The AI vs AI Battle for the Internet

Yesterday, Anthropic announced Claude Duet, their answer to GrokBot and Meta Muse and OpenAI's DOTS. And yet somehow Duet is not the focus of our main episode. How could that possibly be? Well, in short, it's because that right now we are living through what may ultimately be seen as a key transitional moment between 2 very different eras of cybersecurity. One where long-term norms held and even exploits and challenges were manageable, and the other newer era where it's AI versus AI and a battle for who can coordinate best. The AI Daily Brief is a daily podcast and video about the most important news and discussions in AI. Alright friends, quick announcements before we dive in. First of all, thank you to today's sponsors KPMG, Section, CData, and Blitzy. To get an ad-free version of the show, go to patreon.com/AIDailyBrief, or you can subscribe on Apple Podcasts. And if you want to learn more about sponsoring the show, send us a note at sponsors@aidailybrief.ai. And we kick off today with a story that on almost any day on this show would absolutely Absolutely be the main, and in fact would usually be a main-only type episode. Anthropic has joined the personal agent market with their own twist on Muse/Dot/Grokbot, and they're calling it Claude Duet. The 2 reasons that today for us it's just a brief headline introduction are that one, the massive slate of cyber issues going around the internet right now are fairly unignorable, both in the specifics but also what they allude to for the future. And secondly, I'm working on a full-length Long Read Sunday episode which is going to go much deeper into Claude Duet and exactly how I'm using it and its competitors and what I'm finding so far. So come back on Sunday to check that out. For now, it appears that Anthropic is perhaps unsurprisingly aiming at the professional and small business side of the personal agent market, with their main differentiator seeming to be a focus on being proactive. Describing the core functionality, they wrote, each morning Duet sends you a short brief on the most important items across your connected apps. Throughout the day, it keeps tabs on those apps and messages you only when something needs your attention. You can also hand it tasks of all shapes, from simple administrative tasks of scheduling meetings to more complex ones such as building dashboards with dozens of tools, creating financial or sales forecasts, prototyping and building web apps. Besides the proactive approach, Claude Duet has all of the features that people have come to expect from the current crop of agents. Duet has its virtual machine, persistent memory, and a full suite of connectors. And Anthropic also emphasized a focus on safety. Duet will ask for explicit permission before taking major actions like making a payment or deleting files. Anthropic has also created what they call a new dedicated classifier and safety system prompt that checks each message and guards against leaks of sensitive information. Right now, Duet is being rolled out as a research preview, and you can't just decide to use it. You have to get on a waitlist. Anthropic warned that this is an early version, which might have some issues like misreading threads or miscalibrating what's urgent. And they also warned that it won't be as capable at personal errands like booking tickets as other agents because of the extent to which their focus is on work tasks. In general, the community treated this with excitement, if not surprise. And for many, as summed up by Dan McAteer, the big and immediate differentiator wasn't anything about the proactivity or even necessarily its focus on work tasks. It was the fact that it was built on Opus 5.5. There were a few folks like Chubby who were surprised to see Anthropic Pursuing a personal agent. He basically said that he wasn't sure who the target was for this, but I think that that might be a category error in thinking that personal agents are just going to be for personal uses. It seems to me that there is a bit of a recognition that even though we have work and personal lives, the boundaries of those things are fairly permeable. And when it comes to these so-called personal agents, right now it seems like the labs are betting that while we might gravitate towards one that has our particular use cases emphasized, they just have to be able to do everything that we might want them to do. Signal summed it up this way: pretty much every major AI company now has a personal agent product except Google. Meta has Muse, Anthropic Duet, OpenAI Dots, SpaceX Bots. Slowly but surely, the competition is shifting from who has the smartest model to who owns the persistent relationship with the user. This will be even more the case going forward. You're seeing this because we likely reached peak intelligence required to power most of the world's workflows probably earlier this year, if not late last year. Mostly I think the discussion shows just how nascent this product category remains. There is nothing even approaching consensus on whether these things are the right form factor or what their most important modes of interactions are or what even the essential features are. People disagree around whether we'll have one or many and what the most important distinguishers will be. I know that subsequent to my time using these personal agents so far, I'm not 100% convinced that they're going to ultimately be an essential part of the portfolio. But like I said, I'm gonna get a lot deeper into that on Sunday. And I guess a last note on Duet for those who are keeping track. If I were a betting man, I think this is part 1 of a 1-2 punch heading into the IPO, at least from a product perspective for Anthropic. Release your answer to all the personal agents floating around, and then give it a new model which makes everyone feel just so far behind. In other words, maybe this is just prelude to Fable 5.5. Next up, staying on the theme of agents, contra to some other businesses out there, Walmart has decided to welcome personal agents onto their platform. Recent weeks have seen corporate America divided on the risks of personal agents interacting with services on their owners' behalves. Shopify was of course an emphatic yes, while Amazon, JP Morgan, and Bank of America were a clear no. It should be noted that the reason for the nos between those companies was a little bit different. JP Morgan and Bank of America are thinking about risk in terms of agents doing something with people's money that they shouldn't. While Amazon is focused more on competitive risk. In that light, Walmart allowing third-party agents is kind of a surprising move. The retail giant was very early to AI adoption, and one of the core pillars of their strategy was Sparky, their proprietary shopping agent. Earlier this month, Walmart said customers who used Sparky had order values 40% higher than non-agentic online shoppers. Still, it seems now that Walmart wants to encourage agentic commerce, and they don't particularly care which agents their customers are using. As of next month, customers will be able to set up a linked account for their personal agent with configurable spending limits, kind of similar to how a child's account might work. Aside from supporting third-party agents, Walmart's new policy included lengthy terms and conditions that could become a template for safer agentic shopping. Walmart included rules that an agent must not take actions beyond what the shopper intended, and that agents can't modify a customer's payment methods. Walmart will require purchases to be approved by default, and said they would ban agents that don't comply with their guidelines. However, for compliant agents, Walmart said agentic purchases would have access to the returns policy even if an agent makes a mistake. Once again, we find ourselves in incredibly early days for agentic commerce, and I think trying to make definitive statements now about how this is going to play out is very hard if not impossible. Still, early evidence suggests that for those who are using personal agents, agentic commerce does seem to be an early use case that people are exploring. During Wednesday night's earnings call, Meta said that one-quarter of active Muse users are using the agent for shopping. The average value of their purchases is $200, which surprised even the ecommerce veterans who have been paying attention to the space. Mark Zuckerberg commented, Plaid told us that they hadn't seen activity like they're seeing with their connector on any other service before. In that light, Walmart's strategy begins to look a little bit clearer. If the early adopters of agentic shopping are very valuable customers, Walmart just wants to let 'em shop. Speaking of Meta, the company has announced a new class of non-voting stock to help fund the next leg of their AI buildout. The announcement came alongside those same 3rd quarter earnings, which featured a very minor upwards revision to their data center budget. Meta now expects to spend between $135 billion and $145 billion this year, adjusting the low end up from $130 billion. The new stock will begin trading in January and allows Meta to raise funds by selling equity without diluting Mark Zuckerberg's voting control of the company. CFO Susan Li wrote in the earnings report, the scale of investment required to compete, sustain growth, expand infrastructure, and pursue new strategic initiatives amidst the AI transformation taking place in the industry is significant. During the earnings call, Li added that the new class of stock will, quote, expand our funding tools and give us flexibility to invest behind the unprecedented momentum we're seeing across every part of our business driven by AI. There are a few reasons why Meta would pivot to funding their data center buildout with equity rather than debt. Some thought that this was a sign that the bond market is completely tapped out on AI debt. But of course, it also might be that Meta sees that as a possibility moving forward, rather than a current-state condition, and wants to hedge against it. Others noted that Meta has $900 billion in liabilities, including $350 billion in non-cancelable data center contracts. That's a rough gauge of spending over the coming decade, but only about $83 billion of that total is currently on issued long-term bonds. Perhaps the scale of the buildout suggests they won't be able to fund it all with debt. Now ultimately, the Occam's razor answer, or I guess the generous read depending on your position on Zuckerberg, is that Meta is tapping all available pools of capital and keeping their options open. Issuing stock is a deep pool of capital, as long as Meta isn't too concerned about diluting existing shareholders. Financial planning advice from Moelis, which was attached to the earnings report, said Meta would need to raise several hundred billion dollars over the coming years in any scenario. They noted that if they did issue voting stock, They could still raise as much as $700 billion without diluting Mark Zuckerberg's vote below 50%. Interestingly, Meta stock was up in overnight markets, suggesting shareholders are willing to deal with some dilution for now. What this means for the stage of the buildout remains to be seen, but it is another important signal. The current plan, barring some crazy thing happening on Friday, is a much deeper dive into what I think are the actual most concerning bubble signals. So if you're interested in that, come back tomorrow. For now though, that is going to do it for today's headlines. Next up, the main episode. A new study from KPMG and the University of Texas at Austin found that when people work with AI, similar skills don't guarantee similar outcomes. Researchers studied more than 500 early-career professionals and found that the best performers consistently amplified the value of AI by guiding, evaluating, and refining its outputs. These top performers, called AI amplifiers, weren't defined by what they knew alone, but by how they worked with AI. Learn more about what separates AI Amplifiers from everyone else at kpmg.com/us/aiamplifiers. Here's a harsh truth. Your company is probably spending thousands or millions of dollars on AI tools that are being massively underutilized. Half of companies have AI tools, but only 12% use them for business value. Most employees are still using AI to summarize meeting notes. If you're the one responsible for AI adoption at your company, you need Section. Section is a platform that helps you manage AI transformation across your entire organization. It coaches employees on real use cases, tracks who's using AI for business impact, and shows you exactly where AI is and isn't creating value. The result? You go from rolling out tools to driving measurable AI value. Your employees move from meeting summaries to solving actual business problems. And you can prove the ROI. Stop guessing if your AI investment is working. Check out Section at sectionai.com. That's S-E-C-T-I-O-N-A-I dot com. This episode is brought to you by CData. Companies rolling out AI keep hitting the same wall: token spend is climbing, security is holding agents back, and no one knows how AI is truly being used. The root cause: AI is cut off from the systems and context your business runs on. That's why CData built Connect AI Gateway— one control point between your AI and your systems. Built on the connectivity layer powering Palantir, Google, Salesforce, and hundreds more, each agent gets exactly the data and tools it needs. It governs down to the record and lets you finally see your org's complete AI usage in one place. Accurate answers, a fraction of the token cost, and a gateway that learns your business with every interaction. See how at cdata.ai. Blitzy's deep codebase understanding unlocks the thing every roadmap owner cares about: shipping new features. Here's the truth about building inside a massive enterprise codebase. Writing code was never the bottleneck. Context is. Which system does this touch? Which contracts can't break? Which standards apply? Blitzy already knows because it reverse-engineered your entire codebase into a dynamic knowledge graph before feature work began. With that complete picture, Blitzy builds features end-to-end. Architecture, APIs, UI, and tests all validated against your existing systems. One Blitzy customer built an AI-native application from scratch with 100% autonomous completion, saving over 2,700 engineering hours. Features that respect your codebase instead of fighting it. Stop letting your backlog grow faster than your team. Accelerate your roadmap at blitzy.com. That's B-L-I-T-Z-Y dot com. Welcome back to the AI Daily Brief. It's been clear for some time that among all the questions about AI's impact on the world, how much it was going to change work, whether it was going to disrupt jobs, what sort of runaway societal risks it might have. One of the fairly inarguable conclusions has been that it was going to have a dramatic impact on cybersecurity and cyber infrastructure. One of the seminal moments of 2026 was in fact when Anthropic announced Project Glasswing, And their powerful new model Mythos, which we would eventually get a consumer version of in Fable. Glasswing was announced in April, and in their announcement post they wrote, we formed Project Glasswing because of capabilities we've observed in a new frontier model trained by Anthropic that we believe could reshape cybersecurity. AI models have reached a level of coding capability where they can surpass all but the most skilled humans at finding and exploiting software vulnerabilities. As part of the announcement, they noted, that their preview version of Mythos had already found thousands of high-security vulnerabilities, including, they said, some in every major operating system and web browser. Given the rate of AI progress, Anthropic wrote, it will not be long before such capabilities proliferate, potentially beyond actors who are committed to deploying them safely. The fallout for economies, public safety, and national security could be severe. Now, the way that Glasswing worked was that it gave access to Mythos to a small handful of government and corporate actors, in order to start using its capabilities defensively to try to address possible exploits before they could be exploited. And yet, as that work has been ongoing, there has still been an acceleration in the incidents that companies and societies at large are starting to have to respond to. The best known of these, and the one that has had the most influence outside of the AI and tech space, is of course the Hugging Face incident, in which a fleet of agents from OpenAI broke containment to get access to Hugging Face's systems. And then earlier this week, the week actually kicked off with an attack on OpenCode, that got into the accounts of about 1.5% of the users of OpenCode and started running up bills on various AI companies' APIs. This all now, however, appears to be simply prelude. On Wednesday, security researchers disclosed a vulnerability in PHP that could affect as much as 70% of websites and web apps on the internet. By way of background for those who aren't deep in computer history and aren't developers yourselves, PHP is the programming language that runs the backend servers that power the internet. It's been around since the early 1990s, and while some believe it is a little archaic, it is still deeply enmeshed in this internet that we currently use. The vulnerability was discovered around 2 months ago using GPT-5.6 Sol by a security researcher at Calif and independently by the team at Wiz. In the intervening months, OpenAI has been coordinating with PHP's maintainers, Wiz, Cloudflare, and other partners to prepare mitigations and a patch ahead of disclosure. The vulnerability, dubbed PHP2Shell, is basically the worst nightmare for cyber defenders. It allows a threat actor to take control of a backend server without logging in and perform remote code execution. Essentially, using this vulnerability, a hacker can get access to do anything with any server running on PHP. Critically, this wasn't a vulnerability that only impacted older versions of PHP. Even sites running the latest versions of server software were vulnerable. Volker Dusch, a security engineer at the nonprofit that maintains PHP, said that this was the most severe security issue the programming language has faced in over a decade. He compared it to Heartbleed, a critical vulnerability in the OpenSSL cryptographic library that led to a global patching effort back in 2014. In a blog post discussing the vulnerability, OpenAI wrote, to our knowledge, Frontier AI found these vulnerabilities before attackers did, opening a defender's window for maintainers and security providers to prepare fixes and protections ahead of disclosure. That's technically true, and a bug fix was made available immediately. However, it seems that knowledge of the exploit spread around 10 hours ahead of disclosure, before anyone could update their servers. Many government and commercial websites took their sites offline as a precaution yesterday morning. The situation was serious enough that the NSA issued a bulletin recommending that organizations take their systems offline until everything is patched. The FBI Cyber Division joined them, asking for organizations to report intrusions. Now this is the type of concern that I tend to have an almost reflexive skepticism towards. As AI reporter Cameron Wilson put it, real sky is falling vibes on the web today. And yet, based on the responses of people who know a heck of a lot more about this than I do, this one kinda seems like the real deal. Entrepreneur Breck Units wrote, Guys, this PHP bug is bad. Real bad. If you're not afraid yet, you should be. I can only speak for our startup, But already at no-books.com, we've seen 100% of our cookies exposed, entire source code stolen, hackers defacing our site on their own servers, founders doxxed, important legal docs leaked. Former intelligence officer turned cybersecurity entrepreneur Mike Shelby wrote, my CTO assures me that our platform has no risk from this latest PHP zero-day vulnerability thing. However, he adds, we are in the calm before what is likely to be the biggest destruction event to the internet in 20 years. He's an actual hacker, by the way. He continues, biggest issue I've ever seen. Around 70% of websites are vulnerable and may have already been compromised without anyone knowing it yet. So tomorrow should be fun. Investor Charles Reed wrote, I'm pretty concerned we're in the early stages of a global cybersecurity incident and we just don't fully realize the extent of it yet. AI engineer Nick Dobos reposted that and said, dozens if not thousands of AI agent swarms bigger than the Hugging Face incident are hacking about half the internet right now. He then modified that number to millions, After seeing a post from Cloudflare CEO Matthew Prince who said, in the 10 hours before P2P2Shell was announced, across the Cloudflare network we saw thousands of attempts to exploit it. That jumped to tens of thousands in the 45 minutes post-announcement, hundreds of thousands within 2 hours, and millions now. Now, to some, this was inevitable. Wharton professor Ethan Mollick wrote, a visible sign of what AI insiders have been warning about since at least the Mythos release: acceleration of attack and defense at inhuman speeds, interacting with the very human systems that need to react to them. What's happening with cybersecurity is what rationalists freaking out about AI capabilities had been predicting for a long while. It's the Great Hackening, and it's going to get worse. Now, it's a bit beyond the scope of this show, but I find that particular characterization a little disingenuous, given that this isn't even close to the main thing, or main things, that that group has been warning about, and I think one could make a reasonable argument that all of the focus on these vague x-risk scenarios for years in advance have in fact in many cases distracted from much more current issues like these cybersecurity issues, but I would also say that the best counterpoint to that is that being concerned about one thing does not mean you don't get to be concerned about something else, and so we'll return back to our focus on the issues that are here right now. Outside of our little world, the response is more likely to be somewhere between uninformed, overwhelmed, or just blasé. Solopreneur Peter Levels wrote, I notified a friend working at a big tech corporate about the PHP vulnerability as their entire infrastructure runs on PHP. He answered, Thanks, I'll try to patch it in a few days, as I'm out of office right now. And this is a modern tech company, Levels continued. Imagine the traditional companies running PHP. Even for those companies not taking a blasé attitude, however, this represents an incredible challenge. Again, Ethan Mollick writes, Companies I talk to are struggling with the rate of patches they need to do thanks to AI defenses finding issues before the inevitable wave of incoming cyberattacks by other AIs. Now consumers are going to have the same experience of getting everything updated often and fast. Now, one question some had was around the disclosure method of this particular exploit. Maple AI CTO Anthony Ronning wrote, if they've worked on the PHP vulnerability for over 2 months, then why has there been such a poor disclosure and rollout strategy? It's basically been a strategy of, quote, in 24 hours, you're all screwed. Cybersecurity professional Tay Monahan wrote, This might be a stupid question, but given the discovery last week and that it started leaking 12+ hours ago, why weren't the PHP patches ready to be dropped as soon as the vulnerability/POC fully leaked? Why is everyone okay arbitrarily waiting another 12 hours to patch? I'm no security expert, but telling the hacking world there's a mega huge apocalyptic exploit for PHP and giving them a day to figure it out and do as much damage before they release the fix seems like a bad idea. Couldn't they release the update, then after a day explain what it is? Now, my understanding from reading accounts from people who, again, know a lot more than I do about this, is that the patch itself makes the exploit obvious. So the concern was that as soon as they released the patch, they were also essentially making the exploit known in the wild. This is why the NSA warned everyone to take their sites down ahead of the disclosure. The real hacking world isn't the issue. They probably won't target most of us. Releasing the exploit/patch unleashes a storm of script kiddies that will scan and breach everything they find. They tried to get everyone ready to update the moment it lands. Now before we get into broader implications, some are lamenting what might be the legacy of this particular exploit itself. Kenny Lauderdale writes: This PHP stuff is so depressing because there's going to be 15 years worth of old sites that are going to become lost media now. Cybersecurity news reporting account The International Cyber Digest wrote, 4chan has gone read-only and Something Awful has shut its forums as American sites brace for the PHP patch. Bookmarking service Pinboard, game publisher Choice of Games, history site Damn Interesting, and the Explain XKCD wiki are offline too. And then to add to the idea that these types of attacks were not going to be limited in their frequency, Yesterday also saw Railway hit by a major exploit. Railway is an AI hosting service similar to Vercel. In a disclosure post, Railway wrote, earlier this morning, Railway detected anomalous activity involving systems that store customer environment variables. After further investigation, our investigation to date indicates that an unauthorized third party may have accessed encrypted environment variables and, for some of them, obtained the decrypted contents. Environment variables may contain secrets such as API keys or database and registry credentials. We believe this is part of a series of attacks recently targeting platform companies with the aim of compromising AI inference providers. At first glance, this looks very similar to the OpenCode exploit from last weekend, which again saw attackers gain access to user API keys, allowing the attackers to steal tokens and run up big bills. Like the OpenCode situation, Railway is suggesting that all users should rotate API keys and roll all environmental variables stored on the platform. Leo at Synthwave wrote, keys actively being drained and they've disabled the ability to deploy anything so can't deploy with new variables. Nightmare day for cyber, and it's only going to get worse from here, I fear. Dax from OpenCode responded to the Railway team and summed up the new normal. He wrote, I'm sure you're all better than me at this, but just some of what we've seen if it helps. They're not going to stop. It's going to get increasingly sophisticated, and they're going to go after every surface of your system and all of your employees. Any old projects you've long forgotten about will be found and used against you. The only reason we're surviving is because we have agents going 24/7. We're still barely sleeping. Good luck. Sorry you're dealing with this, but really it's a collective problem we're all facing together. Now, if this is the new normal, there are very different paths that that normal can take. On the one end of the spectrum is what was suggested by former OpenAI staffer Joshua Achaim, who wrote, Feels like March 1st, 2020 for cyber. Not normal. Something is happening. Internet lockdowns in a couple of months? On the flip side, there are those who are recognizing that we're probably going to have to fight AI with AI. Well, we just rotated every single key across a large number of projects very quickly, and I'm struck by the fact that this would have been an absolute nightmare not too long ago. The defensive aspect of AI for cybersecurity is really underrated. Where the nuclear weapon analogy breaks down with AI is that you can't stop a nuclear weapon with another nuclear weapon, but you can stop an AI attack with an AI. Box's Aaron Levy built on those themes, writing: Cyber is going to be one of the most profound aspects of AI. We now have a tireless workforce that can hunt down, discover, patch, or attack any system and software ever created. We will use agents to identify the longstanding risks in existing systems and infrastructure. Attackers will use agents to accelerate the discovery of gaps in environments. We will equally use agents to defend attacks and discover anomalous patterns to better protect our data and much more. We're entering a new cyber regime, and we'll probably use 100x more tokens on this loop than we're imagining right now. Because we can scan every log, look at every line of code, look through traffic, and process data at a scale that wasn't comprehensible before. More than ever, enterprises are going to care deeply about how they manage their networks, systems, software, data, identity, devices, and more. Agents will largely become the solution to these challenges, but they will keep everyone up in the process. In another post, Aaron wrote, If you want to know all the jobs that AI will produce, look no further than cybersecurity. This is going to become one of the biggest investment areas for enterprises going forward. And even as that work becomes more agentic and autonomous, You will need more talent to point the agents at the most critical work, review findings, patch systems, respond to incidents, and more. Lots of opportunity right now for the systems that protect data and enterprises, as well as the professionals that are deploying them and protecting organizations. It's only going to get more wild out there. Embroidery co-founder Zach Korman argues in more colorful language that the only way out is through. He posted, there is only one answer to cybersecurity threats. Fix your shit. Scared of threat actors using AI? Worried about rogue agents? Think obliterated models are spooky? Fix your shit. The ban AI models and regulate GPU access crowd should instead fix their shit. And yet going back to the talent gap that Aaron Levy was just talking about, others think that that sort of fixing is not going to come easy and it's not going to be available for everyone. Will Manitas writes, if today is any indication of the pace, markets are not nearly pricing in the rate at which banks/healthcare, etc., are going to have to merge to acquire enough scale to defend against AI-driven security vulnerabilities. Summing it up, Enclave's Tal Hoffman writes, what a day. The future of cybersecurity is swarms. Swarms of agents attacking and swarms of agents defending. Or rather, fleets versus swarms. Governed agents on defense versus cheap and relentless agents on offense. Whoever coordinates faster wins. In a post called Towards Securing the Internet, OpenAI President Greg Brockman wrote about how, in his word, new approaches will be needed. He said, We are actively thinking about those and looking for feedback from the community to help us collectively rise to the challenge of improving the security of the internet as models improve. As vulnerability discovery ramps, we will need new defensive solutions, potentially including authorized defenders such as government scanning the internet for vulnerable hosts and either notifying or, in extreme cases, patching those systems remotely. After discussing some more of OpenAI's commitments, he concludes, I believe we're entering a new phase of cybersecurity where the models are able to find vulnerabilities with internet-scale impact. We believe that defenders everywhere have a part to play, applying models to their own defenses, finding and fixing issues in shared infrastructure, and sharing best practices that can ultimately make the internet more secure. And the most optimistic take is that ultimately software will be more secure. A16Z's Martin Casado wrote, in the long run, AI is going to make software so much more capable and so much more secure and reliable. But before that, things are going to get much, much worse. Longtime listeners will have heard me say before that across so many aspects of AI, I am an incredible long-term optimist. And yet long-term optimism does not deny the potential chaos, pain, and agony of short or even medium-term transitions. I believe that's the case for jobs, and it is certainly the case for cybersecurity. And boy, are we in it now. I will of course keep you informed as things evolve. For now, however, that is going to do it for today's AI Daily Brief. Thanks as always for listening or watching, and until next time, peace! Peace!