Feb 22, 2025 ยท 2025 #7. Read the transcript grouped by speaker, inspect word-level timecodes, and optionally turn subtitles on for direct video playback
Edit labels for this show, save them in this browser, or download a JSON override for the production folder.
Transcript Playback
Unicorns Are Back
Human Transcript
Timed transcript
Blocks are grouped by speaker for readability. Expand a block to inspect word-level timing.
Speaker 4
everybody it is saturday february the 22nd 2025 the last saturday uh in february uh the last saturday we're gonna do a that was the week tech roundup it's been an odd week um on the one hand the stocks notched the worst week since trump's inauguration six weeks ago it's been a long six weeks According to the Financial Times, the geopolitical rupture, which of course has been caused by Trump, has sparked a quiet market rebellion. Niall Ferguson had an interesting piece in today's Wall Street Journal about the demise of the United States because of its massive debt. And Elon Musk has been continuing to make a public fool of himself this week, waving a chainsaw and pretending to be an Argentine politician, which I'm not sure reflects that well on him. However, in spite of all that bad news, Keith Tears, that was the week newsletter, is actually very optimistic. Unicorns are back, according to Keith. And we have... an image, of course, created by AI of these imaginary beasts, horses with horns. Keith is joining us as always from Palo Alto, the home of optimism. Keith, do you think it's coincidental that suddenly everyone is optimistic again in Silicon Valley whilst the market is sliding? Do those two things in an odd way kind of go together?
No, you know, there's no correlation between Silicon Valley and the markets at all. In any day to day sense, there's long term, there's long term, correlation, I think, but not short term. I think Silicon Valley is having a moment because of AI in Grok three was launched this week. Most of you know, crunch based launched its new AI driven data platform. And the CEO declared that historical data is dead. meaning only future predictive data is any good anymore. So there's a lot going on. I mean, some massive funding rounds of AI.
Which is an odd thing to say. I mean, I didn't even use that article. Historical data being dead, the future is predictive intelligence. I mean, what does that mean?
He means that it's now possible because of AI to see patterns and trends and predict them. And so just knowing the past is not the point anymore. I mean, obviously, he's stretching a point. You still need the history from the past to see the trends. So he's stretching a point. But he's saying the needle has turned from looking backwards to predicting the future because of data. And that's true in biology as well. I mean, there's a massive arc this week announced a new model that understands DNA. and can predict the likelihood of solving diseases, for example.
So your editorial this week, Keith, is quite personal. You note that as the person in charge of SignalRank, your startup, AI has been remarkably helpful, and it You refer in the editorial to an interesting piece in the New York Times about how AI is changing how Silicon Valley builds startups like your own SignalRank. What does your experience at SignalRank tell us about the future of startups?
Well, the key is SignalRank is five people. Two of us have coding skills. And it has not raised, we've raised $5 million ever to spend on building SignalRank. All the other money we raised is to invest in companies. So that article is focusing on the fact that it's almost like the lean startup story from the 1980s. from the early 2000s. Eric Ries. Yeah, it's almost like the lean startup story, except it's true this time, because the most expensive thing in a startup is people. And the one thing you need less of is people. And that's a massive shift. Now, of course, if you're building large language models, the opposite is true, because the most expensive thing is GPUs, which you pay NVIDIA for, And that's super expensive. But everything else that's sitting on top of that is getting faster, cheaper, and better.
You also refer to a New York Times piece about how AI is prompting an evolution, not an extinction for coders. Your son's a coder. In a sense, you're a coder. Ultimately, Keith, though, and I was at this thing with Tim Draper a couple of weeks ago where he was talking about billion-dollar companies, built and managed by single people. Won't ultimately AI make most coders extinct? Maybe not all, but won't founders like yourself simply become coders and you won't have the need for other help?
Yeah, I make the point in the editorial that I didn't write a single line of code, but I've built a very complex system with lots of AI agents working together and delivering results for a user.
Learning to code is going to be a low requirement. A very high requirement is learning to architect and guide the AI. Because the AI can code, but it can't imagine systems to build or know when it got it right or when it got it wrong. And so the skill base is going to shift to what normally would be the domain of a product manager. who has coding skills and can understand what's happening and can understand what it can ask for and what it can't ask for. But coding itself, learning Python, learning JavaScript or Java, probably less essential.
He'll still be needed for some time. In his company, they're not allowed to use AI yet. So it's a little bit like dying skills always protect themselves until they can't. And so engineers that are defensive or companies that are defensive about using AI are going to fall behind a little bit. But eventually, everyone gets there. Everyone will get there because it's just a better way of doing things.
I mean, you're an innovator and you're instinctive in terms of innovation. But are people going to start going to college and doing majors in working with AI rather than learning how to code? Won't computer science be really about how to ask AI the right questions and ask it to do the correct things?
Yeah, but to do that, you need to understand systems architecture, for example. My youngest son just got an offer from my old university in the UK, Kent, and it's for a course called Computer Science and Artificial Intelligence. So they're already evolving the courses to teach the new skills. And I think it's going to be imperative. If you can talk to a machine and can imagine what you want it to build imagine you could describe to a machine the website you'd really like for keen on america and it would build it and then you'd look at what it built and say no i didn't mean that i meant this it gives you
massive power to produce things yeah and i think it's also true with writers i'm not a coder but the thing with ai is it's It's not designed to replicate human writing. It's designed to answer questions and organize ideas in ways that are instant as opposed to taking hours or days for humans. So it's similar in that sense. Meanwhile, let's go back, Keith, to your unicorns. It's all coming out of CrunchBase that your wife works for. She writes for it. And what is CrunchBase telling us this week about quote-unquote, minting early-stage startups. Are unicorns back in fashion? We haven't even talked about unicorns for about a year. We used to talk about them every week.
Well, and so this article is specifically about early stage unicorns. This is unicorns that become unicorns at a series A or a series B round. So they're raising very large sums of money. I think the top six Series A rounds this week all raised more than $50 million.
And the average AI valuation, I guess, early round has jumped to $3.3 billion. But doesn't the unicorn term become slightly absurd? If you're raising hundreds of millions of dollars, it's given that you're going to be a unicorn. But does that really mean anything?
Well, if you try to put it into a rational framework, The amount of money put into a company, the valuation is determined by supply and demand and likely outcomes. So investors who are writing these checks are making a calculation of what this company will be worth in the next five years, maybe 10 years. And so they're writing checks appropriate to a gain of at least 10 times their money. So they're projecting into the future, as Jagger McConnell is now talking about, the CEO of Crunchbase, they're projecting into the future a likely outcome from writing the checks. And the competition to invest in these companies is so intense that the checks get bigger earlier. And obviously that creates risk. The risk is that you're making the call too early and you're going to be wrong in your predictions. the upside is that you're right and you'll be smiling all the way to the bank. And that's just the nature of any technology transformation.
hysteria, boom hysteria, just the numbers are larger. I mean, is this different from the dotcom boom, where huge amounts of money were poured in, most companies failed, some succeeded, like Amazon, or like web 2.0, or like social media, or like crypto?
It's very similar. It's more like the gold rush, because there really was gold. There really is gold. And even in the dot-com boom, the asset class of venture capital did very well. Individual investments failed, but the asset class as a whole did very well. And so when you allocate to a tech boom like AI really is, and the AI boom is real, there's real value being produced and real change in human experience that's going to generate lots and lots of money. you know, placing those bets at the asset class level makes sense. Individual investments is a totally different story.
Yeah. And I'm still not convinced, uh, even about what you're saying. There was an interesting piece you connect with Hunter walk is a very smart guy. Um, and I'm quoting him. He said, you have to assume every company will have access to the same LLMs and voices. The challenge then is to build a company that thrives despite this reality. Um, Given the commodification of AI and all these platforms from XAI to OpenAI to Anthropic to Google Gemini are basically now all the same. Aren't we seeing this commodification of LLMs and doesn't that point to a weakness in this AI hysteria?
You have to distinguish between LLMs, reasoning agents, and agents that can do things. The LLM, yes. This week, Grok 3 was launched. It's very good, by the way, really good. But it's only a little bit better than all the others. And so it didn't get the attention that, say, deep-seed Grok.
Right, and next week, someone will come up with something else that will be a little better, and then... It doesn't seem to be a particularly... And as this race continues, the differences between the products will become less and less.
But for you and me, that's fantastic because you use Anthropic. I use Perplexity. I use Cursor. We're basically getting free intelligence to do whatever we want.
Yeah, and I wonder whether, Keith, in that sense...
Words and timings
Yeah,andIwonderwhether,Keith,inthatsense...
Speaker 4
It's rather like the early days of the internet where we got a lot of stuff for free and then everyone woke up and started charging. I mean, we are paying. I mean, I pay my $20 a month to Anthropic. You pay your month, Liz, but it's still pretty small amounts of money.
I hope so because it's raised tens of billions of dollars.
Words and timings
Ihopesobecauseit'sraisedtensofbillionsofdollars.
Speaker 1
But that is the game, right? I mean, think of the Andrew Keane world. You wouldn't want to constrain yourself to investing almost nothing and making almost nothing. You want to invest as much as possible as long as you know you can make more than that back.
Yeah, I mean, you're right, of course. What about on the unicorn front? I mean, you've been at this rodeo before, Keith, many times. You're about as experienced as it gets.
When you build startups, the valuation of the startup is... not even in your mind as a variable. You're just building whatever your vision is, and it costs money to build it. So you're raising money. You sell shares in your company at the highest price you possibly can. So it's good news if you're a unicorn from the point of view of the company. And then you're building. So I think founders don't really think about valuations as much as they think about how much money they need and what they're going to do with it. On the other hand, normal people read the headlines and think that Silicon Valley is awash with irrationality. It isn't really true.
Yeah, well, you're providing us with those headlines. One of the other pieces you linked to this week is from the FT about Silicon Valley fighting EU tech rules with backing from Trump. I mean, of course, most of the news this week has been about Trump outside technology. Is Trump changing the rules in terms of big tech and particularly Europe and tariffs?
Completely. Coinbase announced yesterday that the SEC has... withdrawn its lawsuit against Coinbase. That's the latest little indication of the trend. There are rumors that Ripple, which was also subject to an SEC case, will have that case withdrawn. I think that in general, the Trump administration does not want to stand in the way of big tech or little tech for that matter. And it sees Europe Rightly so, by the way. Sad but true is what Saul Klein said last week about our conversation when Vance made that speech in Europe. Trump rightly sees Europe as a bit of a backwater. And the zeitgeist is kind of changing, even in Europe. Europe's pretty, you know, the innovators are fairly pro the Trump message, even if they're not pro-Trump. the need to innovate and relax constraints.
It goes without saying, I mean, the German economy now seems to be in crisis or German culture is in crisis, but I mean, this might be a subject for another show, but they've left it too late. I think the horse or the unicorn, so to speak, has left the barn here, hasn't it?
Well, you know, Apple yesterday announced that it's turning off encryption in Europe, in the UK, not the whole of Europe, because the UK asked for a backdoor. So now UK users of the iPhone have no security on their phones because Apple, rather than comply with the backdoor, would turn the whole security layer off. And that I think is going to be a bit of a trend that governments trying to control tech, especially if they're snooping on their citizens, tech is not going to bend over and agree with them anymore. And Trump is going in the opposite direction. He's not trying to get them to do backdoors.
The interview, my interview of the week, which you were kind enough to link with, was Tim Wu, who was perhaps the most influential a critic of monopoly big tech in the Biden administration. He has an interesting new piece out on decentralizing capitalism. And with the help of my friends at Claude, we came away with five points from my conversation with Wu. It's all about decentralizing capitalism. It's all about trying to get away from monopoly capitalism, which I think he sees in companies like Google and Facebook and even OpenAI. I know you're not a big fan, Keith, of regulation, but do you think Wu has a point? I mean, he's in favor of decentralizing capitalism. He's not against the market. He's in favor of innovation.
Yeah. Is he right? What does he mean? Because you could frame that as being nation states are too centralized or you could frame it that big tech is too centralized. How does he frame it?
Well, he frames it as capitalism lends itself to a winner-take-all economy. And he goes over the argument that America has always been a more innovative and wealthier society when you attack the monopolies, whether it's the oil monopolies, the railroads, pharma.
And the same needs to be done now to unleash creativity, to unleash guys like yourself. In fact, you didn't link to it, but one of your close friends, Lina Khan, was on MSNBC this week talking about what she calls an anti-monopoly hunger in America. I'm not sure. whether that's an exaggeration. But certainly there is an anti-monopoly feeling on both sides of the aisle. It's one of the few things that unite Democrats and Republicans, isn't it?
I disagree. I think the zeitgeist is exactly the opposite. I think the desire to control, especially big tech, is non-existent. I think it's zero. I think the Democrats live in their own bubble world on MSNBC, and they really don't know how normal people think. I think most people think Google's awesome. I think they think Amazon is awesome. I think they like using AI. More and more people are using it.
I honestly don't think normal people even use the word monopoly. I don't think it's a word in the normal lexicon of normal people. I think it's a purely political word used only in the circles of the Democratic Party that have this kind of Stalinist influence. The word state monopoly capitalism came out of Stalin.
Yeah, but I think you need to read Wu's piece on... on decentralizing capitalism because he's as much a critic of Stalinism and centralization as you. He uses models from post-war East Asia, particularly Taiwan, and of course the Danish model to talk about reforming the US. So what would you advise guys like Wu to be arguing? Should they just throw in their chips with Donald Trump and say, well, you're right?
Well, where I would agree with him, and this is the common thread where we can agree, is capitalism has the tendency to create what I think of as greater socialization. That is to say, you get bigger and bigger units, more and more interconnected. The interconnected piece is super important. It's not just that they're big, they're interconnected. And that tends to be global. there's a globalizing tendency within capitalism. And as you globalize and you socialize production, small individual industries tend to go by the wayside, artisan industries. All of that is true, but you don't fix that. You don't fix that by trying to break it up. The real social good
is that the human race increasingly becomes interconnected and interdependent. And that's a good thing. What's wrong is the private ownership of the wealth that it produces.
Last week, we talked about Albert Wenger's critique of Vance's Paris speech, although he agreed with it in part. This week, you connect with Albert's humanist vision for AI, the speech at the Paris AI Summit he would have given or would like Vance to have given. What does Albert say?
It's a little bit, you know, 1960s Kambaya-ish. I am one of those, so I agree with him. but it's basically saying that AI is a tool for humanity, not a tool against humanity. And he makes the case for that. He doesn't say there are no safety risks, but he minimizes safety risks and places human good first, which I think does correlate to Tim Vance, sorry, Vance's... It's an opportunity to be taken, not a safety risk. So I think he's kind of on the same page as Vance, to be honest.
Yeah, I think whenever anyone uses the word humanist, it always makes me slightly skeptical. I'm not entirely sure what it means. I mean, who's anti-humanist except for a few Marxist philosophers in Paris? Meanwhile, lots of other tech news. Microsoft announced what it sees as a breakthrough in quantum. Is that right, Keith?
You know, you and I probably are not clever enough to know, but I think the answer is yes. That headline says they've created a new state of matter. And that pertains to something called a topological qubit, which is a qubit is a kind of a micro element that can be programmable. And they're so tiny, and there's so many of them, that a quantum computer can do calculations at much greater scale and much faster than anything before. And they claim to have reduced this new state of matter down into a chip that can be plugged into a computer, an electrical computer, not a quantum computer, and can run. The claim is that that will accelerate quantum computing by decades to the point where they're promising programs that mean something within five years. And so that's a new timeline from that.
I think quantum is like AI. We're going to talk about it and talk about it and talk about it. And everyone will be skeptical. Some people will say it's for real. And then suddenly something will come along, the equivalent of open AI or chat GPT and quantum, and it'll be real. But that certainly isn't this week. Meanwhile, your startup of the week is... Exactly what you've been talking about, Keith, a unicorn, Sironic, which raised this week $600 million to mass produce autonomous warships. It's another example of how Silicon Valley and the Pentagon and the defense industry seem to be becoming one. Tell us about Sironic.
So Sironic is part of that trend for Silicon Valley and military spending to converge. The same investors in Sironic are also in Anduril and some of the other companies we've talked about from time to time, SpaceX as well. So it's symptomatic of two things. The first is militarized investment coming out of Silicon Valley. And the second is the valuations. I should disclose, by the way, that SignalRank owns shares in Sironic. So this was good news for us this week. Or at least your investors own shares. Yes.
Yeah, and it's interesting that this week, Palantir also, it's done very well for the first few weeks of 2025, but it also crashed. So this is a very frothy market, tech military startups, isn't it?
It pulled back, but it's up like 200%. So if you're an investor in Palantir and you've been holding, you wouldn't be too upset by this pullback. But no, honestly, the world we're living in, and I'm not a fan of this by any means, but the world we're living in, military investment by private companies selling to governments is going to be a rising trend because governments can't really innovate the military they're so stuck with you know old-fashioned views of what conflict might look like. It's interesting that even Musk and Doge this week and Trump announced they're going to try to reduce the US military budget by 10% annually.
Yeah, and they've been some cuts. And I think when historians look back, the rise of companies like Saronic, the Doge initiative, and the behavior, which I'm, like most people, I think, rather critical of, of pulling back from Ukraine, they're all going to be part of the same narrative. Something is profoundly changing here on the, not the military industrial, but the military political front, the US's involvement in the world and the technological piece of this. Yeah. Finally, our post of the week, and it comes back to the conversation you and I were just having about Tim Wu. Robert Reich, who's a well-known MSNBC type who was in the Clinton administration, posted that there are basically five ways to accumulate a billion dollars, profiting from a monopoly, insider trading, political payoffs, fraud and inheritance. And Brad Gerstner, amongst others, was horrified with this. He said, he posted on X, such a terrible, bitter and sad take. on America. I'm assuming you're in the Gerstner camp here, Keith.
I am, but that isn't why I posted it. I posted it because I wanted to focus on the absolute chasm between the democratic intellectual elite and the rest of us. Robert Reich almost is saying that you have to be a criminal to get rich. And that isn't how most people think. The American dream.
Wait, wait, wait, wait, wait here. I mean, and I'm no great fan of Reich. I think he is the dinosaur of dinosaurs. But he isn't saying that. He's talking about being a billionaire. That's not being rich. So you have to distinguish between the two.
I will say this, Andrew, this might be shocking to the listeners and maybe even to you, but Isn't that hard to become a billionaire if you do the right things these days? Because 4 billion people on Earth are consuming technology outputs at increasing rates and paying for that. And so being a billionaire is like what used to be being a millionaire.
And it's only going up. I've got my title of this week's show, Keith. Keith says it's not that hard to be a billionaire. How close are you to being a billionaire?
I've been very close twice in my career. No, you haven't. When? Absolutely have. When? Give me an example. Both EasyNet and RealNames were valued at well over a billion dollars. Yeah, but you didn't own the whole thing. I owned a lot. And by the way, it was early in the life of the companies. And that was in 1994 and 1999. In 2025, those would be small outcomes.
Some of the... But let's be clear as well. I mean, what Reich is talking about is not billionaires on... And as he said, I'm not particularly sympathetic to what he's saying either. But he's talking about real billionaires, people with a billion dollars in the bank or with investments...
Look back at what Reich says, and let's answer a few questions. Where would, let's say, the brothers who run Stripe fit on that list? Because they're worth much more than a billion dollars. They're not anywhere on that list. Where is Musk on that list? Where is Bezos on that list? Where are the founders of Google on that list?
He's wrong to say there are basically five ways to accumulate a billion dollars, profiting from monopoly, insider trading, political payoffs, fraud and inheritance. You're absolutely right. But my disagreement with you is it's still incredibly hard to be a billionaire. I mean, how many billionaires are there in the US?
Of course it's hard. Well, you just said it was not that hard to be a billionaire. Well, let me tell you what I mean by that. I mean, it's the easiest it's ever been and it's going to get easier. But it's easiest because it's ever been because of inflation. No, because of the scale of distribution networks and the revenues that come back from them. You know, it used to be super hard. I'll tell you one little anecdote. When I did EasyNet, we had to put floppy disks on the front of magazines to distribute our software. When I did my most recent startups, you put an app in two app stores and it's in the whole world the next day. And so the flow of money that comes from the ease of distribution of software to people who can pay for it if they like it has completely changed the dynamics.
I take your point. But coming back to this issue, I mean, what number, how do you consider wealth? Who is rich? How much do you have to earn? Own, not earn.
Yeah, but you can build the pyramid of wealth in terms of, you know, a small number of people at the top with very large amounts of wealth and go down to at the bottom where lots and lots of people with nothing. And that pyramid will change its shape and the scale at different levels through history, usually in a positive direction, by the way. That's one of the results of the socialization of production and coming together of the human race into a single. GDP growth is the number you can chart that through. There's never been a period in human history recently where that pie or pyramid hasn't improved in both scale and distribution.
Yeah, it's a bit frothy. Keith, your new middle name is... When people talk about you in Silicon Valley, they'll talk about Keith. It's not that hard to be a billionaire tier. But coming back to Reich, I do agree with you. I think his approach is... absurdly negative and reactionary. The idea that you can't become a billionaire unless you're basically cheating, unless you're an inside trader or fraudulent or inherit money from someone else. I mean, he couldn't be more wrong on that, given, as you say, the Stripe guys, the Google guys, the Amazon people, even Musk, who I'm no great fan of. I mean, he didn't cheat to become a billionaire.
And you've got to believe, and this is why I put it in, that what he's saying is received wisdom in the minds of people like Lena Kahn and Elizabeth Warren.
I knew you were going to pick on your friend Lena Kahn. And Tim Wu as well. I mean, teachers at Columbia. I wonder what Wu would say about that. I mean, I wonder whether Wu would argue that in a decentralized capitalism, it would be possible to be a billionaire. I'd have to get him back on the show to talk about that. It'd be an interesting question for him. I mean, would we want a society, Keith, a decentralized capitalism where nobody was a millionaire, where the wealthiest people were worth $50 or $100 million?
No, I think the nightmare scenario for the future is that as production socializes, and globalizes that a very small number of people control the wealth. But I think that's the right place to discuss how does the wealth get distributed to everyone? And so you uplift human life, not just a few individuals. But I don't think you achieve that by trying to break up monopolies.
I think you've got to... Well, the point is it's not even breaking up monopolies. I mean, Reich's point is that One way to get a billion dollars is to profit from monopoly. But I mean, the Google people, I mean, it's back to Peter Thiel's argument in One to Zero. Any entrepreneur wants to be a monopoly. That's the nature of doing startups. You want to win and winning becomes a monopoly, right? For better or worse, I mean, Google didn't start as a monopoly. Maybe it is one now because it's successful.
That's correct. You know, if everyone was a failure, there'd be no monopolies. It's only success that creates market power. And monopoly is a little bit like the word fascist. It's become a swear word to describe anything big. And fascist has become a swear word to describe anyone you disagree with. And the truth is these words mean things. Monopolies do get built. Google isn't one in my opinion. And when they do, there's usually benefits that people are enjoying, which is why they're successful. And the key is how do you transition the world from massively concentrated private wealth to widely distributed, you know, aggregate wealth. That's about distributing wealth, not distributing, breaking up companies.
Yeah. And I mean, also with Reich, I mean, there are lots of, I mean, politically responsible or politically liberal billionaires. I mean, Reid Hoffman comes to mind. We talked about him last week. Finally, and this comes back to your point, Gerstner had another interesting post this week. He said the Doge dividend could be a massive gain-changing legacy for Trump. Just one day of Doge savings, apparently, I mean, this is what they claim, who knows whether they're really saving it, $3.7 billion, could fund a private investment account with $1,000 for each child born in America. With just a little added per year, this could grow to $200,000 by age 30. Do you think that...
Every day, there are heart-rending stories of laid-off people. And it's not the billionaires are losing their jobs. They're being fired by the billionaires. It's people working at... poorly paid jobs in the first place. So does he need to do something with all the money he's supposed to have saved, maybe in terms of a sovereign wealth fund or something more innovative?
Well, what Gerstner is talking about there is about the distribution of wealth. It's one example of it. I think it's unlikely that Trump has the DNA to really follow through on anything like that. You know, I don't think Donald Trump has any kind of social awareness at all about uplifting everybody. I do think there are people that do think like that, Sam Altman is one of them, and Reid Hoffman maybe another, where the question of if there is abundance, how does everyone benefit from it is a real question. Gerstner's idea is not terrible, but I think it's a micro idea. There's a much bigger conversation needed than how to deploy the Doge savings.
Yeah, and I agree with you. And I think that I also agree with you on the Reich front that his kind of thinking, which is purely negative, is pointless. And what's missing on the progressive side amongst Democrats are creative, innovative thinking about the redistribution of wealth rather than just taxing the rich or making it illegal to be a billionaire.
Well, we're in agreement, Keith. Shocking. Shocking agreement. Although we disagree, I think it is still hard to be a billionaire. One thing I can guarantee is I've never been close and I never will be a billionaire. You say you've been close. What are the chances in the next few years, Keith, that you're going to be a billionaire from SignalRank?
If it does well, I hope you'll pay me for this show. Keith Teer, publisher, that was the week. The man who argues that it's not that hard to be a billionaire. It's still a little hard, Keith, but we will be back next week to talk more billionaires, unicorns, AI, and everything else in the world of tech. Have a great week, and we'll be back at this time next week. Thanks, Keith.