Welcome back everyone. Today on the Joseph Carlson
Show, Google's making everyone nervous.
We're seeing this over and over again.
We first saw it with NVIDIA. NVIDIA released this blog post
saying, hey, Google's making great Tpus.
Congrats on the success, but we're still the best.
Remember us NVIDIA? Don't choose Google's Tpus,
Meta. Choose us, NVIDIA.
That was a very defensive move. And then we also have Jensen
going around on, on different interviews, answering the
question over and over again about whether or not he's
concerned about Google. And of course he's saying, I'm
not concerned at all, even though they're doing a great
job. I'm not worried at all.
But then we have Open AI. Google was supposed to be the
company disrupted by Open AI, but it seems like the tables
have turned now. Googles apparently making Open
AI and Sam Altman send out a memo saying that there is a code
red. The Wall Street Journal has
written about this memo, revealing a lot of the details
of what Sam Altman said in it, what he's revealed and the
direction that Sam Altman's now taking open.
AI, which is a big change. We're going to be looking
through this and seeing how investors can identify these
type of companies, the Googles, where people are very nervous
about them, and then it turns out, OK ahead of time.
Now, of course, we have a lot of other news to get to.
We have a opinion piece in the New York Times from a surgeon
that says that Waymo is so incredibly safe that people
don't really understand the medical and the human life
consequences of a Waymo robotaxi.
We also have news that one of my largest positions, which is
Netflix, is down over 5% today on the news that they're bidding
on Warner Brothers Discovery. Very seriously.
Apparently this isn't just a fake bid.
Netflix wants to own Warner Brothers Discovery.
We'll be discussing from a shareholder perspective here.
And we have the fail of the week, which in this case,
unfortunately, I have to highlight Waymo.
So we're going to be talking about Waymo a couple times here.
In this case, a Waymo drives by an intense high stakes scene of
a standoff between someone lying on the ground and a bunch of
officers pointing their gun at them.
So we'll be going over the fail of the week as well.
So we have a ton of things to get to.
This is a very full episode. And just a quick mention, if you
haven't tried out qualtrim.com, the best stock analysis
platform, you're missing out. We've had thousands of new
people join just over the past week.
Most of them love it. And if you try it out, I think
you will too. The reason why is because it's
very cheap and it gives an extremely extensive, robust
platform to analyze stocks. You have stock insights that
shows you all these charts and graphs of what's going on.
It gives you 30 plus years of financial history.
It gives you a briefing of what's going down with the news
on a stock. It has discounted casual
calculators, earnings calendars, portfolio management tools, and
on and on. There's so many features, I
can't even list them all off. One of the things we just
recently implemented last week is called Qualtrm Brief, which
is a summary of key recent events.
For example, if you went to NVIDIA, you would see a list of
the most recent things to happen with this company so you can get
briefed on it. You can get caught up to date.
So if you want to keep up to speed on all your companies,
this is a very easy way to do it.
That's one of the many features that we're just implementing.
If you haven't tried out Qualtrim, you're missing out.
Try it out now at qualtrim.com. Now, we kick things off today
with the news that Google's making everybody nervous, and
this is the Cinderella story. It's the swing and sentiment
that we've seen happen over the past seven months.
And this comes back to one major point of investing.
The biggest thing that investors struggle with, to have superior
returns. It's one of the biggest things
that Warren Buffett and many other great investors talk
about. Buffett has routinely stated
that he believes the most important thing in investing is
your temperament, your discipline.
He said that he does not believe the person with a 160 IQ is a
better investor than the person with a 130.
Out of those two people, whatever 1 is more emotionally
disciplined, more stable, more level headed, whatever one can
control their temperament better will be the better investor.
In fact, he even says that knowing advanced math doesn't
make you a better investor. Having complex spreadsheets
doesn't make you a better investor.
In fact, Charlie Munger was asked if he's ever seen Warren
Buffett use a spreadsheet and he said never, not once.
Buffett makes judgments based off very simple calculations.
But more importantly, Buffett has an extremely stable
temperament. He's an extremely disciplined
investor. He doesn't follow the prevailing
sentiment of whatever the market's thinking, and that's
where he's gained most of his alpha.
You also look at the investors like Peter Lynch, one of the
greatest of our times. He's over doubled the market
average for 11 years straight. He had an incredible performance
at Magellan, and he's one of the ones that said that it's not the
brain that makes money, it's the stomach.
Being able to control your stomach, being able to just go
through the volatility and control those swings is where
the money's made. He made very simple judgments.
Good companies will do well over time.
Companies that grow their earnings will be worth more over
time. And don't worry about the
volatility and the swings. But again, this is much easier
said than done. Even though we have all these
great investors, Warren Buffett, Peter Lynch, Dev Kantasaria, all
emphasizing all the time that emotional discipline and
temperament are the most important ingredients in
investing, investors still get it wrong all the time.
The market is made-up of humans. Humans are emotional.
Humans follow the pack. It's a safety protocol.
We feel safety in numbers. So when other people are doing
something, we don't feel safe if we're not doing the same thing.
In fact, we feel like an outcast, an outsider for not
following with the crowd. That feels wrong inherently.
It's in our biology. The investors that are the best
in the world are the ones that can control their temperament.
They feel comfortable either way.
They can be with the crowd, or they can be entirely alone and
feel equally comfortable. They don't have to fit in and
they're not swayed by the popular sentiment.
And the sentiment can be very persuasive when we look at what
goes on with different stocks. You'll notice the trend in
investing. Anytime a stock soars to all
time highs, people are very bullish on it.
Almost every time you look at a company like Duolingo as a
recent example, when it was at it's all time highs, people are
extremely bullish on it, extrapolating huge amounts of
growth. They're saying that it's going
to go on forever and then when the stock price went down,
people are saying it's a bad company, it's a bad bet.
It's being disrupted by AI. Who would ever want to own that
thing? They looked at Netflix as a
premium company, one of the best in the world.
When they lost subscribers for 1/4, sentiment entirely changed.
The stock price went down 70%. Nobody wanted to own it.
They said it was being disrupted.
Now that it's back up to all time highs, it's viewed as one
of the best companies in the world.
People want to own it. You can see the same thing with
so many stocks going back just over the past five years.
Sentiment usually follows price and people usually follow the
common prevailing sentiment. Being able to be detached from
that is incredibly important and that's exactly what we see with
Google. Google is the one having the all
hands on deck meeting. They had a problem and it was
Open AIA company that came out with this new way to consume
data that Google felt very threatened by.
So Sundar Pichai had meetings with their top executives.
They came up with a game plan to address the situation.
Sentiment at the time was incredibly low on Google.
The stock price was less than half of what it is today.
Now we Fast forward just seven months and the roles have
entirely reversed. We have an article here from the
Wall Street Journal titled Open AI Declares Code Red as Google
Threatens the AI Lead. This is the polar opposite of
what we just saw not even a year ago.
When we read into this report, it goes over what Sam Altman's
doing. Sam Altman told employees Monday
that the company was declaring a Code Red, an effort to improve
the quality of ChatGPT and delaying other products as a
result, according to an internal memo reviewed by the Wall Street
Journal. So the Wall Street Journal has
they they got a copy of this memo and they're revealing some
of the details. They mentioned that this company
wide memo is the most decisive indication yet that opening eyes
feeling the pressure they're feeling it from other
competitors, but especially Google.
We saw some data showing that Gemini three had a big spike in
download. It had a huge surge of
popularity. It had overwhelmingly positive
reception on X and social media. And we've seen it right there in
the App Store. You know, there's usually
ChatGPT, some random app, and then Gemini.
So Gemini is now right in the top five right there with open
AI, with Chachi BT. So this comes right after the
recent success of Gemini 3 and says a particular concern to
Altman is Google. So this isn't something where
they're just concerned about all general AI companies.
They're concerned about Google. They released their new version
of its Gemini AI model last month that surpassed open eyes
model in industry benchmark tests and sent the search giant
stocks soaring. So that's part of the reason
Google stock is up so much. Gemini's user base has been
climbing since the August release of an image generator,
Nano Banana. And Google said monthly active
users grew from 450 million in July to 650 million in October.
So they gained an incremental 200 million active users in a
few months, growing very quickly.
One of the biggest things to contrast here is how these two
companies may seem like they're very similar because you have
Chachi, BT and Gemini, very similar applications, but
they're in very different situations.
Google does not need to make Gemini profitable.
They don't need to do it anytime soon.
In fact, they could have it run at a loss for five years.
Google is one of the highest net income companies in the world
right now. It's the highest, over $100
billion in net income. So Google has all the money in
the world. They can run Gemini, just
focused on user experience without profitability for as
long as they really want. Now Chachi PT on the other hand,
and Open AI are not profitable. They have enormous obligations.
They've had investors invest enormous amounts of money and
they need to pay back on that money.
At some point, they need to generate some profit.
But if Open AI pushes in the profitability mode and it
degrades the user experience, putting on ads and monetization
efforts, it may make it so that more people divert from Chachi
BT to Gemini. So Open AI stuck between a rock
and a hard place. They need the user experience to
be superb, better than Google's, and they need to monetize at
some point in time. And that's the challenge that
Altman's facing here. Sam Altman said the Open AI
would be pushing back work on other initiatives such as
advertising AI agents for health and shopping and personal
assistance called Pulse. He encouraged temporary team
transfers and said the company would have a daily call for
those responsible for improving Chachi BT.
On Monday evening, Opening Eyes head of Chachi BT, Nick Turley
said on exit the company was now focused on growing its chatbot
while also making it feel even more intuitive and personal.
He was going to turn the wheels of monetization.
Then Google released Gemini 3 and he thought, wow, that's
really good. We can't do the monetization
thing just yet. We have to make ours even
better. So he's delaying monetization as
a direct response because of Gemini.
They say that Altman has managed to dispel concerns about Open
AI's financials, largely due to Chat GPT's massive growing user
base of more than 800 million weekly users.
In an internal memo, he said that a new reasoning model that
Open AI is planning to release next week is ahead of Google's
latest Gemini model, and that the company's still performing
well in various other fronts. Don't you remember the last time
that Sam Altman was asked directly about the financial
state of Open AI? He acted super defensively.
Brad Gerstner basically asked him about this same question and
he said if you want to sell your stock, Brad, then you can sell
your stock. I don't think that really
dispels concerns when you act that way when you're asked a
very fair, straightforward question.
But regardless, Chachibti is going to release some model next
week that should beat out Geminis, and that's how Open Eye
plans to keep the lead. But as of right now, it seems
like Google has this way of really turning the tables, going
from a company that had a code red themselves just this year to
now making other competitors have code Reds.
You have open AI, the disruptor, now being potentially disrupted
by Gemini. Google somehow was able to do
this. And if you looked at the
financials and the fundamentals this entire year, if you looked
at every single quarterly report, Google looked good the
entire time the whole way through.
There was no point of weakness throughout this entire year with
Google stock, yet the sentiment would have told you otherwise
during April, During May, Google looked like it was in serious
trouble. But investors that stayed the
course and listened to Buffett's advice of having good
temperament, being slow and methodical with your decisions.
Investors that listened to Peter Lynch that said that money's
made with the stomach, not the brain.
Investors that listen to Dev Kantasaria that doesn't ever
trade his holdings. He just holds on to them quarter
after quarter. Regardless of the prevailing
sentiment, those are the investors that made the most
money in this case. Now let's go to move on to some
news. Now, one piece of news, and I
forgot to even mention this in the outline of the episode, but
we get to this Fox News interview and we have Sundar
Pichai here. And I just thought I'd I'd
mention this because it's actually crazy that the state
that we're in right now, Sundar Pichai is talking about having
data centres in space. And that's not that's not
something made-up. This isn't an AI video, this is
just Google's real plan. I mean, over time at Google,
we're always proud of taking moon shots.
You mentioned way more earlier. You know, that's been over a
decade in the making. We're working on quantum
computing. In that spirit, one of our moon
shots is to how do we one day have data centers in space so
that we can better harness the energy from the sun.
You know, that is 100 trillion times more energy than what we
produce in all of Earth today. So we want to put these data
centers in space closer to the sun.
And, and I think we are taking our first step in 27.
We'll send tiny, tiny racks of machines and, and have them in
satellites, test them out and then start scaling from there.
But there's no doubt to me that a decade or so away, we'll
we'll, we'll be viewing it as a more normal way to build data
centers. All right, So we're at the point
now just to clarify, we're at the point now where Sundar is
talking about data centers in space.
And this isn't some like, you know, far out there, Joe Rogan
kind of the thought process that may or may not happen.
They're literally planning on it like this is one of their moon
shot bets, similar that they've done with Waymo, which is a
reality similar that they do with a lot of things.
Google's planning on doing this, making it so you can actually
have a data center in space. It's super cool stuff.
And it shows that this company still continues to make these
long shot investments. It's very cool to see that they
use the money they make, all the profits they make from other
businesses like advertising. They pull them together and then
not only do they give some of it back to the shareholders, which
I think is appropriate, but they also have a decent amount that
they make for these type of long shot beds.
And if Google wasn't so profitable on the other sides of
their business, they'd never have the money to be able to do
this stuff. Waymo wouldn't have existed
without Google's advertising business to fund it.
So it's very cool to see how this company can make one
section profitable, fund these type of things.
And then in the future, they can be big businesses like we think
Waymo will be today. Now, on the subject of Waymo, we
also have this essay here. This is an opinion piece from a
guest writing on The New York Times.
In this write up, he's trying to give people more of a look of
the reality of how incredible what Waymo's done, what they've
already accomplished. And before we jump into this, I
just want to I want to I just want to compare and contrast
this with the popular sentiment on X about Waymo.
This is 1 new post just a a day ago on on Waymo.
This is from an account named Laci Presley.
She says Waymo, the Waymo problem complexity collapsing on
complexity. Waymo's approach layers, lidar,
radar, HD maps, and a massive sensor array all stitched
together through heavy decision making logic.
On paper it sounds robust. In practice, it means more
points of failure, more disagreement between inputs,
more brittle behavior and unusual scenarios.
She goes on to say why Tesla's approach dominates the future.
Tesla's full self driving philosophy is brutally simple
and brutally scalable. End to end neural networks
trained in the real world, not idealized.
Maps, vision only mirroring and human driving stack millions of
edge cases clipped, absorbed directly into training data.
A unified model not competing with sensors or silos.
A global fleet generating continuous feedback.
These are one of the many posts that gets a lot of attention.
You have an interview there with Elon Musk.
It's been seen 250,000 times. If you were just to read that,
you'd get the impression that Waymo's system's not really
working. The Tesla has a better system.
That Waymo really hasn't figured it out.
And then we see write ups like this which show the entire
opposite thing, the total opposite thing of what's being
shared around online Now Doctor Slotkin, who has a neurosurgery
writing this, he says, I recently got called to see a
teenager ejected in a rollover car crash.
It's just awful. The things these these doctors
have to see is just awful. Says that the trauma team rushed
him, rushed him to surgery to stop major abdominal bleeding.
But we all knew when that much energy enters a skull, no
operation can turn it back. He was declared brain dead.
His death was a reminder of the staggering amount of suffering
and loss of human life we accept from car accidents every single
day. It's become commonplace.
Now we just think of car accidents as an everyday thing.
If a plane crashes, we hear about it anywhere in the world.
Anytime a plane ever crashes, everybody hears about it
instantly, but every single day there's car crashes killing
people. It's just a a matter of reality,
a very, a very sad one that we've all accepted.
The self driving car company Waymo recently released data
covering nearly 100 million driverless miles in four
American cities through June of 2025, the biggest trove of
information released so far about safety.
I spent weeks analyzing the data.
The results were impressive when compared to human drivers on the
same Rd. Waymo's self driving cars were
involved in 91% fewer serious injuries or worse crashes and
80% fewer crashes causing any injury.
Now a 91% reduction in serious injury crashes is insane.
You're reducing serious injuries by 91%, it showed.
And, and this, these statistics get even crazier.
It showed a 96% lower rate of injury causing crashes at
intersections, which are some of the deadliest I encounter in the
trauma Bay so far. Other Thomas vehicle companies
don't report or they report incomplete data.
Waymo, by contrast, publish everything.
And then it even goes into some of the bigger criticisms of
Waymo's or perceived criticisms that aren't even real.
For example, one of the criticisms of autonomous
vehicles is that they may break erratically.
So if you're falling behind one, you got to be careful because it
might break and then you smash into the back of it and
technically that's your fault, when really it was the Waymo
causing the accident. But that's not true at all.
That's not even close to true. In fact, again, it's the exact
opposite. This last instance may give some
skeptical readers pause. There's a common misconception
that these cars brake erratically and they can get
rear-ended. But they are involved in far
fewer rear end injury crashes than human drivers are.
And Waymo has never rear-ended another vehicle at an injury
level. 100 million miles driven. And a Waymo has never rear-ended
another vehicle at an injury level.
Just astonishing statistics. They also drive so predictably
they brake so evenly that they themselves get rear-ended.
Far fewer than human driver vehicles.
Autonomous vehicle companies have reported every contact
resulting in injury or property damage over $1000, while studies
show that humans don't report the majority of accidents, even
with injuries. So these statistics showing how
safe Waymo's are actually understate how safe they
actually are. Because many of the accidents by
human drivers aren't being reported, Waymo is legally
required to report every single one.
Even with every single accident reported, they still have fewer
accidents in humans. And he emphasizes the medical
standpoint of this. So the statistics are
impressive. But now he starts to put it in
terms of like doctor talk of how medically significant this is.
More than 39,000 Americans died in motor vehicle crashes last
year, more than homicide. Aside plane crashes and natural
disasters, combined crashes are the number 2 cause of death for
children and young adults. But death is only part of the
story. These crashes are also the
leading cause of spinal cord injury.
We surge and see the aftermath of 10,000 crash victims that
come to the emergency rooms every day. 10,000 a day.
The combined economic and quality of life tool exceeds 1
trillion annually, more than the entire U.S. military or medical
budget. Cars hurt a lot of people.
They're necessary. The trade off is far worth it,
but they do hurt a lot of people.
It's interesting that we have companies that are going for
healthcare, right? We have Apple that always tries
their healthcare initiatives, the Apple Watch and maintaining
healthy habits. We have Amazon that's going into
pharmacy. But I've never really looked at
Waymo as a healthcare company because it's not, it's not doing
real healthcare. It's not like you go to the
doctor and then you're you're seen by Waymo, but it is
preventative. The more the society shifts
towards Waymo, the the follow on effects, the knock on effects of
that are dramatically less healthcare expense, dramatically
less injured people, dramatically less spinal
injuries and dramatically less deaths.
Waymo can be considered one of the biggest changes in our
healthcare system, in our safety and prevention of injury, of
anything that's happened over the past 50 years.
The data that Waymo's putting out is extremely compelling.
In medical terms, this can save 10s of thousands of injuries per
year and 10s of thousands of deaths per year with widespread
adoption. Yet there's still some states
that are arguing they're still pushing back on Waymo adoption,
like they don't want this technology because maybe it will
affect Uber drivers, maybe a few people will lose some jobs or
have to switch what they're doing for a career.
But are we going to sacrifice a far safer way for people to get
around because we might, because we want to have protectionism
policies for specific jobs? I don't think that's a trade off
worth making. And to the people that still
deny Waymo and say that it's complex and it's not working, at
this point it's like you're living on a different planet.
Have you looked at any of the actual data?
Waymo is working. It's working incredibly well.
The numbers are indisputably good.
Saying that it's complexity collapsing on complexity.
Saying that it's more points of failure is akin to saying that a
commercial airliner with two jet engines, each of which are
powerful enough to propel the jet, has now two points of
failure and not just one. Well, it's good to have two
points of failure. Having more points of failure
before the thing ultimately fails is a good thing In this
case. The multi model way that Waymos
operate with a LIDAR, sensors and camera have been proven to
have incredibly good effects. Waymo continues to expand
throughout the world. Investors need to get on board
with this reality. So far, no one else has matched
their technology in the United States.
No one else has gotten the approvals.
No one else has proven this. So while there's still some
people in denial of what Waymo's accomplishing today, the data
that they're revealing proves it.
This is one of the most revolutionary technological
advancements of our time. It has the potential to
transform our healthcare system to prevent 10s of thousands of
deaths and injuries every single year and injuries every single
day. This could be considered one of
the greatest successes that we've had in American history.
Yet there's still many investors that don't get it and that's why
we look at the data. Now moving on, we get to news
that one of my top positions, the top five position, which is
Netflix, is down over 5% today. So it's down $5.61, down close
to $100 per share off of the news that Netflix is apparently
bidding a mostly cash offer for Warner for Warner Brothers
Discovery. Netflix wants to own it.
Now, when I first saw this news, I have to admit I thought that
Netflix may be doing the strategy of just trying to up
the bids for everyone else. So someone else owns Warner
Brothers Discovery. They paid a lot of money for it.
That's what I thought that they may be doing, but I think I was
wrong. I think Netflix really just
wants to own Warner Brothers Discovery.
They've decided that having the sass, that would be
advantageous, and that's unique because Netflix is not an
acquisitive company. Warner Brothers Discovery filled
a second round of bids, including a mostly cash offer
from Netflix in an auction that could wrap up in the coming days
or weeks. According to people familiar,
bankers for Paramount, Skydance Corp, Comcast Corp and Netflix
worked over a long weekend improving their offers for all
parts of the Warner Brothers deal.
So there you have it. They all want Warner Brothers
Discovery, including Netflix, which again, Netflix doesn't
typically do this. Right now, Wall Street is
considering this a risky endeavour.
That's where I see the stock today.
If I had to guess why it's down 5%.
I think investors are just a little uneasy about Netflix
buying such a huge asset. It's just never happened before
and it would be a little weird. Wouldn't it be just a little bit
odd to have Netflix own Warner Brothers Discovery?
They'd have all the seasons of Friends all the time.
They'd have like the Harry Potter's, they'd have movies
like a Dune, you know, and then another thing that they said,
they, they said that they'd even have Warner Brothers movies have
full theatrical release. So they're also meeting in the
middle. They're saying that they'd still
keep the box office if they bought this asset.
So I think investors are looking at this thinking that that might
be a little odd. So investors are a bit nervous
right now. I don't think investors have any
reason to be nervous. If Netflix buys Warner Brothers
Discovery, it'll be a creative to the company.
They'll make money at almost any price they pay.
Netflix has so much in way of cash flow.
They are a cash printing machine.
They're going to be making over $9 billion in free cash flow
here soon. They can pay down any amounts of
debt. They can get the balance sheet
in shipshape anytime they want. So this is a company that's not
taking on additional risk by doing this.
It would grow the subscriber base immensely.
It'd make them even more profitable on a per subscriber
basis, and it would make it so that Netflix addresses one of
the main concerns about the company, which is the quality of
the content. Netflix has always been
criticized for having lower quality content, their original
struggle, but if they own one of the best studios in the world,
nobody could accurately say that anymore.
They'd have a lot of the best content in the world in their
library. So personally, I feel like this
is a buying opportunity for the Netflix investor.
If they do end up buying Warner Brothers Discovery, I think
they'll become more profitable as a result.
If not, it's back to business as usual.
Now moving on, we get to the fail of the week, which this
time is, it's unfortunately Waymo because I was just talking
it up. I was talking up Waymo a lot,
saying how good it is. And now here I am highlighting
Waymo as the fail of the week. And we have a situation here.
As you can see right in the background there, there's a lot
of police lights. We have something going on in
the intersection. It looks blurry.
Then you have a Waymo right there at the beginning of the
intersection and just take a look at what happens.
Let's go ahead and play this video.
We'll take a look at what happens.
Waymo. Oh my, Oh my, what the?
Waymo doing. There's a dude laying face down
on the ground and then in the background there's like 5 or 6
police officers guns drawn. So this is a high stake,
potentially shootout position. This guy's trying to just live,
right? He doesn't want to move
anything. He doesn't want to, you know, he
doesn't want to reach for anything because he has cops
with guns drawn on him. And the Waymo just slowly, it
just slowly drives by during all of this without a care in the
world. The Waymo's going all right,
I'll take a left here, avoid all those police cars.
I'll drive by that guy that happens to be laying on the
ground. I'll just slow down a little
bit, make sure I don't run over him and off to our destination
like there's not a care in the world.
Obviously, this is an extreme edge case.
It's very difficult to train for having five cop cars with guns
drawn and a random guy laying on the ground.
So I don't think that this was part of the training process.
You know, it's not part of their their system that they're
feeding this data into. Now, again, you can criticize
this and it is funny to look at what happened.
Tesla investors are saying, look at what Waymo's doing, driving
by this huge scene, right? It's not just stopping, waiting.
But in Waymo's defense, I will defend a little bit here.
It did drive slowly around the guy, made sure it wasn't going
to hit him, didn't cause any damage directly, but it probably
should have waited. The Waymo probably shouldn't
have driven into the intersection.
It probably should have realized something's going on when
there's that many police lights. So even though I think Waymo
overall is doing a great job, this definitely warrants a fail
of the week. That's going to be it for this
time. Hope you enjoyed, see you in the
next one.