Crypto Going Bunker Mode, AI Mathpocalypse, Starbucks Explores Chipotle Takeover | Diet TBPN

It's the apocalypse day. There's, there's so many apocalypses. Mathpocalypse. There's a crypto apocalypse going on, although the market is reacting in a very moderate way. But the timeline is being dramatic. So we got to break that down. Ethereum founder Vitalik Buterin and others in crypto are sounding the alarm that AI-driven math could threaten blockchain security. And so, crypto's going bunker mode. That's the term that they're using. So, we've all seen the progress in AI-driven math solving new proofs, solving Navier-Stokes. There's a lot of impressive progress in math that maybe has applications in physics, maybe has applications in engineering, fluid dynamics. A lot of these things are further out. And if they wind up being useful, they might increase efficiency here or there.

Not as far out as you think.

But the big thing is that crypto is here today. And if there's an advance in the underlying understanding of how cryptography works, it could really shake up how the crypto industry works. And how these products are secured. So, are they in danger?

Cortisol rising.

It's the Ralph Wiggum meme, I think. I'm in danger seeing all this. Matthew Green, who teaches cryptography at Johns Hopkins, put the situation in stark relief. He said, I think we might lose public key cryptography, which is a huge statement from an expert in cryptography. It would require A pretty massive restructuring of many security protocols, but also the crypto industry. At the moment, cryptography has, as a discipline, has been exempted from the list of published papers related to AI-enabled math breakthroughs. So, there were hundreds of papers, and it's very clear that either the agent swarms that were sent to go solve math problems, they said, hey, don't even bother.

Right.

bother with any cryptography stuff, or if they did, they didn't publish those and they're burying them for now until there's a way to actually patch those.

Or maybe the cryptography is just too strong.

That's true. That's a third option. The crypto industry is a little skeptical about it. They think, I mean, there might be some flaws. Of course, they've been preparing for things like this before. Quantum computing is potentially existential to many blockchains, and so There has been the concept of Q-Day and how they work backwards from that to make sure that they are quantum resistant.

Yeah, the interesting thing is like historically when the crypto industry has faced headwinds, the strategy has been HODL.

HODL.

And that's not necessarily going to be effective for this next chapter.

That's true. Yeah, that's a good twist. Of course, there are very weird dynamics where if you break all the Bitcoin keys and all the wallets wide open and you completely erode all the trust that's been built up in that virtual currency, yeah, you stole it all, but it's worth nothing. And so, the game theory there of no one would ever want to steal all the Bitcoin, right? So, it's more like, can someone go after long tail?

I'm sure there's some people that would do it just for the long tail.

Just to watch the world burn, Joker mode? Yeah, that's probably possible. possible. We could be seeing a Joker-fied— oh, you have the Joker ready to go. Yeah, a Joker-fied AI agent swarm would be a bad situation.

Yeah.

For sure. But there is some cause for optimism. You know, much like the broader cybersecurity scare that happened back in March of this year, there's a gap between closed-source and open-source models. Most people say it's around 6 months. The capabilities catch up in certain areas. It seems like it's faster. Sometimes it's 3 months, but 6 months is sort of a useful heuristic I have found. And that actually maps out pretty perfectly with the most recent news. So if you remember, Mythos Preview was dropped by Anthropic on April 7th, 2026. Okay. It's the fourth month of the year, and then CrowdStrike announced that a 26-year-old in China used an open-source Chinese-developed AI agent to execute cyberattacks against South Korean banks on October 7th. Like the same, I think that report came out October 7th. So it's basically just exactly six months later, you see like an open-source model be used in a cyberattack. Fortunately, the the the banks have. you know, a ton of redundancies, the ability to roll back transactions. They store things to tape. They store things on paper sometimes. There's a lot of different ways to secure a traditional bank that is not purely digital, even though they might have a digital front end and a lot of the money might be stored digitally. And the interesting thing is that when I read at least about one of the South Korean bank cybersecurity incidents, it was a pretty small amount of user data that was stored. It was like names and addresses and like phone numbers of like— it was a significant number. It was like tens of thousands of clients or something like that. But it wasn't like they robbed the bank and they got the money or they got everyone. Somehow they got into like one system for information. So, it could have been like they hacked into like their paperless post account. That was like what the bank used to send out invites to clients or something like that. Like, there are a whole bunch of different systems and where, at what level did they get in is important, but it's clearly happening.

They got into the client gifting software.

Potentially.

They sent everyone chocolates.

Maybe, maybe. And so, obviously, you don't want hackers anywhere. And so, cybersecurity is more important than ever. And so, the crypto community does have, you know, a couple months to go bunker mode as they are And it feels like there'll be an incredible amount of progress on these AI-proofing systems, but it's an entirely new challenge. It's much less understood than quantum computing, which has been theorized mathematically and sort of formalized for years before the capability came. This is different because we're getting this capability before we've really characterized the shape of the threat. Like, they know with Quantum, like there's something called Shor's algorithm and like they got to fix that. So they got to make sure that Shor's algorithm doesn't work to break Bitcoin wallets open. They know the mathematical problem. They got to solve that. In this scenario, it's like there might be a different algorithm that runs on commodity hardware that works. And how do you know when you don't know the shape of the threat that's coming? So it's a crypto apocalypse potentially, but the market doesn't think it is. Bitcoin's only down 3% today. And it's still up 3% for the month. And so, the market is digesting this and optimistic. There's still lots to do if you work in crypto, and potentially, even if you only own some crypto, there's things to do. Vitalik gave some recommendations on, you know, don't panic, but also maybe start thinking about this more intently. He said, I don't recommend anyone scramble to move their funds to new wallets today, But we should take the risks of cryptography from AI-accelerated math seriously and minimize our exposure to not just quantum-vulnerable cryptography, but also AI-vulnerable cryptography. The new core area of risk from this viewpoint is unfortunately MLDSA, FHE, lattices. And this is also another reason along with quantum why ECDSA might fall even faster than expected. Hence the fresh address recommendation. So far, most people have been in the mode of thinking elliptic curves broken, hashes safe, lattices safe. But there's a good chance that the concrete security of lattices will take serious hits from the next 2 years of AI math. And so some people were posting. Scott Liu here was saying, oh, that's weird. The AI math god is somehow no better at cryptography than a 2026 human. We got superintelligence in math but not cryptography. What's going on? He thought for a minute. He says, oh. And I think the interpretation of this, and you can tell me if you disagree, is, yeah, it's because the AI math god is run by an American company that has no interest in destroying—

In like total chaos.

Yeah. But in the open source world, it's very different. And so, still interesting to think about the game theory even in the open-source world. But I think that will all be downstream of a whole bunch of changes. And then there is the question of how does crypto handle this? Like, the cryptocurrency industry has been libertarian. They've been against the government in many ways, small government. I want to own the money. Well, now you're facing a threat from a open source from a non-government regulated entity.

Yeah.

And so, while a lot of people in the AI safety community have said, this is the moment for big government, this is the moment to register large clusters, this is the moment to track all the data centers, to have licenses for inference and training and reporting to the government, that is a solution. Like, if you lock down open source and you say, yeah, you can't— like, if you're going to spin up a million agents and and try and do a bunch of inference to try and break Bitcoin wallets, like, we're going to find out about it, we're going to arrest you, and it doesn't matter that you're using an open-source model. That's a very different psychological frame of mind for a Bitcoiner.

Yeah.

The other thing here is that there's obviously biorisk with model advancements, but it is going to be wildly different for somebody to use an obliterated model to try to create a bioweapon and then actually sort of distribute that out into the world than like using a new model to try to like mess around with cryptography.

Yeah.

That feels squarely in the hacker camp.

Totally.

Like there's people that would just be kind of messing around and then accidentally have a breakthrough or accidentally or maybe intentionally cause financial chaos. But that's purely digital.

Yeah.

And that's the kind of thing that millions of people have been doing for a very long time.

Yeah.

just generally kind of hacking around, wildly different than the kind of person who would go out and try to create, you know, a new pandemic.

Yeah. And then also another layer of this will feed into like the whole AI doom loss of control scenario because you get an AI agent that's hyperintelligent and it's also able to break Bitcoin wallets. It breaks a couple open, then it has capital. With capital, it can marshal more compute, Hire people to do things in the real world, et cetera, et cetera. And so the doom scenario becomes way more human-enabled if you are able to amass capital pretty quickly as a rogue agent. Do you have a take on this, Tyler?

Yeah, I mean, I feel like the crypto industry broadly is fairly good at self-governance, right? You've seen, even if you're talking about Bitcoin, they can actually change the protocol. You have Bitcoin Cash, which is the shoot-off stuff like this. I think the Bitcoin Policy Institute, like, I don't know, maybe a month or two ago had this open letter about how the solution is we gotta build up defenses much more and we gotta use, spend a lot on inference to try to figure out what is the right path moving forward. I think most people are very against limiting open source models, stuff like that.

Totally. It'll be interesting to see how these worlds collide and where things go.

Ben, I don't know if you included this earlier, but he says, lucky coincidence the labs are only successfully cracking esoteric math problems and not the problems where a solution would give the winner an asymmetric commercial advantage. Again, this is what I've said a bunch of times on the show now. Math problems are the perfect category of problems where you get a result and you're incentivized and excited to share the result. There's no immediate opportunity to commercialize a lot of this stuff.

Yep.

And so for every breakthrough in math, you should assume there's a bunch of other breakthroughs in other fields. that have more commercial applications where the person that has— and it's not just the labs, it's people using the current frontier models to find breakthroughs in their own field. And so again, I'm expecting a real explosion of progress, especially as we enter the later half of this year or the sort of end of the year.

I believe Will DePue posted about this. That's what I was thinking of. Will DePue posted I think there was like a slight Bitcoin sell-off like a while ago, like maybe around the midsummer time period. And he sort of took a victory lap or something or was like saying like, yeah, in hindsight, once we— once like the AI community built like the Hack Machine 9000, it should have been obvious that you should get out of crypto. And then what was odd was that crypto rallied After that, so like he was kind of a little bit too early with the take. But now it feels like okay everyone's pieced it together a little bit more. But also there's so many other factors where you could see this narrative dying down and all of a sudden there's some other narrative that's driving crypto and people are piling in for whatever reason. So OpenAI's drop of hundreds of new mathematical proofs is now being called the mathpocalypse. There's some White pills, there's some black pills. People are all over the place. Obviously, we talked about the crypto knock-on effects. Nabil Qureshi says, mathematicians, AI is plagiarism and we don't want to know the answers anyway. Artists, AI is plagiarism and the art sucks anyway. Chess players, hmm, I wonder if I can use AI to increase my rating.

How do you prevent against like botting in online chess? I'm comparing that to like, let's say somebody using like an aimbot.

Yeah. No, no, I mean, bots are like undetectable. Like, all the bots can, like, one-shot CAPTCHAs and fake—

But not even that, but basically just running, like, an AI copilot that is, like, helping you make—

Yeah, no, you can definitely do that.

So unless you're playing chess physically in front of somebody and watching them, you no longer have a fair—

Yeah, and then what do you think?

Well, I mean, if you're, like, ELO is, like, 800 and then you start making, like, you know, 2,000-rated moves, like, it's pretty easy to tell that stuff.

Yeah, so—

It's like, I think, like, if you're on chess.com or whatever, I think it's fairly hard to cheat.

Hard to cheat or people just don't cheat because it's like, what's the point? And like, it's like, okay, yeah, I played against somebody who was like smurfing and they had an 800 Elo account, but they were clearly playing at 2,000 Elo. Like, okay, I lost that game. Let me queue again. Okay, I got someone who's actually 800 and I'll just keep playing until I get someone who's actually my—

Yeah, that's probably true.

And maybe there's some rules.

If you're consistently using like an engine, it's like, I think it's not that hard to figure that out.

Yes, but like, this is gonna change. Like, because like the models will be so good.

It's over.

I mean, the models will be so good that you'll be able to say like, I'm, I'm Elo 800, help me play at 850 and also really mimic the human experience. So don't make—

don't act like a bot.

But yeah, I agree.

There's like little incentive to actually cheat on Chess.com because—

Yeah, I, I, yeah.

Gold says you can tell if they're bots if they statistically always or nearly always make the optimal move.

Yeah, exactly. Like there's no fun and you can always just go play against the best Stockfish model if you want. Like, you can just max it out if you just want to play against the best computer in the world. Nobody does. And so there's not that much value in it because everyone would just be like, cool, yeah, you just ran the model that everyone else has. Like, do you want to play against me or not? Like, if you want to just be the model, just go. And you don't win anything. So there's not any incentive, I think. I think that's how it works out.

I don't know.

I mean, you, you and the gym have been accused of using You know, robotic-assisted lifts, right?

Yes, yes, yes.

You'll wear like big sweatpants.

Oh, God.

You're on the deadlift. Can you imagine having an exoskeleton? And you have, you know, your exoskeleton, you know, putting up, you know, 800-pound deadlifts. I mean, people, you know, know you're strong, but not that strong.

They're skeptical. There's a very interesting post in the Wall Street Journal about a former NFL lineman who solved a decades-old math problem. John Urschel gave up his career with the Baltimore Ravens to study math at MIT. And he has—

Get this guy on immediately.

He's so jacked. It looks like, yeah, he's definitely doesn't need the exoskeleton in the gym. He's a former NFL player. John Urschel decided to do some light reading this week. And for him, that meant leafing through the latest math papers from OpenAI about topics such as the Riemann hypothesis. Oh my Lord. He thought, I was absolutely floored. Good rhyming. Urschel was blown away by the findings because he happened to understand the hundreds of proofs better than nearly any human on the planet. 9 years ago, he traded the National Football League for the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Crazy that you can take— like, the NFL has got to be an incredibly demanding schedule. Like, you can take thousands of hours off of your, like, math career? And then like go back in the game and not be—

Well, not to mention getting just slammed in the head for this.

Yeah. Yeah. Oh yeah, they want you to believe in CTE. Counterexample.

Make it make sense.

One of one sample counter.

No, it's possible he's actually the smartest person to have ever walked the earth.

Oh.

So even after getting—

Yeah, or, or it could be reversed. You get hit in the head and it like makes you even more of a genius or something.

Yeah, it unstuck something.

Sort of like a What a life. Magical realism.

Tyler, is this going to make you get into watching football?

Yeah, maybe you should play some— Trying to scout out future players. Maybe you should play some full-contact tackle football. Might make you better at math. You never know. Urschel was blown away by the discoveries. And Monday, instead of studying abstract play designs, he was publishing some impenetrable language of his own to prove a decades-old math conjecture. Urschel's paper titled On the Growth of On the growth factor of random matrices is one of a deluge of AI-assisted proofs that mathematicians have achieved in this new era when they can combine their genius with supercomputing power. But within this community of brainiacs, there isn't a single person quite like the 35-year-old Urschel. After 3 years with the Baltimore Ravens, the offensive lineman who is listed at 6'3, 313 pounds, Ditched his helmet and became a professional egghead in 2017. He hasn't regretted it for a moment. He says, I feel like I bet on myself in a big way. I'm living my best life right now. You love to see it. Long before Urschel became an assistant professor at MIT studying matrices, spectral graph theory, and other subjects that sound like gibberish to just about everybody— shots fired by the Journal, but I agree— he was an overachieving kid attending Penn State while playing for the Nittany Lions. He did more than pursue an ambitious major by studying math and win— and he won the prize known as the Academic Heisman. By the time the Ravens drafted him in 2014, he already had earned his master's. But a year after protecting Joe Flacco, Urschel started to miss his life-crunching numbers. While he felt his analytical background was useful to him as a football player, it didn't quite scratch his intellectual itch. That's when he decided to apply to become a doctoral student at MIT. The school he had always dreamed of attending. He began moonlighting there in 2016.

I know, I know what this is all setting up.

What is this?

He is going to star in the next Terminator movie.

Ooh.

Football player, math genius, fights back against—

Triple threat. Yeah, this is exactly—

Takes on the Clankers.

Yeah, I would love to see it.

I mean, you would hate to be a Clanker with this guy walking you down.

For sure. But he seems to be a friend of the Clankers because He has actually been using AI to assist him in his research. So his acknowledgments in the paper that he published cites the help of OpenAI models and says that he welcomes any question about the role of AI, which is upending his entire field. He says, but supercomputers haven't dented the passion that this football player turned mathematician has for math. He compares it to his enjoyment of chess. He also likes chess. The computers are better than the humans, yet he still enjoys the pursuit of finding the right move. I really want to understand the why of things, Urschel says. It doesn't ruin the why. AI doesn't ruin the why. That's a very interesting thing. And I feel like, I mean, just in knowledge retrieval over the past 3 years, I have felt that. Like, I know a lot of obscure factoids about Silicon Valley lore, you know? But when ChatGPT came out, I wasn't like, oh no, like the computer knows more about Silicon Valley history than me. They're like, oh no, like the computer knows more about the, you know, the random companies.

You're basically one of the top guys in your field.

I mean, I did spend like 5 years making, uh, YouTube documentaries about These companies and like trying to learn a lot and like piecing it all together. And like ChatGPT can do that, but like it's been such a benefit because I, I want to know. So I'm looking up stuff all the time and I'm like, I want to go on the journey. I want to gain that information. And it gives that to me. It's weird.

We benefit from having knowledge and understanding within us.

Maybe he's like, you know what? I'm going back to— I'm going back to football. Math is solved. Going back to football. Protein Cycle's memeing it. He says, OpenAI, we literally solved math.

Him.

He says, nice one. Now please use the DoorDash CLI to order me some orange chicken. Speaking of ordering food, Starbucks is thinking about buying Chipotle, or they thought about buying Chipotle. The headline is Starbucks has explored taking over Chipotle according to a Financial Times report. This is a scoop in the Financial Times. Let's see, they've explored merging the 2 companies in a mega deal. It would be a $41 billion market value for the burrito chain, and it would rank as the largest restaurant acquisition of all time. So the world's leading coffee shop chain has worked with advisors in recent months on a takeover proposal for Chipotle, which I believe had McDonald's as an anchor investor a long time ago. I don't know how divested they are at this point, but it's interesting to see that they're finding another dance partner. A burrito chain with A $41 billion market cap. The status of Starbucks's takeover plans and whether the company has submitted any formal offer to Chipotle could not be determined. A transformative deal of this size might struggle to get off the ground, the people warned, and a tie-up may never materialize given the complexity of combining 2 consumer giants. The early-stage plans would also reunite Brian Niccol, Starbucks chief executive, with the fast-food chain where he made his name over 6 years spent as a CEO. So he was— he left Chipotle August 2024, went over to Starbucks from Chipotle. Chipotle has lost half of its value in that time. So, he was performing well there, but maybe it's an opportunity to put them together. The combined market cap would be like $102 billion. And it's also just ridiculous burn.

It's also just what fast casual had been on a crazy run across the board. So, I don't think it was him leaving that caused the decline. But yeah, he clearly loves the brand. Do you, man? It is so crazy to think about. There was a time in my life where I was actually averaging one visit to Chipotle every day.

Every day.

You know, some days I wouldn't go, but other days I'd go twice.

Have you ever daily driven Starbucks?

And now I'm not even averaging once a year. Whoa.

Just moved on. What about Starbucks? Have you ever been a Starbucks guy?

Nah.

So, so, so bad.

You know, like Charbucks?

That's the whole thing.

Starbucks, the coffee is like burnt often, or like it's a little bit more towards burnt, so they call it Charbucks. But it's, I think it's because people at the time liked it, so that was more popular. And then they add so many things on top with like caramel and whipped cream that like you can offset the harshness of the raw black coffee ingredient.

We got mosquitoes on this set.

Lock in. Get the, get the flyswatter.

No.

Do some damage.

I'm shooing it away.

Mike Isaac says, coworker who clocks in to work carrying a venti whole milk quad latte and a double steak burrito bowl and heads straight to the bathroom. Lots of jokes like that. PepsiCo says some really bad things. Joe Weisenthal shared PepsiCo CEO, we don't feel good about the beverage business. PepsiCo CEO. We're putting all the urgency to improve sodas. Yeah. Should they add alcohol to the sodas? Topo Chico, the sparkling water brand, created an alcoholic seltzer. Do you think there should be Pepsi, Pepsi Zero, Diet Pepsi, Pepsi Max, Pepsi Spiked? What do you think?

I think they should be optimizing for Pepsi Pro Max Ultra.

Pro Max Ultra. Yeah. It is interesting that You know, Coca-Cola never did like a rum and Coke. You could just do that if you were trying to just skew max and get the most number of stockkeeping units around. Yeah, I don't know.

They should make a— the Pro Max Ultra should be like a Magnum-size bottle of soda. That's where things are headed.

OpenAI reports revenues differently than Anthropic. And so there was a leak that said OpenAI was at almost $70 billion. And then there's another report today that says they're almost at $50 billion. And it's very clear that like the numbers are very closely held. And then there's a game of telephone happening with investors and LPs and other investors. And then by the time things make it to the press, it's all over the place and it sort of shifts and people, you know, true up the numbers to try and create an apples-to-apples comparison. If you're not following, on AWS, if you buy an OpenAI model, OpenAI keeps that dollar as revenue. Anthropic gives some of that to Amazon. They both probably give some to Amazon, but Anthropic counts the part that they give to Amazon as a cost. And so they have a higher gross revenue number. And so making these companies apples to apples, it seems like that's what someone tried to do a little bit, but I don't know. It seems like they did it sloppily.

Yeah, yeah.

It seems like they did it sloppily.

Still very unclear. And yeah, it's unclear why it didn't get corrected faster. But I mean, extremely different Difficult environment to be operating in because part of the benefit of being a private company is that you— I mean, one of the biggest benefits, you don't have to be on this constant reporting schedule. But at the same time—

You're moving the public markets.

Yeah, because these companies are at a scale where so much public market activity is predicated on their metrics. It's prudent to actually share these numbers at different times. But there's also so much— I mean, all the different media companies are working. In a perfect world, the legacy media would have a new article every day that just had all the updated numbers. Like, what was— they would love to publish it.

Maybe like a quarterly report.

Here was yesterday's revenue.

You could go on a website like EDGAR Online. You could call it EDGAR Online and file it with the SEC. There could be a There could be a whole commission around securities and exchanging securities. I mean, Sam's been talking a lot about IPO stuff. He— what was his take with Vanity Fair? He had something about IPO timeline, like he'll do it when he needs to do it, whatever. The interesting thing is that I do feel like IPOing is aligned with better corporate governance, distributing the gains. Yes, actually get the stocks of all the labs. Into the retirement accounts. That was very controversial with SpaceX. When SpaceX went out, people were like, I don't want it in my 401. But there is a scenario, of course, it's like cap-weighted, so you don't need to actually— or float-weighted, so you don't actually need to worry about it like blowing up your retirement account. But there's a good case for like, okay, if this really is a really— if like the bull case is true, like, yeah, distribute the gains through everyone's investment accounts getting slices of it just Immediately because that's the way things diffuse through the public markets because everyone owns ETFs, everyone has some money invested in the market. It becomes much easier than like the small group of insiders. There was this rumor that we were digging into which is like, is someone trying to manipulate the market? Because if you leaked a number about a private company, normally that wouldn't move the market because everyone's like, oh, who cares if like Some tiny company is doing okay on revenue. If we leak that Lucy's doing a real— oh, we're going to blow out revenue this year. Yeah.

There was no point even look at one of the greatest companies Silicon Valley's ever produced, Stripe.

Sure.

There was no point where if Stripe— if it leaked that Stripe had missed their numbers for a quarter that you would see—

Visa spike or MasterCard spike. Yeah. It wasn't really moving the market in that way. Completely different with OpenAI and Anthropic, like SpaceX, Oracle, SoftBank. Like there are plenty of public company proxies. And so it would be tempting if the SEC didn't exist to, to go and leak a number that's better than what's true and then sort of buy the rumor, sell the news. So you would, you would buy and then leak a really high number that's just a rumor to the press. And then when the real number comes out, you're already short. So you're catching that on the way down. This would be securities fraud, by the way. So don't do that. But it is a wild, wild, wild thing that we haven't seen before because manipulating public stocks with private company information just hasn't been viable in size before. Maybe very, very tiny here and there. But there are some cases out there that make it very, very clear. Sean Frank is vague posting. We'll let you try and figure out who he's talking about. I have a friend, young, 30, 9-figure exit. I've known him for years. Before he made it, before he knew what he was going to start, the one thing he always had, an unwavering belief that it was going to work out. He was willing to burn the boats over and over, always doubling down, always moving bigger and bigger. It's changed the way I want to operate. If you want to change your life, do it. If you want to win, then win. Don't let anything stop you. The only thing you have control over is your attitude and effort. I love some mindset posts.

Fire me up.

Got the 1,000 like bagger on the Sean Frank post. He's locked in and he's encouraging you to lock in.

We're off tomorrow. We're headed into a long weekend as well. When we're back, there will only be 1,700 hours until Christmas. Hard to believe.

Flying by.

Just flying by.

It's flying by. Yeah. Leave us 5 stars on Apple Podcasts and Spotify. Sign up for our newsletter at tbpn.com, and we will see you on Monday, 11 AM Pacific. Have a great weekend.

We love you.

Goodbye. Smoke grenade tonight. Okay, goodbye.