Reactions: Ferrari’s First EV, The Enhanced Games | Diet TBPN

Big news of the day, of the week. This has been going on all week is that Arm, the intellectual property developer that creates intellectual property designs for CPUs, is now getting into the chip game and they got a big Arm pump in the stock market. So the company is up 15% over the last few days on the news that they will sell their own chips. This is new for Arm. Arm's a very old company. Fascinating history. I actually made a 25-minute YouTube video all about the history of the company back in 2023. But we'll recap a little bit of it today. They normally just license out their intellectual property, and that is a phenomenal business. 97% gross margins. 97% gross margins. Yeah, let's give it up. There we go. That's amazing. And, you know, it's a big business. $4 billion in revenue last year, nearly $800 million of net income. This new move, they're expecting to ramp revenue to $15 billion by 2031. So they're expanding the market significantly. Now margins will be different, but the market cap for Arm is now around $166 billion. So it's a big company. It trades at a very high multiple.

Yeah, $4 billion last year, currently trading at $165 billion.

But very, very high gross margin. This is a big shift in strategy. Arm's not an AI loser by any means, but it hasn't gotten the attention that other GPU makers have received, like NVIDIA. CPUs are far from dead though. In fact, we are in, we are currently in what seems like a little bit of a CPU CPU crunch. Intel can't make CPUs fast enough. NVIDIA is starting to sell their Grace CPU that goes with their Hopper. So you get the H100 and you pair it with the Grace CPU, you get the GPU and the CPU all on one system. Well, now you can buy the CPU by itself if you're CPU constrained. So you don't want to just be GPU rich and CPU poor, you got to be rich in both camps. And a lot of companies are jumping into, Phil, this gap. Agents, and a lot of this is because of agents. Agents need CPUs. You need to fill the GPUs constantly with new data and tasks. Also, all of the agents use CPUs to make web queries, search the web, run Python, spin up web servers, interact with anything. Uptime is going down for non-GPU accelerated workloads. Like you go to a SaaS product that is basically just a web server that's running on a CPU somewhere in a data center and you're like, Oh, this thing isn't loading today, or like there's downtime. And a lot of that's just because we're writing more software, we're using more software as a society, as a country, and we need more CPUs as well as GPUs, even though GPUs are like the hot thing to talk about. So ARM has a very interesting backstory, but you can think about it basically as a joint venture between 3 groups: Apple, Acorn Computer, and VLSI. And so they needed to design a low-power CPU for mobile devices. Before phones, you know what was hot, Jordi? PDAs. And have you ever seen a PDA, Tyler? No. You've never seen a PDA? I don't think so. Wow. Okay, so before the iPhone, you know, everyone had flip phones, but before that—

This is not a pager?

It's not a pager. You don't know what this is either?

No.

Wow. So there's something called a PalmPilot, and basically it was iPhone-sized screen, and it has stylus, and you could write on it, and you could make notes, and PDA, stood for Personal Digital Assistant. And I feel like that brand is just itching to come back in 2026.

Everyone is working on a PDA.

Yeah, Personal Superintelligence Assistants. There's a whole bunch of things. We're building PDAs, folks. They just live in the cloud and it's not a physical device. But these PDAs back in the '90s were physical devices. This was post-pager, pre-smartphone. And it was the device that you carried to take notes and do things that you do today in apps, you would do on your PDA. But it wasn't, always on, internet connected, none of that. It was a PalmPilot. And this was like a fantastic business for a while. But there were a lot of problems with this because for the first time you needed a CPU that could live within a plastic shell, basically. These were like plastic enclosures. You needed to run on a battery. You needed to be able to do some things, not crazy compute. But the CPU industry in the '90s was very focused on mainframes, servers, desktops. There were a few laptops popping up, but it was not the mobile phone revolution that's happening now where you have Apple Silicon chips. And those are of course based on ARM architecture, but that's where all this came from. People said, okay, we need a lower power chip that can actually run off a battery, not overheat and melt the plastic, do all of this. And it can be somebody who can power a device that you carry with you as a personal device. Digital assistant, a PDA.

Chicken in the chat says PayPal started on PDAs.

That's right. That's right. So PayPal started— originally, the idea was these PDAs had— they didn't have like tap to pay or anything like that, RFID. They had basically the same device that you'd see on a TV remote, so IR. And it would flash a light that could be seen by another sensor. If you flash the light at a certain rate, you can send a message. You can basically, it's like advanced, what's that SOS thing?

Morse?

Morse code. It's like a more advanced version of Morse code. And so you could send a specific packet of information from PDA to PDA. And this was the original idea for PayPal. That's correct. That's a great, great piece of lore, tech lore. ARM starts to, you know, build these. Later there's, Robin Saxby, who was the CEO of ARM at the time, he wanted ARM to become the global standard for CPUs. And so in the '90s, there were lots of different CPU makers, lots of different architectures. There's this whole CISC versus RISC debate. There's the x86 architecture that Intel pioneers. And slight differences in architectures can limit interoperability. You see this with what's going on with Mac where a whole bunch of applications have been— have needed to be rewritten for Apple Silicon because previously you would have an Intel Mac before we got to the M1, M2, M3, M4, M5 chips. Those are Apple Silicon, those are ARM-based. And sometimes you'll go to a website and they'll be like, "Oh, do you wanna download this for your Mac?" Like, what do you have? Do you have an Intel Mac or do you have an Apple Silicon Mac? Well, it's important because when you write the software that runs on the Mac, you need to use specific instruction sets. Now there are ways to abstract that and run on either, but there are lots of pieces of software that interact with the CPU at a low enough level that they need to be aware of the instruction set. So ARM sets out to be the global standard for CPUs and they create the ISA, the instruction set architecture, and that ultimately let Apple design their own chips, but within the architectural guidelines set forth by ARM. So Apple pays a license for, to ARM for every chip Apple sells. It's a very small, license fee because Apple does a lot of design work. They do the manufacturing, the TSMC fabs it, and like there's a million other pieces of the value chain. But for this one little slice, they have to pay Arm and Arm just takes that and says, thanks, cool. Like you used our intellectual property successfully.

You know who else says thanks? Who? Masayoshi Son.

That's true.

Because they own 90%, roughly 90% of the company. It was a full buyout in 2016. That's right. They bought the entire company for something around $25, $30 billion USD.

Yeah.

Buy the entire company. They still own 90% today. So, they're like SoftBank's holdings just in that one company are somewhere in the range of $140 billion.

It's great.

When I was looking at.

It's the—

And of course, they've massively levered up.

The second time, it's made $100 billion.

Well, and they've massively levered up. Against that position. Yes, they've used— they've raised debt against their holdings in Arm. Yeah, but certainly Masa is somewhere out in the world seeing it go up 15%, just happy, smashing a gong.

So I hope so. I hope so. Although everyone knows Apple might— my clickbait for my YouTube video was like, did you know the iPhone is secretly British? I think it's funny because it uses Arm deep inside, but Arm licenses to a ton of different tech companies. So Amazon uses Arm for the Graviton chips. A lot of Android phone makers have Arm-based chips. Tons of other tech companies license Arm's technology to build chips. But now Arm is going to be making the chips themselves and they're gonna be working with Meta Platforms and OpenAI. This means a shift in the economics of the business. So 97% gross margins for just those licensing ISA contracts. This will be closer to 50%. but it should be offset by the huge gains in market size and revenue potential. So the company has one of the highest multiples in semiconductors, roughly 90 times forward earnings. So there's a lot to live up to, but there's a lot of value coming from AI agents that have access to plentiful CPU resources. The industry dynamics are also particularly interesting. Ben Thompson pointed this out in "Stratequery." So NVIDIA sells an Arm-based CPU, that Grace CPU. NVIDIA is sort of competing with Arm Jensen showed up and gave like a remote talk at this Arm event where they announced this chip. And so they're competing, but they're also in some ways working together because they're challenging x86 options from Intel and AMD that are still really popular. If Nvidia sells a bunch of chips for, you know, AI workloads, well then that actually makes Arm more likely to sell their chips as well because whatever software is built for the NVIDIA ARM-based chips will probably run on the ARM ARM-based chips. So there's some sort of like integration there. The x86 moat is not as strong as the CUDA moat, but there's still this like dynamic of NVIDIA and ARM are going up against Intel and AMD in the same way that different GPU makers are going up against the CUDA moat. So there's like this, all these different interactions there, but it'll all be interesting to follow. Let's move on. The big news, that drove this was of course Meta, engineering at Meta said, "Today we're announcing a new partnership with Arm to collaborate on the development of multiple generations of purpose-built CPUs to support compute and AI infrastructure." Arm called it the Arm AGI CPU. What a great name. The, the Wall Street Journal has another good writeup of this story talking about how this, the timing is good, there is a boom in CPUs right now, but the stock is already priced very highly. And everything has to go perfectly because it trades at one of the highest multiples of all the semiconductor companies.

Let's talk about this data center moratorium bill.

Yes.

I wrote in the newsletter today, yesterday, Senator Bernie Sanders and AOC introduced a new bill, the AI Data Center Moratorium Act of 2026, that if enacted would require all current and planned data centers to halt construction slash production. It even— it would even block upgrading existing data centers. So if you have an asset, and you wanna make changes to it as this bill is written today, it would be blocked. They sort of like define data centers based on power demands, cooling capabilities, like how much power you can get to each individual rack. So they have been fairly specific, but trying to be like very good.

'Cause I was thinking I was fine with this. I was thinking like, I don't need any more AI data centers at this point. We can freeze those. I just wanna build AGI data centers and ASI data centers. And so as long as I can just build tons of those, it should be fine. But it is interesting that they, they seem to have figured out the semantic loopholes that might happen if it's defined. Yeah.

The bill would halt all new data center construction and upgrades until more legislation is put in place to guarantee the following. And these will be tough to guarantee. So from Sanders' site, they want AI to be safe and effective, preventing executives in the AI industry from releasing harmful products into the world that threaten the health and well-being of working families, our privacy, and civil rights and the future of humanity. The economic gains of AI and robotics will benefit workers, not just the wealthy owners of big tech. And AI does not increase electricity or utility prices, harm communities, or destroy the environment.

So this stuff seems good.

Yeah, all generally good, but no one wants unsafe and ineffective AI. Well, yeah, and the bigger problem is anytime you're creating— I don't think we've created a technology ever that didn't have some negative impact. Car crashes is an example. I'm sure this will be rewritten and debated, and obviously it has a long way to go before becoming law. But this set of requirements seems completely impossible to actually achieve.

It depends on how you define it. I mean, AI does not increase electricity or utility prices like the ratepayer protection pledge and behind-the-meter stuff could.

I'm more talking about number one.

Number one, safe and effective. It's all in how you define that. Like some of the parental controls are a good example of like how to take that overarching thesis and then boil it down into something trackable. And when I hear that, I think like, oh, like I don't know how we are defining safe. I don't know how we're defining effective. Like this feels like this could be like some sort of very vague thing where like if one particular administration likes this company, they just approve it or not or whatever. But then when we actually talk to lawmakers and you hear something like, oh yeah, we're going to, you know, require parental controls. So if your offspring has a, you know, an AI account, you can say, hey, like they are this age, don't show them anything that's inappropriate for that age. That seems good. Yeah. So I don't know.

Overall, at least this first bullet point, preventing executives in the AI industry from releasing harmful products in the world, —that feels like you could end up having something like an FDA that's like every product you create needs to go through years of studies in order for the government. And it's like, hey, I just wanted to create a slightly more AI-native version of the SaaS tool. Yeah. Do I really?

I want to make SaaS.

I just want to make SaaS. Yeah, at the same time, the bull case—

I mean, I think the FDA model would really slow things down based on how long the FDA takes to approve things. At the same time, what is the definition of harmful here? Is it net harmful products? Because that is the goal of the FDA. They release drugs all the time that have side effects. You take this, it cures your cancer, but it's gonna make you throw up or it's gonna make you lose your hair. And people are like, yeah, I'll take that trade. And so if you went through the government and you said, okay, yeah, I'm gonna give you this tool that can write code, but sometimes it's gonna hallucinate and you might get some code that doesn't pass tests. I'd be like, yeah, okay. Like, it speeds me up on, on average. I'm in. Like, that's fine. And having some of those disclosures and it's the same thing with knowledge retrieval. Like, I do a deep research report, I get something that's 99% of the way there. Maybe there's something in there that's like, oh, that's actually like misattributed or that number is— I know that that number is from this report online that was wrong and they— and the model doesn't. And so I need to fact check it like I still see that as like net beneficial. But there are, of course, like, like flaws in every system. And so, you know, again, it's like where— how does this get defined over time?

That's like important. One thing I noticed from the announcement was that they are using AI leaders' own statements against them. And it's easy to see how this would resonate with their constituents. This is really powerful. So they— on Sanders' websites, he included this quote. Okay. In December, Elon Musk, who leads XAI, said he had, quote, a lot of AI nightmares and would, quote, certainly slow down AI and robotics if he could.

It's so interesting because Elon doesn't talk about that with like the rollout of electric cars or the rollout of space travel. He's not saying like, oh yeah, like, you know, 2030 is too soon to get to Mars. We need to slow down on the race to the moon. Like, let's really figure out the spacesuits first. Yeah. You know, he's like, let's just go.

And then another one in January, Demis, the head of Google's DeepMind, said he would support an AI pause if he knew other countries and companies also paused development. In February, Dario Amadei, the head of Anthropic, said he was absolutely in favor of trying to slow down AI development if other countries also slowed down.

That was Davos, I believe, both January, February.

So continuing, I wrote, but the problem, of course, is that there is zero movement on getting other countries to slow down. I can imagine some companies that would be like—

there's already comments in the chat about like, yeah, let China win.

Yeah, I'm not going to name the countries that would be down to slow down, but I think we all know that China, even if they agreed to something like this, wouldn't just automatically do anything about it. But the problem of course—

are there any countries that are like, yeah, we, we definitely should, we're ready to slow down, like we're France?

Well, I think if you're way behind, if you're way behind, there's kind of a benefit. Elon had said in 2023 that he supported like a 6-month pause. At that moment, that would have been awesome. Yeah, because if I could just have 6 months to like get my—

I feel like if you pull people in the south of France or the Amalfi Coast, like those folks would say we should just slow down generally, like AI, but also just slow down our lives, enjoy a glass of wine. Yeah.

Or even like a summer break. Just a summer break. 4 weeks. Yeah.

Or even like during the workday, like taking a break, taking a nap, just taking— just slowing down generally. I think, I think there's a lot of people that are just in favor of that.

Doesn't that mean that China should be more in favor of slowing down?

That is interesting.

Well, I'm just saying I can imagine in the same way that like for as many chips as we give them, advanced GPUs as we give them, you can assume they're still going to put an immense amount of pressure to kind of stimulate the local semiconductor industry in the same way here. I'm sure they would love for the United States to just pause all new data center construction. I think it's possible that they would like generally say like, yeah, like this seems good, but then what would they actually do? They would just use that as an opportunity to catch up, right?

So My question is like, where does China actually stand on this? I'd be very interested to know. Maybe you could look it up. Like, has the Chinese Communist Party actually put out any statements about whether they want to accelerate or pause AI development? Because they're— I think that they might refrain from taking that stance because it would discourage local, like, indigenous development. If the government is coming out and saying like, we want to slow down, then a lot of entrepreneurs are going to be like, okay, I'll go back to e-commerce or I'll go back to manufacturing. Like, I'm not going to work on this. 'cause the government doesn't want me to. And so I feel like there's this tug and like, even though I agree with you, like it would be in their advantage to say, hey, we wanna slow down, everyone should slow down, we're pro-slowdown. If they actually said that, it would have an immediate slowdown effect on the local AI progress. Does that make sense? Yeah, because even if they just take that stance, because it's an authoritarian country, like there's like this, like the Bernie Sanders comment stands in opposition to other politicians who are saying like, no, actually things are going well. And here's how we're going to, you know, like advance energy and to build more. But if you don't have that and it comes down as like a dictate, like this is the stance from the government, it's much harder for local entrepreneurs and local AI labs to like push back against that because it feels like they're all of a sudden in opposition to the government.

So just to kind of finish my thought. Yeah. All these quotes like must go extremely hard if you're not kind of acknowledging the full picture. Totally. Which is that the AI leaders are saying, yeah, if you get other countries to agree to slow down, we would be open to it. Yeah, but that is like the big elephant in the room. They don't mention any even conversations or dialogue with other countries around slowing down, and I don't think there's been any. So anyways, the act has a long way to go and it seems like the odds of it getting into law are low, but not zero. Safe to say that as written, the requirements in the bill would be an incredible gift to America's adversaries and catastrophic for overall AI progress. The question becomes, if anything like this were to become law, what are the effects of that, right? Space, right? The space data center people are saying like, space data centers don't seem so silly now, right? Taking that angle. Totally. Although I'm sure they would also be like, you can't put them up there either. We're gonna try to—

Yeah, I mean, there's also just like the globalization process that happened based around environmentalism in like the '90s WTO ascension for China. Like the reason that a lot of the mining happened in China is because like we said, like, we don't want that here, right? It's dirty, it's gross, there's chemicals, there's pollution. And so like out of sight, out of mind, let's push it abroad. And we could do that again with data centers. We could just be like, they're all in Canada or Mexico, or they're all in some, you know, Australia, or, you know, there could be a receptive country out there that just says like, We would love, we are an ally now and we'd love to get all these data centers. And then you have to ask the question of like, what does that look like in 30 years?

Data centers generate, they don't create a lot of jobs locally. They create a meaningful amount of work during the development process. And certainly some jobs. They continue to generate massive amounts of tax, local tax revenue.

Yeah, I actually don't know how you tax data centers.

The data center that we blocked, I think in New Jersey, was gonna be generating like tens of millions of dollars of local taxes. Which is pretty good. Yeah. And the environmental concerns. Yeah, I think everybody should want to make sure that if we're investing hundreds of billions of dollars into these things, that we're not destroying our lovely Mother Earth. Yeah. But and the energy costs, again, real concern. But we're making, we're making progress there.

Yeah. So Meta, YouTube found addictive harmful. It's like one of the hardest-hitting headlines I've ever seen on the front of the Wall Street Journal for two companies that are usually relegated to the business and finance section. They made it to the front page because they were found guilty or, you know, by California jurors. California jurors say the tech companies designed their apps to cause injury to kids. Very, very bad. But Brandon Gorrell had a take and a write-up and some explanation of what's actually going on here. The total damages are $3 million each company, roughly $6 million total. And I had a friend who's a lawyer who texted me and sent me the number and was like, hey, I'm predicting that it'll be like 3M. And I didn't read the M and I was like, okay, $3 billion. Like, what do I do? This is not that big of a deal. And then it was $3 million and I was like, that's extremely low compared to like the numbers that we normally see from big tech companies. But this has much broader implications because this is precedent-setting and there will be a flood of other cases.

And Zack's like, I did spend all of my free cash flow on data centers. Yes. But if you give me another 2 seconds, I will have the cash flow to cover this. So just give me like 2 seconds. Yes.

But it is a very important case, even though this particular ruling is not changing the cash flow structure of these businesses because it has a lot of ramifications and there's a lot more plaintiffs that are in the queue. So yesterday, a Los Angeles jury— both Meta and YouTube liable for a 20-year-old woman's mental health crisis in a bellwether trial that treated platforms as, quote, defective products and potentially marks the end to the absolute immunity nature of Section 230. In the case, the plaintiff's lawyer, Mark Lanier, argued that Meta and YouTube built, quote, digital casinos that use neurobiological techniques similar to those employed by slot machines. Fun fact about ARM, throwback: the first chip that the company, the precursor company, ever built was a chip that went into a slot machine. They call them fruit machines in England. Fruit machines. Fruit machines. They call them fruit machines because they have like the cherries and the strawberries and the bananas and you line them up. The jury found that specific features of Meta and YouTube are designed to be addictive. Infinite scroll creates an environment where there are no natural stopping points. Algorithmic recommendation feeds users, feeds users highly engaging content. Autoplay removes users' agency in choosing whether or not to watch the next video. Notifications pull users back in by exploiting their need for validation. Instagram beauty filters contributed to the plaintiff's body dysmorphia. Features like the like button exploit users' biological need for societal approval. This is what the lawyer argued.

Shake Shack exploited my biological need for food. Yes, there is this question.

There was, uh, Taylor Lorenzen had some great takes here. She said—

so Taylor has come out in the last like 48 hours, I would say, is like the number one defender of big technology.

Yeah, she had a take that was like, did Spotify addict you to music by playing like good songs for you on demand?

And this DJ, this, this AI DJ is simply It's basically, I mean, that's kind of the argument.

They didn't obviously go after Spotify. They went after Meta and YouTube. But yeah, there's a question about like, you know, what UI features, what are dark patterns and how do we regulate those? And it's very interesting. But the bellwether nature of the outcome has significant implications for social media. There are over 10,000 individual personal injury cases, almost 800 school district claims and 40 state-level cases pending nationwide that are similar to KGM versus Meta and YouTube. More broadly, the social media industry's reliance on Section 230, which has up to now shielded them from liability for user-generated content, may no longer be enough to protect them from litigation like this. To be clear, this case is not— it's not attacking Section 230 because it's not making the argument that someone uploaded a video to YouTube that said, you should be sad, you should be afraid, it's over, and that made someone sad. That is the that is user-generated, that is protected under Section 230. You might be able to go after the individual creator of that video. If I make a video that says like, Jordi Hays sucks and should be sad, and then you get sad, you might be able to sue me, I think. But this is different because they went after the like button, the infinite scroll, the recommendation feeds, the features that are built by the platforms themselves. So if the decision makes it through appeals, and this might go all the way to the Supreme Court, we'll see, platforms may be forced to redesign their user experiences and algorithms, put up age verification, even deprecate infinite scroll. Obviously, changes like this would have an effect on both these platforms' ad-based revenue models. Meta and Google plan to appeal the decision. It's not hard to imagine this one making it to the Supreme Court. We have to start apologizing to the schizophrenic community. There is a surveillance drone reportedly flown by infiltrator elements and disguised as a natural bird such as an eagle that has been spotted in Iran. This goes back to Taylor Lawrence because I believe she worked with the folks behind the viral stunt Birds Aren't Real that was sort of a commentary on the conspiratorial nature of the internet. And in that stunt, they make the argument that birds need to be recharged and they're all spying on you and no birds are real. Of course, that is very satirical and funny, but apparently someone made a drone, some you know, organization made a drone that looks like a bird so it can sneak behind enemy lines and spy during the conflict, which is remarkable.

Do you think there will ever be video games that are effectively— you're just remote piloting something in the real world?

So I have heard of this years and years ago that there was something along the— along those lines that would allow you to hunt remotely. So you go to a website and you control a weapon that can hunt an animal.

Do they close the loop, like help you actually get— yes, yes, they—

so after you down the animal, they will go and ship it to you so you can mount it on your wall. Dang. The reactions to the Meta and YouTube trial continue. Ariel Grivner says— or Gibner says, this is disgusting and I can't wait for the appeals. The precedent set by YouTube being liable for screen time addiction is kind of scary. Treating algorithms like a defective Product opens the door to endless lawsuits over addictive tech. What's next? Books, video games, junk food? Video games, we got to do something about. Those things are too fun. Too fun. Truly, we got to make them—

Except you ascended. You beat your addiction.

Yeah. Might have been playing a game earlier this week. Got sneaky little 45 minutes. Really? Yeah. No. Yeah, it was good. No. Player Obscura.

I'm going to go look—

You got to pull me out. I'm addicted. I don't know. It's depressing. It's making me sad thinking about these, these tech companies having to pay fines. And it just, it's just ruining my mood entirely. And it was like, you can tell that the, that the way the lawsuit was designed was designed to take an emotional toll on me, suck me in, make me read all of the, all of the transcripts from the court, all the, all the reporting, all the research. Should he be held accountable for what he's doing? I don't know. We'll see.

But there might be a lawsuit. Meta, of course, trading down massively today, almost 9% off of this. And, you know, there's some real concerns, right? If they— there's new legal risk. There's thousands of other kind of lawsuits floating out there. You might get more copycat lawsuits, class actions. And then the real question is like, do you— do they have to make any product-level changes? Does that end up impacting time spent in the app, which will impact the advertising business. Yeah, this is a weird one on a personal level, 'cause like on one hand, my kids, I'm gonna keep away the infinite scroll machine as long as I possibly can, right? And I will, you know, I don't think back on the time that I've spent on social media and think, "Wow, I'm so glad I put in those long hours and I really put in the work." Yeah, it just doesn't seem that addictive to me.

I can pull myself away like anytime. It's not a big deal. It's just not a big deal. Hey, MrBeast.

We lost it. Culture almost pants hurt. It just sounds like, it sounds—

This place. Enter Pixar honeymoon.

Okay, you just gotta get more. Can I ask you a question? If you follow me, I'll double your bank account. What, on Instagram? Okay.

I mean, this is good content.

The funny thing is how addictive are the apps themselves? Can they argue that the apps themselves, it's really not us, right?

I've seen some people's channels not very addictive. Yeah.

You know, like it's a lot. In many ways, like our content, right? We talk about niche subjects in technology and business. There's a lot of content on YouTube that is far, far, far more addictive. Yeah.

But yeah, no, I've generally had a good experience on social media. Thank you for watching. Thank you for watching Apple Podcasts and Spotify. Sign up for a newsletter at tbpn.com and we'll see you tomorrow at 11 a.m. Pacific. See you tomorrow. Goodbye.