISPR-Cas9 to avoid HIV infection in two babies. And they changed the genome to get to that effect, and now it's in jail. But it's a very big discussion. The third one is geoengineering. We've messed up the planet so badly that now we have few choices, but then to mess with the weather. And you can imagine this is a huge debate. Who's in charge? Who's in control? So those are the three big topics. In terms of technology, basically what's happening is that we don't have a lot of choices of not using technology. You cannot use a mobile phone. You cannot use Facebook. I'll talk about Facebook later. You cannot use the cloud. You can do all those things, but that is going to be the exception.  You can use in this thing here, whereas my thing, I've been hiding it. Anyway, using my external brain, my mobile phone, I can now make free phone calls around the world. My kids are New Zealand and in Vietnam. And we can talk every day for free. Using this device, I can listen to 20 million songs on Spotify. I mean, I can do all these things that used to be impossible, which are good things. So now we have to think about what is the next thing. And I want to start by saying that I think the future is better than we think. Because we're looking at the future here, and we're saying, OK, the future is probably going to be bad. We have these rather foolish politicians that have no idea what's happening. And of course, America is the biggest aberration that we can think of. But it's everywhere now. And these politicians are elected, of course, because people are afraid of the future. So they're looking at the future saying, oh, the future will be bad because machines will take our work and then they will kill us. That's kind of the logic. And there's climate change. So it's going to be bad weather and floods and also bad. So it's a real big challenge. And I think the future is better than we think because there are so many things that we can achieve. There's only one thing we have to do is we have to govern it wisely. In 10 years, technology will be virtually unlimited. So quantum computing, you know what quantum computing is? It's basically 3D computing in a gas environment. IBM, Microsoft, many people are working on this. We'll create computers that are a million times as powerful as today. If you want to have your DNA analyzed, your genome, right now it's $1,000. It takes roughly two weeks, sometimes four weeks. Using those machines, it will cost $5 and be 12 seconds. So you can have your DNA analyzed while you're setting up the date on Tinder and see if there's a good combination. Just kidding. None of you will ever do that. And then we have 5G networks, right? The next iteration of mobile networks is a gold mine for the telecoms. 5G networks means instant, no latency, holograms, conference calls, download a movie in one minute, one second, right? And do all the things like telemedicine, right? So a doctor can be here and operate on a guy in Nigeria through the 5G network. So that's going to change our lives. Basically in 10 years, it's hands off anything we have ever thought of is becoming possible, which includes going to Mars soon or later, as Elon Musk keeps saying. Not that I don't really see a reason for that, but it's basically 2030. We're going to have 9 billion people connected to the internet. Today is 3.6 billion. Imagine that 9 billion people out of 10 billion then, 90% connected to high-speed, fast internet. What that does, it's going to change the world forever. And 2050, as many of my future colleagues like Ray Kurzweil talk about, will be the time roughly when a computer has the same capacity than a human. In fact, Ray Kurzweil was saying in terms of processing power, one computer will have the capacity of all human brains, 10 billion brains. That does not include, of course, emotions or consciousness and those kind of things, but just processing.  I mean, unlimited firepower, basically. We're very exciting, of course, but then we have to say, OK, what exactly are we going to do then? And what's our role going to be here? So Tim Koch, the CEO of Apple, had a great speech three months ago in Brussels at the European Commission, where I was also speaking. And he said something very important. He said, technology can do great things, but it does not want to do great things. It doesn't want anything. So the bottom line is, we should not get rid of technology because it can do bad things. Every technology can do bad things. We have to control it to do good things. And that is generally referred to as ethics, values. And a machine is devoid of any kind of real understanding of real life that we have. A machine that does face recognition can recognize any person in this room in 0.4 seconds. It's widely used by the FBI, by Facebook, inside of Facebook.  So 0.4 seconds, the machine does not know what it feels like to have a face. It has no idea. It just knows it says, OK, GERD is angry 91% of the time because of my facial muscles. It knows all those things, but it has no idea whatsoever. So to explain this problem with artificial intelligence, consider the Chinese room experiment. Some of you may have heard about the Chinese room. So there's a box. In the box, there's a guy with the huge dictionary of Chinese English. The best one you can imagine, probably the internet, right? On the other side, there's a slot where a Chinese person comes and puts in a sentence of Chinese on a piece of paper written and sticks it in the slot. And the guy in the middle of his job is to figure out what it says on that one sentence. So he goes very slowly through his amazing dictionary. He pieces all the pieces together. He's pretty smart, but he does not know Chinese. He just compares the symbols. So the first one takes him like 11 hours to figure out one sentence, like a puzzle. And he gets faster and faster and faster, and then he sticks it out the other end to the Chinese person. And it's in English. So the Chinese person, after doing two weeks of this experiment, says the person in the box speaks Chinese. It's clear. But you know what the person in the box does. He pieces together all the segments of all the pieces to some place to where, after a while, he knows what makes sense, but he does not speak Chinese. He just has all the particles and puts them together in a row. So another example is IBM Watson. IBM's Artificial Intelligence. It does roughly, it reads about 1.2 million books a minute. So if you feed IBM Watson all of the books about philosophy, I used to be a student of philosophy, so there are not that many books. But anyway, you read all the books, and then IBM has read all the books in 43 seconds or something. Does it make the machine a philosopher? You'd be surprised. In Silicon Valley, they would mostly say, yeah. And in China, they would say, well, depends on what he says. But here, we would say, no, come on, you must be joking. He has all the information. But is he a philosopher? What does it take to be a philosopher? And that is the context, the ambiguity, the understanding, the intuition, the foresight. Morovedj, famous scientist from Hungary, also one of the first futurists, said that whatever is very easy for a computer is very hard for a human and the other way around. That's important to notice, because that's when we think about artificial intelligence, which way you want to go with this. So in my book, I speak a lot about what's happening in terms of the change. And one key sentence that emerged from the book after three years of work on this is that technology is not what we seek, but how we seek. In other words, we don't use technology to get to the goal. Like, if you're looking for a partner on the internet, you're not looking for technology to be your partner. This is a tool. Well, some people, I look for technology for that. And that will definitely be the future. And this is the big difference. When we talk about machines and humans, machines are tools. If you have a hammer, you can build a house, or you can kill somebody with a hammer. Do we make the hammer illegal, because it can kill somebody? No, we don't. I mean, this is an interesting aberration that we have to think about which way that is going and what exactly are we trying to achieve here. So going back to Tim Cook, he said, the most important decision today is about what we want to be. Yes, hello. That Steve Jobs ghost in the box there. So rest in peace. So this is the most important question, because today it's hard to imagine that technology can do all these things. But on the exponential scale that we're looking at, it's 4, 8, 16, 32, Moore's Law, Metcalfe's Law, Wiener's Law. It's basically like this. And so what's going to happen here is quite clear. In a very short time, technology can do, in principle, pretty much anything. I mean, we're all not that old, except for ourselves. But connect our brain to the internet? Yeah, in terms of technology, it's entirely possible. Is that a good idea? I mean, this is the key question. What do we want to be? And here in Europe, we're saying, OK, of course, we want to be human. We're humanists, especially in Spain. So we're thinking we want to be human. In America, they say, and this is, of course, not true for all Americans, but we want to be superhuman, be so much fun. And it's a huge business. And in China, the same variation, we want to be superhuman, because the state would know everything about me. Just kidding. This is our stereotype. But when you put it all together, this is the question, do we want to be human, or do we want to be superhuman? Do you want to be God? I mean, I'm not religious. I don't care if you want to be God. But think about this for a second. And what would happen to us if we refuse to be superhuman? I mean, today, if you refuse to take the mobile phone, to use a smartphone at work, you're definitely out, or you're very rich, one of the two. In less than 10 years, we're going to have a situation where it's required to wear a virtual reality helmet for a lot of work, because you can work like Tom Cruise, like 100 times as fast. Now think about this. If you work in a call center, and you're running a bunch of intelligent machines to answer phone calls, if you use technology, your productivity is 1,000 x, 1,000 x, do you think an lonely person that would not know how to use technology would ever, ever get a job again?  And basically, the principle of the future is gradually, then suddenly. I took this from a Hemingway novel, for whom the bell tolls, where he talks to somebody and he says, OK, how do people go broke gradually, then suddenly? And the future is the same way. So in 1910, we had the first electric car. Many people don't know that. And it was already working, giant batteries. It didn't work because there's so many components that didn't work. And then all of a sudden, we had battery technology. And we had all this investment in the market. And now the electric car is going to be the new normal. So when we think about the future, it's like this, you know, very slowly. And then boom, explodes. Music business. When I was a musician, we thought, OK, in 1999, music will move into the cloud. Well, the record labels hated it. The copyright societies hated it. The publishers hated it. And the artists were made to hate it. And so all of a sudden, Spotify came along. It worked out. They created lots of money. And boom, now we have 120 million people paying for Spotify and Apple. That's 1.2 billion euros a month. And that didn't really exist. And the same goes for jobs. Gradually then suddenly. So for example, 10 years ago, we didn't have social media. Today, social media has 21 million people working in social media. Those jobs didn't exist. Not just the companies, but also the freelancers, mostly freelancers, many of you, working on things like this. So gradually and suddenly, that's sort of the future. Now, there's three principles I use to explain the future a little bit better. The future is exponential. That's an old hat. But here's the news. We're at the takeoff point of the curve. When you have the exponential curve, it looks like this. Nothing happens. Nothing happens. And then it reaches the pivot point. And then it goes like this. So if you double 0.01, you get 0.02, 0.04. It's still nothing. But when you double 4, we had 4 today. It's 4, 8, 16, 32. 30 steps up the scale, 1 billion. How long does it take to double? Depends. Not all technology doubles in the same way. 12 to 18 months. You can expect roughly in 40 years, we're at 1 billion on the curve. So the kids of my kids will not know how to drive a car. They will speak 200 languages fluently just by having instant translation devices. They will be, as a matter of fact, going to other planets as they desire. I mean, we talk about a world that is so dramatically different. So that's the first one. Exponential. The second one is combinatorial. So today, the sciences are coming together to create very powerful products based on many different things. So mobile, cloud computing, artificial intelligence. All of the things coming together, nanotechnology. I mean, material sciences. So in roughly five years, we won't need to go to Africa for the cobalt for the mobile phones. We'll have material science replacement. Our electric car will drive 2,000 kilometers without filling up because the batteries will be there. So think about all those changes. So exponential, combinatorial, and then converging industries. I mean, if you start up, you've got to think about that because the industries used to be in separate places. They used to be neatly organized. There was media on telecom, and here advertising, and here publishing, and over here, whatever. And now they're all coming together. Facebook is a media company in the new sense of it. It keeps saying it's not a media company because it doesn't want to be responsible. But internet media have converged. And for example, technology and biotechnology. The pharma business, health care, well-being, is merging with technology. I mean, do you really think that people in 10 years will take cholesterol pills or statins to solve their problem? This is technology. I mean, we're talking about 400 million people who take those pills. In 10 years, we have technology solutions. And all the pharma companies are now investing in genetic engineering and technology. Remote diagnostics, just one example. There's many companies working on this, and it's finally coming to market. And I think Apple will have a device. Basically, it's a small box like an iPhone where you prick your finger, you cough into it, you connect your Fitbit, and it will give you an instant update on your health anytime you want. It will send your data to the cloud, hopefully a secure cloud. Well, of course, with Apple, that would be good without saying, I suppose. But I don't know if I would trust IBM with this. But this is a different question. So the data goes up there. And then, basically, you have an AI in the cloud that says clearly with all of the stuff that we're seeing from you.  The app says, you know what? It's not that serious. You don't have to come to see a doctor. That would decrease health care costs by 80%, 80%. That would be a path to affordable health care if it was secure.  Food, same thing. We're not going to keep eating the food that we have today. I mean, all the stuff that's in the food, the stabilizers, the e-whatever, I mean, countless stories of what that does to us. And food is going to be reinvented. We're going to have vertical farming. We're going to have artificial meat, mind-boggling, future in that regard as well. So when we talk about the future in such a way, we also have to think about something that's very important, technology is exponential. It goes like this, humans are linear. I mean, we keep learning, we get a little bit better. Now, we move sort of one, two, three, four, five, six, and then it's over because we're too old. We're not going to move to 100 from one. But technology, 248, 16, it's going to way surpass our abilities. And the nature is cyclical. So it goes like this, like an S-curve.  That's what nature does, you know, seasons, right? So there's our problem. Technology has only one goal and that's rapid growth. It goes with the stock market, of course. It's a very good combination. So technology does this, we do this and nature does this and in between that we have to figure out what we're going to do. How do we harness the power of technology without destroying ourselves or nature for that matter? So the balance will be essential. Let me talk briefly about artificial intelligence. So Marvin Minsky, one of the founders of artificial intelligence, he says, in general, we are least aware of what our minds do best. Of course you all know this and we do things without thinking, parenthesis, that we can just do that. When I meet you somewhere, you know, if you meet a stranger it takes 0.4 seconds to figure out the stranger in some basic way. Are you a threat? Are you a potential partner? Are you interesting? You know, we do that instantly without saying a single word. And how do we do that? That's because humans have a broad intelligence like this and some of us even have what's called emotional intelligence. Allegedly, mostly women have more emotional intelligence, which is to sense things. A computer has a very deep but very narrow intelligence. So a computer can read a hundred trillion data points in real time if it has a capacity and can say, you know what, I've found a pattern. It's impossible for a doctor. The city of Los Angeles put all of the traffic lights into an AI system about two years ago. 4,700 intersections, live video, live the sensor networks, everything. And from that, the AI figures out how to run the traffic every morning and every afternoon by changing the traffic lights, saving 10% of gas, avoiding traffic jams. Machine couldn't do that or human couldn't do that. So human intelligence has been looked at by many researchers is extremely complex. Gardner says there's roughly 10 different types of intelligence, that is kinesthetic, our body. And this, by the way, was the problem in the movie Her. Have you seen the movie Her? The computer didn't have a body, so it didn't work out. You may remember the final scene in the movie where the guy says to what's the name Samantha and says, so what's the problem and don't you love me? And she says, yes, but I have endless capacity right now, I love 4,634 other people. Guys, you didn't have a body, it would be easier. So we have body intelligence. We have emotional intelligence, we have social intelligence. We have musical intelligence, and the list goes on. What kind of intelligence will a computer have or do they have, logic? You may call that intellectual if you wish. Unlimited numbers processing. That's extremely powerful. Does it really understand the world? It understands it through a binary filter. So it would look at this landscape and would say, zero, one, zero, one, if this and that and you know, it doesn't see the world like we do. So for us, very powerful to use those tools. But most of what these tools do today is what's called intelligent assistance, IA. It's not AI. It's not X-machine or transcendence, black mirror. Yes, thank you. So it's IA, intelligent assistance. That's 98% of what we see today.  It just knows one thing which is to drive this car. It will not babysit, it will not translate languages, and say languages and will that improve? Absolutely. And I would argue, oh no, this is a big question. Of course, how long will it take for machines to be intelligent like us? And is that a good idea? So, and this goes back to the very simple discussion about the question of if we are machines ourselves. You'd be surprised, I think in Europe, this discussion is kind of like, people are not that interested. When you go to Silicon Valley, this is an assumption in a lot of technology companies. We are technology. Algorithms or organisms are algorithms. Ferrari. We are the same in the machines except for really fancy. So this is a very much a key issue of philosophy. Do you believe that you are in the essence of an algorithm that you can be explained by science, technology? How much time you have? Okay, good, good. So, do you believe that or do you believe that there's something that is not technology about us? And that's a complicated conversation. We have to have it at the bar tonight. There's some serious cognac or something. Acclavit is possible. Anyway, so this is an important question. My belief really is that, okay, at this point I can't really see that to be true that we are machines. I think it's conceivable that we are. And we can find out in the next 50 to 100 years how that all works with technology. But even then, my argument would be we would not want the machines to know this. So my argument is even if we are machines, we would not want that to be the same as the machines. Because that would not end well. So that's my argument is humanistic but also quite egotistic and saying, okay, let's explore this. But I think that there's many things to us that are not algorithms. In my book I call this the andro-rhythms, the human things. Okay, and the andro-rhythms are the opposite of the algorithms. So intuition, imagination, foresight, compassion, empathy, understanding, negotiation, creativity, design, yeah, endless list. Can a computer be creative? Yeah, you argue, of course, you can copy my creativity. Yeah, I can say for example, Nick Cave said the other day, famous musician said a computer can write good music. And that's true. But a computer cannot write great music because it doesn't have the guts. Right? So can a computer build a perfect partner for you? A man or a woman? But technically speaking, in the most simple terms, yes. But you will always know it's not real and that's the problem. So we have the same problem with many technologies like Facebook and social media to where we know it's interesting but it is a simulation. And this is the problem, for example, with Facebook is that Facebook is a simulation of media. What is media? Media is people curating stuff for other people to create meaningful stories. What has Facebook done? In their wisdom, they have gathered all of our content. And because they don't want to be bothered with people very much, they have created an algorithm that administers the content and sends it out because that's how you scale. So now we're in the most perverse place of all to where the company that used to help us to communicate and to connect has become the company that replaces any meaningful conversation. So from a company that has helped us to connect to the company that basically is a danger to how we connect. That's why I left Facebook a year ago. I mean, as a user. And it was a difficult decision. And I wrote about this five years ago that Facebook was going to be going to antitrust and be split up and that's what we're looking at today. I mean, Facebook will be the first major example for something in media and on the internet that made a lot of money but crashes so quickly when people pull out their trust. I mean, it's funny, if you had invested in Facebook four years ago at the IPO, you would have made the most money you could have made with any stock in the digital media space, in the online space. Facebook's performance on the stock market has been the most amazing of all our companies in Silicon Valley and China. And that reminds me of the oil companies. How did people in 30 years, 40 years ago made most money, invested in banks, oil companies and gas companies? And how did they make money? They took the natural resource, took it out, sold it back to us and polluted everything after that. Facebook is the same way. Facebook takes our resources, puts it into an engine, pulls out the gas, sells it back to us in a form of advertising and pollutes the environment. That's the recipe for making money. So if you're running a startup, very important, we don't fall into the trap. We fall into the trap of saying, yeah, it's a great idea. And then, you know, we want to make the rules about applies.doc, but in the end, you create something where the consequences of what you have built are much bigger than the positive results. So that's a real problem when you think about how you're going to apply technology and who would regulate it. So to that I say, and my speech is a lot that everything should be as smart as possible, but not smarter. And you may know the Einstein quote, everything should be as simple as possible, but not simpler. I believe that technology should be extremely smart, but not smarter than required. If we have a smart city, we can save energy, we can do autonomous driving, we can do all these things, but that data should not be used to identify me. And it can be. And if I put my data of my DNA, my biome, you know, my genes and everything into the cloud, I will be okay with the data being used for comparison to heal diseases, but I don't want to be profiled.  Whatever it is. So this requires a lot of wisdom in government. And that's why I've proposed in the past that we need two things. We need a driver's license for the future. So we need every politician, every public official to have a driver's license for the future, to understand the future, at future test, if you wish. Of course, I realize that most of them would fail, you know? So we could help them with this, right? But I see positive tendencies, you know, younger politicians, more women in politics, all these things are happening. The second thing I need is a digital ethics council. You know, if you're looking around the countries and the cities and the companies, what they have is they have a council for digital transformation, right? In other words, how do we make more money by building a better mousetrap? How do we use technology to increase our profits? That's called digital transformation. Now we need a council that says, you know what, we have transformed, but too much of a good thing is a very bad thing. As I'm sure you're aware of, it's not about black or white, it's, you know, the variation of the tip. So now we need an organization that says, you know, this is a good thing, this is not a good thing, because that's gonna be a very big question. Picture this, for example. Novartis has a medication called Cumbria. Cumbria is a genetic engineering product, the first one that's approved for leukemia. If you're in the final stage of leukemia, basically you're going to die for sure very quickly. You can use Cumbria to change your genome. It's a gene therapy, it costs $470,000. Well, of course, operation takes about four seconds, you know, it's a genome operation. But it costs $470,000. Now, if this actually works, and we can use genetic engineering to change diabetes, cancer, Alzheimer, are we gonna sell that for two million euros? Should it be public? What's the rules here, right? I mean, imagine this question is gonna get a lot of people involved in terms of thinking about where things are going here. All right, I'm gonna have at least some time for questions, but let me finish by saying that I think it's important to see that technology has no ethics. And I wouldn't expect it to. I mean, we're talking about a machine here. Do I want the machine to have ethics? I personally don't want that. I think the machine should be my slave. It does not have rights. I don't care how smart it is, it's not conscious. It has no human agency. It is a machine, even if it can learn and speak and act like a human, it is still a machine. And I think we should also delineate the difference there. Why would I not want a machine to act like it's a human and to learn how to be emotional? Nevermind the distinguishing fact that to be emotional, you have to exist. In Buddhism, they say, what defines a human is the capacity to suffer.  I would say, no, I don't want that, you know. But I would probably have a backup plan for that. So too much of a good thing is a very bad thing, which means that we need to find a balance. We need to embrace technology, but not become technology. Singularity, transhumanism, the concept that we're going to plug into a machine to transcend humanity, to think faster, quicker. It's like taking a really powerful drug. And that becomes a new normal. I mean, that idea is a downgrade, not an upgrade. Because Marsha McLuhan was a very wise, futurist and researcher, you may know his books. He talked about this already and he said, basically when we extend our human capabilities, in media, for example, we always amputate also. So the telephone amputated the visit. Not as much, but initially yes. The television amputated the fact that people were playing music at home. Now they're watching television. We can live with all these things. Google Maps amputates your ability to actually navigate yourself. Okay, we can live with that. But imagine if in the morning you're gonna connect your brain, your neocortex to the internet to boot up your work, we would be completely dependent on this. We would cease to exist as an independent unit. We would lose our autonomy. So I think this is very important that we delineate the difference and I would foresee that in roughly 15, 20 years we're gonna have a major fight around the world with the transhumanists and the humanists. You know, the people that want to stay human and have what I call the new human rights, which are the right to be offline, the right to be inefficient, the right for mistakes. I mean, you laugh about this today, but when we're so hyper-connected you would not have a right to be inefficient. So we have this and then we have the transhumanists, the singularity people who would basically say, you know what? Our future is to become one with the machine. So that's a very big challenge. I wanna wrap up by saying that, going back to what I said in the beginning, the future is better than we think. We just have to make wise decisions. Technology has all the power we need to solve. Water, food, energy, like it has soft media and books and publishing, that's all here. We just need to make sure we put the limit on there. We figure out exactly how it should be given away. Technology so far has created a lot of inequality rather than equality. And the final flawed aspect of technology is today that we look to technology to fix social or political problems. Technology does not fix everything. It fixes practical things. It builds a house. The hammer builds a house, it's not the purpose of our lives. So this is important to realize if we want to fix human problems, conflicts, equality, that's our job. In fact, you can see clearly that the advent of social media goes along. If you look at the curve, this is a really interesting development. You see the curve of social media going up in terms of usage, now roughly at 74% across Europe. And then you see the curve of political descent going up at the same time. So in other words, what has happened is that social media has brought up all the issues and amplified and divided us rather than put us back together. And I think social media needs to be fixed. So I always say we have to re-humanize social media to put the human back in. And I think if we do that, we can save it, otherwise it's doomed. As much as I like using it, Twitter, LinkedIn, many of you read my tweets, I'm sure. That is something that's quite clear. We need to re-humanize things. So in a nutshell, I'm almost done. Thank you. Thank you. So I want to remind you, keep a positive outlook on the future. If you are a startup, just two things on this really quick. If you are a startup, think about the consequences of what you're inventing. Think about whether it creates an interesting ecosystem. Think about first the interaction before you think about the transaction. Think about another step in that development to create something really powerful and meaningful. I look forward to our conversations. Thank you very much. Do we have time for questions? Yeah, go on, we need a heater in here. Yeah, please. Hi, hi, Gerd. Thank you so much. It was very inspiring. Really great to hear that you're recognizing humans are faulty and we're here to learn. This is what makes us human. By the way, I'm the one who got rid of her smartphone after working for 15 years in technology. I'm not a social outcast yet, so yeah, it's possible. I'm going to talk about it tonight. Question to you, I'm interested in your view on this kind of obsession with growth, scalability, capitalism, and whether actually these problems can be fixed without changing the economic system because as long as we are pushing for more growth and more scalability, we're at the dead end or not. I was going to talk about it, but I didn't really have the time. But this will be a quick answer in our solution in five seconds, but basically technology is making capitalism superfluous. Technology is creating abundance. So now we have unlimited music, unlimited books, unlimited television, very soon unlimited banking, unlimited medical care, unlimited energy. So capitalism lives of scarcity. So I want to get something I don't have. When everything is abundant, it's kind of like, why bother? So it's creating the situation to where roughly 20 years, capitalism as we know it doesn't work any longer. And that includes, for example, working for money. Because we work for money, so we can get the money to spend on stuff that we're going to buy. And so I'm working on a white paper on this and it's on this topic of what people call people, planet, profit, no. People, planet, purpose, and prosperity. Right now it's only one thing that matters in the stock markets. Most places are profit and growth. And there are companies like Unilever, Patagonia and others that do different things. But that paradigm has to change because if all we want is growth and profits, we're going to literally destroy ourselves with artificial intelligence, geo-engineering, and biology, the convergence of technology and biology. I think somebody said the other day the business of replacing humans with machines is the biggest business ever. And I agree on that. I think that's, and this is the challenge, as long as the only metric is to create this curve in terms of money, we're not going to go anywhere. In fact, then it's game over roughly 2050. So our economic paradigm has the shift to what are called sustainable capitalism or post-capitalism, which includes a provision of saying every company is measured by four things, people, planet, purpose, prosperity. And that discussion has already started. When you're looking at the tech companies, Microsoft is saying that that's what they want to do. Google is struggling with this, yeah, but okay. Facebook, yeah, forget them. Alibaba, we're not going to remember who they are in five years. But so I think this is a very, very big change in terms of economic system. And I, yeah, without that, I mean, if Kennedy already said about GDP, right? GDP measures everything except for what really matters to humans. And what we have today is a stock market that rewards everything except for what's good for us. There are exceptions, but Facebook tells a very good story, right, makes a boatload of money, destroys our society. So yeah, that's, I totally agree. If we don't change that, we have no chance. And that's a political discussion. I was interested in the point where you said you didn't want machines to have ethics. Because without ethics, you're removing probably the main protection in terms of machines, making decisions that look good to palm humans. That's the only, at that point, it's the only protection. Yeah, that's not what I mean. I think machines obviously have rules, which are not the same as ethics. Like, for example, the autonomous car problem.   When a machine kills people, it has to make rational decisions that don't exist. That's called the intractable problem. So the machine has to look at all the angles, is the person young, is the person old, is the woman pregnant, I'm gonna kill, and so on. And these kind of things are difficult for a machine. And I don't think we should enable the machine to make those kind of decisions unless they're required for basic operation. But ultimately, the machine becomes the one that the choice is to be art. So machines become more intelligent, it's like a child. If you don't teach the children to have the right ethics, then when the children become adults, they behave in a way in which society is bound upon, they get locked up and they go to prison. But we won't have that choice with machines because they'll be smaller than us. And that's where the senior hour comes out. A child is different than a machine. A child learns what is the truth today and what it may be tomorrow and how I can mend the truth or hide the truth or change the truth, we're not binary, we're multinary, humans are what's called multinary. So our decision-making process is not like this. We don't say one, zero, one, zero, if this and that, boom, done, right? We're not like this, we're completely the opposite. For a machine to simulate this, it would have to be quantum machine to begin with. Theoretically possible. I think that would be quite a stretch because I would be quite happy if the machine brought its knowledge and understanding to the world in such a way where I can do that. So for example, the question of whether a machine should decide on probation. So that's been trial in the US. So you look at all the facts of all the inmates in the jail and they're supposed to be released and then the computer looks at all the video footage, looks at all your facts and it says this person is gonna do it again, right? And that's already been trial. And to that I would say, I think it's great if the judge has this information but I think it's kind of like TripAdvisor. So if the judge says the machine says okay, that person is gonna do it again because the machine says so. I would rather have the judge make a mistake than to have the perfect preventive machine. I think we should use the machine to make our own mistakes if we so wish. And there are exceptions. For example, flying an airplane, right? I don't care if the pilot flies an airplane but I do want the pilot to be in the plane. So yeah, it's not a black or white decision. I agree with you on this topic. It's a difficult decision. But I would not want the machines to make human decisions, for example, about medical issues, about having babies or not. We think about this for a second. The computer analyzes your DNA. He analyzes your date's DNA.  The computer says, you know what? With the two DNA that apparently were combining last night, the chances of a mongoloid baby are pretty big because it's possible, right? And it advises to never do it again. Is that a good thing? Well, I said, I don't know.  I mean, okay. Because some people have mongoloid babies and kids and they still exist, right? It's not like that's like, you know, the end of the world. But of course, it's a very big issue. And the question is, can we decide this on the top level? So I think we can decide really obvious things. Like we should not have weapons that kill without human supervision.  That's what the army is proposing, right? So on those things, I think we could all agree. On the other things, I don't know. I agree with that. It's a tricky issue. I'm totally with you on this. I think in 10 years, quantum computers are here. The machines will have unlimited juice.  You want to be superhuman, then you're gonna need those machines, right? Personally, I think we should be more human and let the machines do the monkey work, you know? Anyway, other question, or come here. We're talking about scarcity and, you know, that goes to Beblen and the idea of conspicuous consumption. Oh, luxury is a very important economic driver. That is, getting rid of scarcity doesn't solve the problem of capitalism, I believe. But that touches upon the idea of art, right? Which is the kinds of intelligences you talked about. I'm really curious to know, what do you think is the kind of intelligence that machines or computers are incapable of having? And how do you teach that? Or how do you propagate that kind of intelligence? Yeah, to that I would say, I'm not so sure what machines would not be capable of. You know, given that the exponential curve is endless for machines. So would they in theory be capable of replicating us? I think in theory, yes. However, I think it's, first, it's quite unlikely it's gonna happen anytime soon. So we have 50 years at least of that. And second is, do we want that? Is it possible? Yes. Can we get a machine that looks exactly like me, that speaks like me, that's not actually me, but it's a copy? Yeah, I think we can probably do that eventually. But would it be me? And is that a good thing? So that's the questions I would be asking. I think in theory that is possible, yeah, absolutely. What was the second part of the question? You talked about something else first, I will answer, but anyway, I'll get back to you in a second. When the machine starts working again. So the human body, my family is very medical, my uncle is a heart surgeon. And so his argument is that the human body is one of the most sophisticated machines in the world. When you think about the biomechanics, the way our different systems interact, our capacity to fight disease, the fact that the human brain, humans, it's well known, we only use a small potential of our computing power down our brain. You know, neuroscientists, there's a whole, like there's so much study of the fact that they can't actually properly map human capacity in terms of the processing power of the brain. So in terms of humans' capacity to be superhuman, and I'm with you and I think that we should try and retain our humanity as much as possible. But could it not also be approached in the way of technological advances that enable humans to unlock existing potential to tap into different areas of the brain that allow us to do things and compute things better, I'm interested in your views on that. Yeah, that's what Timothy Leary said about LSD, right? Yeah. We're gonna unlock our human potential by taking LSD. And it's probably not entirely untrue. I never tried it. But so I mean, I think these important issues, the, you know, I've come to the conclusion after talking a little bit about the book the last few years is that I think to be human is actually the new luxury.  And so I think as a consequence, this is sort of something we have to protect. And protect is really always not a good word. You know, I'm not generally for protection of, you know, like tariffs and those kind of things. But I think the more we connect, the more we have to protect. Because the problem is that we're not, if we were a machine, then I wouldn't care if we were a machine today. Because the more connections, the better. But there's many things that are human that only work when we are not connected. Contemplation, digesting. I coined a term called digital obesity a few years ago. Basically we're becoming fat from information. You may know, Harari talks about this, there's more people dying from obesity than from hunger today. Now there's more people killing themselves on social networks than on any other platform in the world. So the power users of social networks are the highest suicide rate in the world. The power users. I sure hope you're not in that category, right? So Instagram, for example. So yeah, I think that's unfortunately not easy to give a black or white answer on this. I think we're gonna need a lot of wisdom to navigate this. Other questions? Do we have time? We don't have much time left.  So. Until the sun comes out. Yeah, please, what was the next question? You was good. No, if you were talking to, I come from the travel sector, how do you think what people will experience in the future? Now we come here, we go to the beach. How do you think our time, because people will not work so long, looks like, and we will have a lot of spare time. How do you think the people from the travel sector will get involved to create new experiences, to create new travel or whatever products to the people? Well, I think in a nutshell, that's pretty much true for all industries. What humans really want the most is first relationships with other humans, engagement with other humans and animals and so on, and experiences. That's what makes the human brain work. Data is of no consequence to us. We are actually, we don't care. We could find any argument for data and logic. This is just subsweaking to our experience. It's basically whatever we take in, because we have a channel like this, that's what we experience, and that becomes our most important thing. That's been called, you know, 25 years ago, the experience economy. So what's his name? Pine and Gilmore, right? Great book. And it's finally true. You know, people cherish experiences like in the luxury market. That is the big thing. The biggest thing is to experience freedom, not to buy your product back. And that's a huge trend in millennials, and I think for travel, that's obviously a very important trend. So the experience economy is also very, very important when we talk about how we prioritize things. And I agree with you, in 20 years, it's quite likely that we're going to work two or three hours a day and get paid the same. I mean, if we make the right decisions. And so what do we do then? I mean, those are big conversations that I think some people talk about the Star Trek society, right, where we are all doing things that we want to do. Yeah, who knows? We'll see about that. We have another question. You frame the contrast of people clashing over whether to combine machines in the future or maintain the human experience. And you frame that as a question of efficiency and maintaining the rights to other people to be human and to be inefficient. But when I look at how much my generation has suffered from over-simulation, there's a clear hardware issue with us already being over-simulated, probably to cope with technology as it stands now. And so to what extent could the question of combining machines be an existential one of saying the environment we live in is already capable of dealing with it and combining machines is how you survive, not how you become more efficient. Okay, I heard that argument before, but existential, I mean, of course the issue of thinking machines is existential. You know, right today, intelligent assistance is not existential because the machines are not that clever yet, but it's very disruptive to our society and work. So it creates huge social issues, technological unemployment, and also new jobs, of course. But when the machines become sort of appearing to be conscious, you know, that's definitely existential. The question is, do we have to merge with the machines because otherwise we die? You know, that's an interesting debate. That's what Elon Musk is saying. But that's kind of like saying, okay, you know, maybe I can get rid of my body and just live in the cloud because that's the best way I can live, you know, but would it be a good thing? Would I be human without all the things that make me human? And my argument is that we pay too little attention to what actually makes us human, which is the opposite of a machine. If we were to use a machine to make it more efficient, it wouldn't be the same thing, you know. I mean, yeah, you can have sex with a robot and for many men that's like, okay, it's a possibility, right? But is that a good thing? And what actually happens when you do that? How does it change things? And how does the use of technology change the way that you look at the world, right? And so I think there's many things we should be very careful about making that normal. Many people will try this. But as I said in 20 years, we're going to have that debate about people saying, you know what, you're so lame because you're not, you know, directly connected. And then we're going to need some sort of a human rights convention that makes it possible to exist. I think that's already in progress, this idea of saying that, you know, for example, privacy, right?  Just shut up, right? Because, you know, it's not efficient. And then my answer is always, you know what, if you don't have anything to hide, you're probably not human. I was curious to hear that you would like to have the pilot in the plane. Would you need the driver in the driving car? And why do you need the pilot in the plane? Yeah, that's a good point. I think Boeing and Airbus are working on automated transport with planes, right? And that's going to happen. But I think a drone, which is essentially a 747 or a 380 drone, delivering parcels, you know, with just an operator on board, I can live with that. But as a human being in a metal box without somebody as an interface, and you know, economically speaking, it's completely not a debate, right? I mean, one pilot or two pilots makes no difference except for the strikes and all that stuff, right? But it makes no difference in terms of economics. So I think that it's a typical case to where it can be completely automated, but we feel happier if it's not. But the car is different. First, you've seen in the last few weeks a lot of debates about how real is the idea of an autonomous car. And the answer is Level 5, human-style autonomy, is far away, right? It works with Waymo and Palo Alto, you know, when you see the movies, because in Palo Alto, a 5-year-old kid could drive the car, you know, in the suburbs.  That would be the same thing.  So my argument is autonomous cars, Level 3 and 4, that's plenty. I mean, why does a car have to be like me? It's plenty if I can take the car from the New York City Hilton to the airport and it's completely automated. I'm happy. Does it have to be like a human? No, it doesn't. It will still completely revolutionize our world even without being like a human. And what is the point of having a car that you can drive like me? The point would be if I want to have fun, I drive myself, which is going to be illegal before you know it. We have to have a special permit. But I think automation of routine, that's what we need. Routine driving. And I think that's, yeah, that's a good argument for saying, yeah, sometimes we need the human even though technically speaking, we don't really need them. Call center, same thing. 21 million people work in call centers. 95% will be automated. Because in a call center, I don't really need that. So anyway, I want to leave you because we have to really stop now. I'm going to see you at the beach later. Thank you. Four books. Good! Thank you. Thank you. I'll sign it later. You have to pass it on to somebody. Thank you for sharing it.


Good morning, ladies and gentlemen and welcome to the new trading week. Oh, you all had a very pleasant Weekend this week will be very interesting To see what will happen to the price of oil because on the 28th of September this week Wednesday, I'll cheer you there will be an oil conference the Saudis already said that they want to Host a side conference Along that main conference there in Algeria together with Russia to talk about any Steps they could take actually to cap the price or kept the production world production of oil the United Arab Emirates already born that the What the world market for oil needs is? Not something that is a quick solution, but something that is more Lasting and so everybody should be cautious not to do something that is a quick fix to Any problems that might be there because low prices could be too low. So there could be a quick fix That's what the you a ease there United Arab Emirates warrant actually So on the 28th of September there will be the oil conference in Algeria And that will also be Mario Tragi visiting the lower parliament in Germany the Bundestag He will hold a speech there German Finance Minister and Minister Wolfgang Scheubler already demanded That lawmakers are urging Tragi to take a tough or take Or that all all lawmakers take a tough stance with Mario Tragi and his zero-rate policy Scheubler Has repeatedly said that low rates squeeze savings for Germans and created excessive Liquidity in the markets and that is a risk in his opinion and so Mario Tragi is In the crossfire here on the 28th of September in Berlin Then there was Moody's over the weekend cutting the Accredited rating of Turkey to chunk the lira could go go even weaker That's a big question if you look at the price of the euro versus the lira the dollar versus the Turkish lira then The lira of course has weakened are quite a bit in the past Months and quarters Moody's thinks that there is a risk of sudden disruptive reversal of foreign capital flows into Turkey then there is a more risk of a more rapid fall in reserves and in the worst case there could be In the worst case scenario or balance of payments crisis could emerge in Turkey So there's even worse things to come or the risk of those have increased And so they cut the rating a credit rating of Turkey to chunk Then of course I was on vacation just last week So just some words to the Federal Reserve and their decision to hold rates where they were There were 3d centers actually Of course Rosencreen was one of them and that is quite unusual actually because normally there's one Decentre and not three Rosencreen if you remember back just some weeks ago caused a heavy correction in the Dow Jones several hundred points Continued selling on that day where he said that actually a September hike could be in the cards and Now the Fed has held rates where they are and so they avoided any correction continuation but The economy is still weak. So equity prices are lifted back to pre Rosencreen speech levels roughly but from here, let's see normally potential is limited because actually The economy is still weak the industrial Manufacturing sector in the United States is still in recession There are signals that this services sector and consumption is weakening And so that's somewhat dampening the mood on Wall Street right now and As well as there were 3d centers a hike in December has become more probable on the other side of the globe the Bank of Japan has Announced more easing verbally at least But those new verbal announcements are incompatible with their Old announcements. They said that and that was the new part They buy as many bonds as possible or as less as few bonds as possible or Necessary to keep rates at zero. So they will buy Do anything they need to keep rates at zero and at the same time. They said they want to maintain 786 billion dollars of Treasury buys per year But if you really think that through that's not really something that is compatible because if there is less demand They have to buy more than 786 billion dollars. And if there is more demand, they will have to buy less So that's not compatible at that somehow at least that's how plumber put it is Signaling a deepening divide of opinions within the Bank of Japan and as we got 3d centers Which is quite unusual in the latest Fed decision that there is also a deepening divide of opinions within the Fed of a reserve But directions are different Bank of Japan is leaning more towards more easing While the Fed is leaning more towards a hawkish stance


What's going on, everyone? Sam here with late in sports cards, ripping 21-22, Panini Dauntress Optic Basketball Hobby, 12 box full case break, number 11, tiered random team style. Here is a look again at your random results. As always, you can find these on the website under the results tab as well as the link that is currently in chat. So good luck here, everybody. Let's do it. You guys sold everything out except one break right now. That is so impressive. Thank you so much. Just six to go in a half case of Spectra Random Teams, Spectra Flip-Ball, breaking a little bit later on tonight. Well, all 10 box Tuesdays are now sold out. Thank you again. Those are like 23 spots to go with a ton of time left. So thank you so much. Do some Optic. Don't have a lot of this left, so this will be a fun one. We got an auto first pack. Blue, Mobley Rookie of Cameron Thomas, 36 out of 49. That's going to the Nets. Nice one there. Brooklyn, Jeffrey H. Mike, let's see. It's on the schedule for 10 o'clock, 10 p.m. I would figure it might be a little bit later than that. If we're still a little bit behind, I would say between 10 and 1015 it'll go live. You got the random typed in for it already. It's just a matter of getting there on time. But we're a little behind right now. We'll probably be a little behind after the next break as well. So I'll probably be behind going into Flip-Ball. But we'll make up some time on the Spectras and the Origin Mixer. I just sent this paper out. Oh, thank you. Orange Miles McBride, it's a 199. See, look what happens when Alex orders. Well, what a problem. Out from Shenmue for the Rockets. I told you. See what happens when Alex orders? Yeah. No problems. You give them a written request and it comes through. Oh, perfect. Yeah. This is just perfect. Julius Randall for the Nix, the 59. No ranch. No missing sauces. No nonsense. No egg rolls. Donnie is gripping onto any puny. He can find out of this. He's just hoping for. Yannis, Elite Dominator's Hollow. Oh, we're a Mars jumping in number 20. We're down to five now in number 20. Eastern time. That is Eastern time. I'm going to do a dice roll on these. One, two, three, left, four, five, six, right. We'll go for the entire break unless it's like a gold or a one-of-one or super low numbered or an auto. I'm going to re-roll that. It's going to be a four. That is going to be a four. Right. I'm sorry, I re-rolled and it landed half on a pack, half not on a pack, so it was tilted. So we had to re-roll that one. Crack dice. Crack dice. There's Franz Wagner. Goran Trodrick. Let's go crack dice. You need some serious help. Jalen Suggs rookie. Moses Moody. Right there. He needs some help. That guy back there needs some help. Oh, yeah. Blue to 49. That's going to the right. Mellow with the nuggets. Come on. There you go. Right with Yanis in the Bucks. Andrew Wiggins. I'm most dangerous three-year-olds around. Jalen, yeah. Zach Levine. They're talking to Sean. I'm not very Sean. It's a hot mess over here. Sean's still in diapers. Tray young. Close barely afloat. Close barely afloat. Hello, Darius Beasley. Like seriously? That's my favorite Seanism right there. Seriously? Is it like seriously? What's up, smack that? I've had it. Woody Three is of course out of the classic. It's all fit. It's barely afloat over here. Dude, this is trouble. Hey, Dave. Sabonis hollow. Yanis Pink Velocity. 28 out of 79. Nice one there for the Bucks. Um... Yeah, 10 bucks Tuesday baseball is pretty good. There's a Shohei Otani Auto and a really good Prospect Auto. There's a Jalen Green going to the Rockets. There we go, Houston. Congrats to Frank V on that one. Frank A. Nice one there. Frank, congrats on the Jalen. That's his name on Instagram, it's just Jalen. Oh yeah. I think. Zach Levine. I know Chad came in and brought the heat right there, man. Ricky Bullock hollow. D'Angelo Russell, just 99. On the red for the Timberwolves. Disgusted. Kessler Edwards hollow. Yeah, see, that's what I'm saying, Vaughn. What's up, Caden, welcome back. Got the Jalen at. One of the coordinators is Anthony Edwards. Kobe Fleener has Kobe. C-O-B-Y. Russell Westbrook hollow. Sean has Bassiakken. Let's go. I don't know how you got that one. Let's go. Probably because there's nobody else that wanted it. No. Chris Paul. That was his. I thought I was heavy into it. It had started there for a while. Fishin' in my backyard. Scotty Barnes. Fuckin' smack. To the right, Zion had to get into the Spectre. Kaden.  Got to hit you something big now. KD. Yusuf Nerkic on the hollow. Going for this rainbow here. Milwaukee. Another Yannis this time, Orange. 26 out of 199. He's got Milwaukee. Alex C on the tier two. So many error cards in Spectre. It's kind of wild, actually. How many errors there are in that. Red lighted up Tatum to 99. Immaculate impeccable flawless tomorrow. Immaculate impeccable flawless tomorrow. Going to be radical, dude. Going to be radical, dude. Yeah, I did see. I saw the... You know how we pulled the zap? Were you here with the zappy couple? The air? No. I think it was Donnie. And there was a barely zappy card with a dolphin's patch in it. And then on... The plan goes stop for your own sake. There's Malcolm Brogdon in the 149. It's one of 149. The tool case of Spectre. But yeah, there's a couple of zappies that have dolphin's patches and then there's a sauce gardener with a commander's patch. Yeah, I saw that. Damn, out of bio. Yeah, I saw a couple with the dolphin's patch. Wild, dude. Larry Bird with the Celtics. Matisse Thible. Did he actually... Chad, that's pretty funny. The card's wild. Buddy healed, hollow for the Kings. That's true. That's true, Juan. Nemius Keita, one out of 49 on the Optograph's Rookie Auto for the Kings. Nice one there, Sacktown. Going to James C. That's so wild that that went into production. The Shengun Rookie. Hello, Moses Moody. Hollow Lebron for the Lakers. Red, a buddy healed for the Kings. 99. It's insane, dude. It's actually insane. It's so bad. Not only is it the wrong patch, but then it's half of the old Washington Redskins logo. It's a logo that is not particularly... people are fond of. Hollow Ray Allen, but then it's also a patch that hasn't been used in three years. There's just so many levels of just good to it. Kyle Lowry to 199. Bunger, 75 years. Patrick Williams, I'm green to 149, second year. Bulls. Taylor Maladon, Evan Mobley. Guarantee I get at least one. Dude, don't show the back of the card. What are you doing?  I can no longer function properly since you showed me the back of one card. Oh, no. What am I ever going to do? How am I ever going to recover from this financially? Jalen Suggs Hollow. Red Lebron to 99. Lighted up for the Lakers. We've got our auto coming up in here. It's going to be Nenius Keita again, second one of the break. That's Ima Hollow rated rookie autograph for the Kings. Dylan Brooks Hollow. Yeah, why aren't you showing every card? All right, here we go. Jacob Pertle. Zach Levine. Hollow Julius Randall. Hollow Aaron Wiggins. A little slower than that. I got you, Joshua. Here, I got you. It's in Zaire Williams rated rookie. Tres... John Collins. P.E.D. Legend. Atlanta. It's the last big error card. There's been a couple... There's actually one in this. It's not really a big one, but every single... Every single DeMar DeRosin card is stamped with a photon. It's stamped with a photon. Jalen Green. If we pull it tomorrow, you'll see what I mean. Jason Preston Orange to 199. I don't know, Knight, actually. Is it... Ace calendar anywhere? I haven't heard anything, if I'm being honest with you. John Morant, Hollow. That's sick. Let's go, dude. See, that helps, because then I can't overreact the cards anymore. You know, like I always do, so... That helps out much more. And we're sold out on the night, dude. Unbelievable. Unbelievable. Thank you guys so much. That's so awesome. So awesome. Best customer base in the entire world. Hands down. Hands down. Not even close. Now I just get to have a nice night of fun. I get to annoy Sean. It's fantastic. Jimmy Butler, 30 out of 39. Black Velocity for the Heat. Broken Leg Legend. Gordon Hayward. THT Hollow for the Lakers. Herbert Jones Hollow Rookie for the Pelicans. Shirley Tommy. Scottie Barnes Rookie. The Rookies for the Raptors. Hollow, Joel and B. Eudonis Haslam. Going to the Heat, 40 out of 99 on the Optographs. Here we go, Alex C. Tier 2. Nice. Eudonis. I saw your Spider-Man water bottle. No, you didn't. I can tell you that. I've got a couple questions on that. It's a little strange. I heard you were strawberry shortcake. PJ's the bed. Cool. Yonis base now? Three Yonis parallels. Yeah. What's wrong with that? See, here's the error right here. DeMar DeRozan, they're all stamped with the photon. Like the photon on the outside. That's the big error card this year. That's an orange too, at 199. I wonder what the gold vinyl of that looks like. Probably pretty cool.  Fantastic. Yeah, in the bot. I'm going to get some in a couple of minutes. There's Green Zach Levine. It's a 149. I might actually do that with you. Yeah. Heather's got to go to work early in the morning. Should we sleep? What's she doing? She's like nannies for her family. Nannies you. That's her other full-time job. There's Fred Van Vleet on the hollow, reigning threes. I asked her out there, I want your parents opinion or the baby see you. What'd she say? I can't disclose that information. It's not enough though, Sean. I said, I heard you. What are we going to meet while I'm with dad? You got to bring them in. Yeah, they're going to come visit me because they're actually in Florida right now. But they're down in what's it called? Fort Myers or Naples or something. They drove down because they needed their car down here. They drive back up and bring them into the shop. Blue, Stargazing, Yannis to 49. Hello, Elite Dominators at Kauai Leonard. Quickers. There's a Josh Guiney-based rookie for the Thunder. Hello, Miles McBride. Wapping two likes and eight views. Come on.   Hello, KPJ. Orange, BI to 199 for the Pelicans. Probably the best way would be to go through just like customer service and the email call. Try it all, man. It is tough though. Good luck. To 149, Deontay Murray. It is tough. Hello, Jalen Suggs. The Magic. There's Orange to 199, Cole Anthony. Kind of a Mitchell Stargazing hollow for the Jazz. Karis Leverts, that is 8 out of 99 for the Pacers on the Optographs. That's going to Barry. Barry G. Yeah, I'm good. Yeah, I'm on a Biohollow. Yeah, right. Ooh, nice one here. We got a gold. Anthony Davis, go to the Lakers. One up to add. Nice AD. That's on that Jeffrey H. Anthony Davis. Probably hasn't signed yet. Yeah, that's probably what it is. Probably hasn't signed his autos yet. It's really more like Panini with a lot of times they kind of have their hands tied. It's really like a matter of the players like signing their autographs or not. It's annoying. Blue, Donovan Mitchell. It's 59. Nice one there. Some water really quick and we'll keep going. That's just their spot. It's cold up in Connecticut so they're just like they got like a really nice like they rent like a pretty solid place and my aunt and uncle go down like my mom's sister and her husband go down with them at the same time and so they just hang out there for a couple months. Jared Allen, $2.99 and they have like some other friend to fly down for like a week and visit too. Yeah. Hello. Woosebitch. Woosh. Yeah, house or something. They do like a community condo kind of thing. Yeah, it's got like a pool and stuff like that. It's got like decent amenities and such. Yeah, Graham, just drop us your credit card information and we'll give something away for free. He got it. Hopefully, I mean I wouldn't hate Mahomes winning another Super Bowl. Scotty Barnes. I think he will. I think he's got a shot. Mahomes. He had to win another one. Why wouldn't he? Ricky Rubio. Ricky Rubio really caught some strays that one night randomly. Yeah, he's trash. Hello, Scotty Barnes of the rookies for just one, yeah true, for just one redemption. I just have to imagine CMC hasn't signed his autos yet. There's a Wang ZZ, 89 out of 99. That's going to the Mavericks. Got Dallas, Alex C. Steph Curry lighted up. I wonder what the photon's going to be. Come on, Murray.  I think it's fun, but he played well this year. Kate Bacerook. He got to give it to Denny of Dia to 149. It's like impressive. Yeah, he was pretty impressive this year. Still not getting any dimes though. He was almost there. Chris Paul. Hello, Bones Highland. I'm with you, Randy. I'm with you. Crazy thing. Chiefs have never played names in championship games in the world. Or in Herbert Jones to 199. Crazy. Like most expensive card we have or most expensive card I've ever pulled? Dane. Come on, Dane. That's a blue Reggie Bullock for the maps in 59. Ever pulled? I mean, at late end we pulled the Luca Logo Man from NT patch auto that's sold for 3 million recently. But me personally, I pulled the Jackson Meryl Super. That's valued at like 20 grand. There you go. You got Chipotle. That's always a W right there, Kate. No, therapy. We're in Apopka, so we're outside Orlando. There's Kaminga, Bradley Beale, Hollow. There is always a silver lining. Very good point, Taylor. There's Red, Chris Paul to 99. Absolutely, I completely agree with that, Randy. Today was an I'm a vegetable day. All that. Those are the best though, Taylor. Nothing wrong with that. Couch potato days. Hell yeah, Darius. Anytime. We break Bowman pretty much every day now because draft just came out. Yeah, check out the link in the bio GeorgeCards.com. Give it a give it a shot if you're ever interested, man. It's fun. It's a good time. It's a good Bowman draft this year too. It's a good class. Hollow, Joel and Bid. No, no downtowns and optic basketball product, gotcha. Steph Curry, Hollow. I got you. James Harden. We did a tiered random team style for a full case and it was 320 a spot for two teams. Evan Mobley, a rookie that's guarantee a top 15 team though. Hi, what's up Jeremy? There's Donovan Mitchell to 59. I know it's Mack. What's your Luca Auto? What product is it out of? That might have something to do with it. Was it Flux? Yeah, basketball makes it up next, kid. Basketball out of optic right now. Probably like a Kate Cunningham, like gold vinyl. One of the gold vinyls of the big game. Davion Mitchell, Hollow. I've only pulled like two out of this. One of whom was a Rageon Rondo Auto. Nice, Franz Wagner to 99. Optographs for The Magic, congrats Orlando. That's going to be Matthew C. A gun begone of it, shoe 149. Yeah, they're both, the gold vinyls are 101 out of this, yeah. Yeah, they're both 101's, two that I pulled. The Rageon Rondo Auto, I don't even remember the other one with some base. Nothing super, super notable. Chris Paul, 299. What's up, Dina? Franz Wagner, Rookie. Hello, Alonzo. That guy stinks. Wait, were you here when LeVar got banned? No, I heard about it. Yeah. That was forced. That was forced doing... We do them all. This is a random team right here. They're streaming on green to 59. What's up? Is that a setup? What? What do you mean was it a setup? I know. Now we'll never know. That's the thing that sucks is we'll never know who it was, so they make a new account. Orange, D'Angelo Russell, 2199. Question mark. Jalen Suggs, the rookies. Recon. Is it a rookie or no, smack? We do not have 1920s Chronicles basketball. We do not. So we have 1920 select. I think that's the only 20 product we got right now. So you open in a box of that after this. And a mixer. We don't sell cards. We don't sell cards on TikTok. Dearon Sharp, Rated Rookie Auto for the Nets. Nets second hit. That's one there. Movely. We're doing pretty solid there, for sure. We're doing pretty fun. Vika Zuba. Anthony for the magic. Yeah, we've been ripping a little bit of Star Wars. We've been doing some group breaks with it, but we have them in stock for personal. So most of the rips of those we've been doing have been personals. We have Importer Jr. at 199. Sharp for sale, oh god. Don't even start, Gary. Yeah, new Star Wars is fire. The Chrome Galaxy. Oh boy. Here we go with the comedians. Jalen Green, base rookie. Lamello Valhalla, second year. Yeah, there's started a new program. You can pit on hits and chat. Oh my lord. There's Evan Mobley. Don't even. They're not here, they just lose. There's Desmond Bain. I think we have XR football at like $4.50 a box or $3.50, I'm not sure off the top of my head. If we have... You can go on latinsportscards.com and just go to personal boxes.  I'm not sure off the top of my head. There's a JAW 58 out of $79 in pink velocity. Just put your credit card info in chat. Yeah, give us those nice nice little CBC 3 numbers on the back. Don't forget that too. Same with the expiration date. Don't forget that one. Yeah, no problem, Jeremy. Jalen Suggs, rookie. Hello, Brandon Boston Jr. I'm Green Cam Thomas to $149 for the Nets. That's doing well for a year or two right now. Yeah, your nice little pin as well. Little expiration date. Paul George Hall. Right with Isaiah Thompson, IT with the Pistons. And the bass. Alrighty, on to the next one. I still haven't gotten banned on my burner. So I can't think of anything funny enough on this like when Forest is live to like say something really cool. Like I'm not quick enough with it. I like sit there and think. And then half the time like my messages don't go through. There's Herbert Jones bass auto for the pelicans. Nice one there. He'll bring it back and apologize. John and coming up. Now we pulled in the first pack. That's why. Now we had a day around sharp in the last pack. I mean last box. There's LeBron James Hall. I love pepperoni pizza and watching the movie. Your butler to 59. Everybody take a picture of that real quick. We want to be Taylor S. We haven't hit it yet actually. No photon yet. There's a nice one coming up here. Evan Mobley Pink Velocity to 79. There we go cabs. That's Cleveland. Jeffrey H. There you go buddy. Nice one there. Pink Velocity Mobley. Got that mag for you there Jeffrey. There's Scotty Barnes Rookie. The Rookies. Now Mobley's a beast dude. It just top because he got like a lot of his minutes taken away with Mitchell in there. But Josh Giddy. They have a shot at the title eventually. Jimmy Butler Hollow. Scotty Barnes Rookie. Blue. Donovan Mitchell Dominators to 49 for the jazz. Devon Booker Hollow. Old 2.149. Now he has a stud defensively for sure. For sure. It's disgusting. It really is pure filth. Ben Timmons Hollow. Deepen. Steaming. Mitzi Steibel to 199. They are cabs believe me. That's why I gotta get up after every break. I'm gonna like stretch my fingers around. After the bigger ones. Hollow Raining Threes Clay Thompson. But it's so muscle memory like I mean think about it. It's just all like the same motion. And at Moses Moody. Alright on the box of 11. Who's on the trash list today? Everybody. Where some of the highlights. One shot. There you go. Nice dude. Another mag coming up here. It's gonna be Cade Cunningham on the pink velocity. Going to Max K. And the piston. 16 out of 79. Illegal trash for sure. Yeah. Surprise I'm not in there. Well you're the leader of it all. Senior trash. Senior trash hole. What's your name? I was gonna say now where's the where's the Scotty Pink Velocity? Last box Vaughn. Last box. We pulled the Cade and the Mobley and now we need the Scotty. Oh Luca Garza. And on there it is finally. Only took us 11 boxes. Blake Griffin going to the next Case Hit Photon. Nice one there congrats Brooklyn. Jeffrey. Yeah I know they did them dirty. It's like Jackson Holliday. Jack's Holliday is super dirty. They did somebody else really dirty too. And what's it called? We can't throw it back. Oh God. Victor Oladipo to 149. I mean to be fair though. Like there's not many good can't hurt that fix your shoes and prom you know what I mean. There's Cade Cunningham. There's gotta be ones better than the ones they pick. Yeah that's also true. It's also a very good point. There are Otto here. Jalen Johnson. That's rookie of the year snub. Jalen Johnson for the Hawks. Atlanta Matthew C. Bowman Draft. What about Bowman Draft? Vaughn can you answer why the Raptors want so much in return for OG Nunnaby? They said they wanted like what Deontay Murray brought. Deontay 8th. Orange Killian Hayes to 199. For the Pistons. Thanks Aiden. I just know that with the right hand you think so? I mean I think he'd be a good piece. I don't know if I'm going to mortgage my future for Nunnaby though. LeBron. Stargazing Hala. I'll be interested because I'm assuming he's going to get traded. So I'm assuming what he's going to bring. Like we know if he gets traded then other teams value him the same. If he doesn't get traded then the Raptors are overvaluing him. I guess that's kind of how we know. Yeah I know he's a great defender. Great defender for sure. Big time defender. The box of the break. Good luck everybody. A quick recap after because I can get an auto first pack again of Ayo Dasudmu on the Hala Rated Rookie Autograph. Congrats Bulls. James A. There you go James. Nice Ayo. Check one thing. See there we go. There's the first one. Learn to open packs so we don't see the insert immediately. I said the over under was going to be one on that. So thank you Raptor. I'm not going to do it but thank you. Appreciate you buddy. Man it took 12 boxes. I'm going to say that. Surprise man. Wow. D'Angelo Russell. Sam doesn't take too kindly the learning things. Sam does not. Sam does not. Kevin Porter Jr. Hala. Forrest coming in spamming with the Oh another auto. No upside down. Greg Brown. There's Carmelo Anthony to 99. Chris Middleton. Look at it. Look at it. The back of the card. Oh no. Anthony Davis to 149 on the lime green. How are we ever going to move on? Oh no. How are we ever going to recover man? I don't know. Ray Allen for the Sonics AKA Thunder. Kade Bacerookie. Nice one there. Lonzo Moore. Just close your eyes. Oh yeah. Just a quick look away. You can come right back. The Humanity. My day seeing the back of those. My day is ruined. My day is ruined. Hello buddy healed. It's going to be the end of the real one of one right there. Hello Franz Wagner. Nice one there. Don't even start that. That's a joke of a conversation. I don't really get rich going if you bring that up on. There's an orange Bradley Biel. 2199. Zach Levine light it up. It's going to be brutal. It's going to be absolutely brutal. Carl. Let's do a quick recap here guys. IOTSUMU Bulls. Jalen Johnson Hawks. Daeron Sharp Nets. Franz Wagner Magic. Wang ZZ Maps. Karis Lavert Pacers. Eunonis Haslem Heat. Thomas Nets. We've got Jalen Green Bass Auto. And two nice pink VELOS. We've got a Evan Mobley and a Cade Cunningham. We'll do it for the break. Thank you guys again for the fill. Next up we got Ten Box Tuesdays.


Is it even December if this doesn't happen? Here we go, the fines weren't enough to scare the cowboys from another dip inside the kettle. I would never be able to get out of that thing if I crawled in, Zeke and the boys ran away from the Colts in the fourth quarter in historic fashion, 54 to 19. It was a blowout, but not really. If you don't watch the game, you look at the final score and you're like, whoa, what happened here? But it doesn't come close to telling the story. This was a battle through three quarters. This was a 21 to 19 situation going into the fourth. And then Dallas somehow racks up 33 points in the final frame to completely put it away. And that is the most unanswered points the team has scored in the fourth quarter since the 1925. Let's see it, the 1925 Milwaukee Badgers. Listen, Milwaukee Badgers are no joke. And if L team pre-merger, of course, Badgers, they were around from 1922 to 1926. Asi Orwal was their big player. Listen, they had some epic battles and showdowns against the rival, the Potsfield Maroons, back in the day. What are we saying there? Did I get it wrong? Anyone? Oh, okay, he said nice. Nailed it, Potsfield Maroons, everybody. I'm gonna need that logo, an advantage T-shirt, but that's what we're talking about here, people. We've even seen that happen since 1925 and it went from, oh no, they might lose to the Colts to, oh no, let the Colts at least get out of there with some dignity, a shred of it, will you? And it happened like that, beyond the offensive explosion. It was cool to see safety, Malik Hooker. Have a nice moment against this, and we saw that all around the league yesterday, of course, Bobby Wagner will get to that one. But Malik Hooker's a really strong player that has had to deal with a lot and he's had injuries that he struggled with in his career. Now, if you look at the playoff picture as things shook out here post week 13, oh my gosh, the Cowboys, they're pretty much stuck in that five C thanks to the Eagles, but they've continued to gain momentum with each passing week and this team does feel a little different than past years. Am I right? Tweet me. Am I right? They're clicking. There's also something to be said about when it's happening, right? We're talking about week 14. Momentum's building, you're seeing it on the AFC side of things, I think with the Bengals a little bit. And then you have this other piece that might be somewhere named O'Dell Beckham, Jr., a piece that was very relevant last year, Super Bowl run for those Rams. And he is in the building, I believe, today. So, even if the Eagles run away with the division, you still kind of can't sleep on Dallas this year, especially if they do bring O'Dell into the building and somehow don't let him out of the building without signing a contract to be a Dallas Cowboy. All right, now time, and please tweet me at Up an Adams Show, at Hey K Adams with our takeaways from week 13. We have a great battle right there. Okay, and you guys went toe to toe, came out on top, it took everybody in this locker room. What are we saying, dawg? Happy with this. I'm happy with everything that's going on. The Bengals, they come away with a dramatic, emphatic 27 to 24 win over the Chiefs. Again, three zip is hard to do. Three zip is hard to do here. And that matchup going back to last year, this is a statement from this team that this was not a one year wonder or a fun Cinderella story. And I heard it all, all off season. It wasn't even on sports television. I was in Africa and I was here and everybody's saying, we won your winner, we won your winner, we double the up and sublime. Sorry, sorry, Buffalo, sorry Kansas City, but Cincinnati is not going anywhere. Sorry Ravens, and they're going to be a huge factor in the AFC once again, where they should be. And what jumped out to me yesterday was the sheer confidence this team showed down the stretch, even after, okay, I'm just gonna be dead, dead honest. I was a little, I don't know if you saw my Twitter, you would have been like, are you even a bangle stand? I was not super happy with some things I was saying because there were some costly mistakes that cost them some points. Like Chase, love you, you're back, you're feeling it, the whole read thing happened. I knew there would be some riffraff out there, but the taunting penalty when you didn't, Chase didn't even score the touchdown. That was an interesting move. And you know, like, did you win the game in the second quarter? No, and then there was this weird thing at the end of the half that was infuriating where the bangles, just take the points, heard of it, it works. So there were some rough moments, but none of them shook the team. In the highest pressure situation, they did their thing. They kept their foot on the gas, they made the right moves towards the end and they stayed aggressive and they, this is what I tweeted, and I shouldn't have tweeted it because I'm a woman tweeting this to a bunch of men that are following me, I said go for the throat, right? It was summed up perfectly by that third and 11 to close out the game. So Nance and Romo loved their call of this and let it just wash over you this morning. Pressure, to get that reception with Joshua Williams all over him. Oh my goodness, that is so bad. It was a gutsy call in the moment and if that is incomplete, Mahomes has almost two minutes to march down the field, knowing that a touchdown will win KC the game. Gutsy execution for Barrow to hang in the pocket with the guy, there's a dude barreling down on him and then Higgins to make that grab in traffic. So I love what Joe had to say after the game when he was asked about playing it safe. Trying to play it safe for you. No, I'm trying to, you know, the kind of, you know, the quarterback they have on the other side of the ball, you know, we can't settle for a field goal there. He's going to go down and win the game. So we got to find a way to get that conversion and teammate a big play just like he did last year in the AFC championship, same route, unbelievable catch. I loved this. I was tweeting about it. Don't kick a field goal. Don't let me catch you kicking a field goal. So the confidence, this mentality, yeah, this is me. If they could go field goal on this drive, I'm going to lose it because I also know the quarterback on the other side and it's hard to make those gutsy calls and then to execute them perfectly. But this mentality of staying aggressive, of slamming the door, not just taking the safe route, praying your defense gets a stop. This is what could potentially take this team even further than it did last season. Instead of letting what happened in the Super Bowl last year put fear of doubt in them, it seems like it almost empowered and emboldened these bangles. They went through every team's worst nightmare with how the loss to the Rams played out, right? And then there's this lazy narrative that is stuffed in our faces all off season that for the last 10 months, my goodness, teams that lose the Super Bowl are terrible the next year. They've proven that that's BS, I'm gonna swore, BS. They are every bit of the team they were in 2021. Maybe some pieces were reshuffled. All of that media chatter was absolute bull and this fan base doesn't have anything to be worried about. Joe Burrow is just different and as long as they have him, you're okay and the locker room is different and not only the rest of the AFC but the rest of the league should be afraid of that. And speaking of the rest of the AFC, let's take a look. Playoff picture thrown into complete madness. I like this yesterday's events. By the way, who had a better day than the Bills yesterday?  Everything that you needed to happen, their Bills fan Brian happened. The Chiefs of Dolphins, that means the Bills are again, firmly in the one seed, bangles in a wildcard spot because the AFC North leading Ravens, they also got a win miraculously yesterday since he does now have a two game cushion over those in the hunt teams though, meaning they should feel pretty comfortable getting into the playoffs and then wreaking havoc on the rest of the league. Okay, let's talk about this. I mentioned the Dolphins loss. They felt 33 to 17 at the hands of the Niners, Sands, Jimmy Garoppolo. That is a game that we should dig into here as a takeaway from yesterday. First off, thoughts out to Jimmy Garoppolo, a team leader, a winner. He's done his thing and now he's done for the year with a foot injury. Tremendous performance this season though in place of Trey Lance dealing with all that drama better than anyone could. And this is the guy who's written off all of the time. That shouldn't be glossed over. And I do think that even if the new quarterback of they bring Baker in, whatever it is, whatever happens, it's hard to fill the void from a leadership perspective, from a locker room perspective, from a winning and confidence and experience perspective that Jimmy Garoppolo brought to this locker room. But then I'm not gonna just give up on this team because there was no reason to, especially after what I saw yesterday, the Niners rallied and Brock Purdy deserves credit here, the 262nd and final pick of the draft out of Iowa State. Okay, he was forced into action. He looked awesome, finishing 210 yards, two touchdowns in relief of Jimmy. And Shanahan, he had some interesting things to say about the performance. Listen to this. Brock came in and made some big plays.  Forgive me for saying it that way. He's, you know, we got to clean some stuff up, obviously, but just throwing them in there in the heat of battle like that, how much zero that team did too, which you guys could see. That was a big plan of theirs and they had some good adjustments taking away some of our hot throws. So we were gonna change a lot of stuff on the fly. So putting a lot of pressure on him in that way. And I thought he did a hell of a job doing it. He did. And it's gonna be on him and on Shanahan. Of course, there's a lot of pressure. The rook held up yesterday, but let's be honest, the defense for the Niners really got this thing done. Two long touchdown passes, beautiful once man that went to Tyreek was sweet, but they stifled this Dolphins attack. One of the best teams in the league. They held Miami without a third down conversion on the day. Nick Bosa, I mean, stamp it, put it away and just give him the award now. That is your defensive player of the year. His three sacks, move him into the league lead and he just consistently got after Tua.  There was no world the Dolphins could have any rhythm when this was going on. So you look at it, three sacks, unbelievable. I think it's up to about 14 and a half, I think, on the year. The Niners, if we take a look at the playoff picture, they're on top of the West. And why, while I think the road's gotten sort of significantly tougher without Jimmy G, I do believe that it is tougher. I'm not gonna bury them yet. The defense, Debo, CMC, Kittle, Trent Williams, all the talent John Lynch has amassed on the roster. This team is still extremely dangerous and to all the people saying the Niners season is over. I leave you with this. There he is, the shrug. I'm doing the shrug for him. We'll see. Jimmy's gonna create an uphill battle. I think they're gonna be okay. And it's not to take away from what Jimmy Grappler means. It just means it's a great team also and Shanahan's gonna keep them going. And this Baker Mayfield news don't think that's not connected in some weird way. Panthers decide this morning right before the show to release Baker Mayfield. Now, of course, he has to go through waivers. He's gonna have to do that, but I mean, you gotta tell me, Shanahan and Lynch aren't saying, hey, McCaffrey, get in here. McCaffrey, you spent time with him. With the Panthers a little bit. What's he like? What's his story? Can he carry this team? Can he do what he did for the Browns and rely on a defense and a run game and great play calling? Can you do that here? Oh, maybe that'd be a good guy at half. The Niners said this great thing where they think about what they did. They had a young player who wasn't ready, an older player who's injury prone and now they have a Perti who looked good. I'm not ready to buy in on Perti completely yet, but I believe in this team. And then you potentially have, people are trying to say Rogers should go there. That somehow, even though the trade deadline was 19 weeks ago, they were able to get him some time and not have a hundred million dollars in dead cap space. Baker is an interesting guy to look at. And we'll talk to Brandon Marshall about that right after this. Coming up, yes, he's one of my best friends in the whole world. He's an I am athlete media mogul, Brandon Marshall. He's here, I mean he's saying, let's talk about it. Look at that fit though.