Transcript
Oh, finally. Come on, let's get right into it. Come on. Live from the bottom. End of a new roof. Wow. Yeah, literally roof. It's an all new Wacky, Wednesday edition of business, pants, rejoined. By analysts whole, Matt McArdle. On today's Al Sharpton approved bag of Dei flavored Skittles called April 23rd. 2025 the things we missed when Matt was gone game. And I gotta hit for you, Matt. You you're not one of them. Oh, come on. Uh, did, does anybody want to hear? This is a game that has legs. This is the game. You're just gonna tell me on a scale from one to ten how much you care about the things you missed. I'm assuming look it sounded like you had a nice family vacation. I don't know where you what you went to like, like Southern Connecticut, who cares where you went, but but the idea is, I'm hoping is that you weren't really tuned into the news as much as you have usually are that you kind of took a break from all the corporate headlines and all the director fights, all that stuff, I sort of kind of, I kind of did I. But not really, I mean, I have some stories that you don't know. That's my point. I I this will be interesting. I will I will say that I was in Hawaii at my so not Southern Connecticut. Slightly different but no you have are but no view of the Long Island Sound. Unfortunately that's a no not no but my my wife's family's from One of those mixed bags because it's like you're in a beautiful place and everyone says, oh, that's amazing. You have family in Hawaii. That's so cool and then you're like, yeah, but we mostly bump bounced from like house to house having like, Small talk with distant relatives. So terrible. Yeah. And warm weather, which sounds like an extra horrible bonus to me. It was, it was. Yeah, it was warm. It was warm. I warned you. I have a lot here so if you're if you're one of the few breathing Souls that likes what we do here, you're in for a treat but if not yeah I don't know. Maybe you want to tune out after our four but because let's be fair Matt you were gone. Our last show together was April 8th, I believe. So there's a lot to cover here and I promise you, I only picked the things that the really big ticket items I promise you. I don't believe that. I don't think there's any fluff in here. All right. Ready. Let's just get to it. All right, let's do this before somebody. Stops listening. And remember, give me a score. Give me a score. I get them in category. So, let's start with tech, bro. Nonsense, there's always technical nonsense. Let's be fair Tech Bros essentially. Run our world, whether you would want to admit it or not. Yeah. Can we stop calling them Tech Bros. Go ahead. Middle schoolers like Middle School data, bro. Nonsense, isn't it like what it is? Is the, you know, the little wispy mustache, yes, when you're in middle school as a middle school, male, sure. What does that have a name? Can we can call it that brostep? Hmm. It's a, it's a preview staff. You know, what is that dual class Duke class with chest? I don't know. All right. Good go. I'll start off for the bang here. Former Google CEO and you could probably guess who that is. It's only one former Google CEO. That's always in the news, he's the guy who likes he likes, like dropping Tech bombs on people, his name is Eric Schmidt. Oh yeah, former Google CEO tells Congress. So this isn't him telling his buddies. This is him telling an actual organized body. That's actually. You might be right? Yeah. Former Google CEO tells Congress that 99% 99% of all electricity will be used to power super intelligent AI, Matty 99% and somehow news stories like this go by and, and nobody seems to care. I don't know. How do you not care about this? Here's a great quote from our, our great, former Google CEO, Eric Schmidt. What we in? This is not satire nothing on this show is actually satire. It's all it's all real. What we need from you. Is we need the energy in all forms, renewable non-renewable, whatever it needs to be there. And it needs to be there quickly. That's what he said, good 99%. And by the way, one of the, one of the excuses he uses and begging Congress. For all the electricity, of course is China, right? He's, he's like, we don't know. Finally, my billionaire buddies. Don't get it. What about China, guys? Oh, at this point? Can we just give it to China and see how they govern? Because the billionaires are not really doing it for me. I love that. The only guard rails on AI now is like electric wires. Like it's electricity, right? Like they don't have enough of it because we're not regulating it Sam Altman out their back. Like I have a story about that later. Yeah, we basically give up on regulating anything and it gets worse ever week to week. Yeah, so attention. So now like the constraints are actual physical constraints. Like, The only thing keeping are wispy stash billionaires from running like us into the ground. Is the fact that there's not enough electric wires, to get them with an energy they want? Yeah. And that and you could have hinted at one of the problems and one of the reasons that we're so vocal and advocating, like knowing who your directors are having more of an ability to vote people in. And now, I mean, we, you know, we talked about not just having uncontested elections at corporations, but let's have some contested elections. Let's learn. Let's learn about the directors before we vote for them, because you're right. Matt, one of the issues might actually be the Eric Schmidt knows too many people, maybe on Congress, you know, because there are we see board members from Congress. We see, we see CEOs now running for office, we just see everything going back and forth. I mean, Hello, Elon Musk Trump. They're both basically CEOs of something Shady. So, there you go. So, give me give me a score in this one. This in the story is 10. I care a lot. Yeah, let's do that way. Sure. Zero, I made my ability to pick stories in general grade, my editorial ability. Ah, come on. Blow hard, right? Like this is okay but a lot of what these blowhards actually advocate for. We get kind of close to. Don't we? Do we know how to check? This is. How many times have I heard China? China, China, China. Okay, I hear you. Give me. Give me give me. That's basically. This is right. Well, I think AI China. Gimme gimme gimme, I think Ai and its absolute infancy is already up to like is it is it 2% of global electricity consumption? So it's already at 2%. Okay well it's got its only got then, you know, 97% left to go. Yeah, I'm gonna give this a six. Oh okay, we will deflate it by that. I mean, I don't know what that I don't either. I was let's stick with the Let's just stick with the, this kind of nonsense. Let's stay with what are we calling them? The, with the Dual classes stash with ashes, terrible name, Meta Meta, Meta comes in her headlines. A few times on today's show. Mehta says, it's okay to feed copyrighted books into a AI model because they have no economic value. Oh, Okay, they have no economic value. Yeah. So there, so their lures are arguing essentially that the books are essentially worthless. Because they, they had an algorithm that, that tried to articulate the individual importance of each book saying that a single book, adjusted to the performance of machine language. Learning is less than 0.06 percent on industry, standard benchmarks, a meaningless change no different from noise. So they're saying the book doesn't really affect the model. So essentially it is worthless because of that. That's why they are arguing that they're that they they're scraping of over 7 million books from the pirated Library called live. Gen is fine. It's fair use because the books as individuals match individual books are worthless. This is meta platforms. This is the corporation. This is Mark. Zuckerberg are hearing okay? Well, yeah. What I want it. What? So much here, wrong my read on this it. Well, first of all, I love the review contest history. Um, because because like, didn't we lived through the MP3 piracy era. And you know, like what was the big one Napster Napster one, we lived through the Napster era in which the artists actually sued Napster. But not just the artist it was like Time Warner version records like Atlantic Records. Like the record companies were suing that successfully suing successfully suing Napster saying like you are pirating our material. It turns out that there's no one except a couple of, you know, guys in you know, like in Armchairs with smoking pipes. Who cares about the books? Like where are the You know, where are the massive Publishers? Saying, like, what are you talking about? There's no economic value. There's literally a business model. Yeah. About finding talent and Publishing the books that was standing. If you substitute the word book for the word person, I was wondering if you're gonna get there. Yeah. It aren't they? Effectively saying like social that you could apply the same argument? Yes, each individual billion users. If they're a billion users, right? That only in their aggregate. Do people matter. So congratulations, Mark for outing the entire game, which is we literally care. Nothing about humans, Humanity. Anything creative, interesting art. We don't care about any of that. We only want to amass as much stuff as possible so that we can use it. Like, it's it's so how can cynical how about the fact that people be Beyond arguing that they have no economic value. How about that? They, they use a pirated Library. It's just a little bit that really, yeah, that part's not shot. And there's proof that meta employees were actually stripping the copyright pages from the downloaded books. That's shocking it but they must have known that. Someone. I mean they were stripping them for a reason. No, I mean they knew that eventually. Okay. What do you but that? Yeah, like that's like a lot for words. Here. Isn't that like three dudes in a basement talk to each other? Like, sure, dude. I use this Library all the time to get books. Let's just download the whole thing and feed that into the AI. That seems like. Yeah. And and now, they're in a lawsuit and they have to claim that any one book doesn't matter. I would love for them to say, you know, like, like I didn't like Moby Dick, but I would love for them to go out and say, like, Melville doesn't matter like he or, you know, Ginsburg doesn't matter what I'm writing. Mark, Zuckerberg is an a-hole, is that one matter that one won't matter. Yeah. What's your score a lot about this? Because this is the entire ethos. Yeah, in its entirety this is the ethos of the wispy stash Tech Community. I would think these two reasons alone, these first two stores, I can convince some of my friends who still used things like Instagram, just stop using Instagram but even then they'll be like They'll be like, they'll be angry about these two stories. They'll they'll, they'll give me like a long monologue about why they're bad, why they're ruining their kids lives, but they'll still, they won't get rid of WhatsApp or Instagram. They still won't do it. Look this entire their entire business model is an attention economy. If you give them your attention, if you go to the platform, they win. That's it. Period. Get off it entirely. I use a nine because it's got me riled. Go to the next one. I want the next one stupid so maybe this one. Calm you down you know about the the Jeff Bezos penis rocket launch where you aware of this? I watched it didn't happen. Here's the, did it happen in Hawaii? No no no, no. I mean I like saw pictures of it picture, you're seeing that atmosphere or whatever that. So here's a headline, something that reigning the message here. Laura sent, Lauren Sanchez. That's the the wife, the fiancee of Jeff Bezos. The headline is Lauren Sanchez in space. Was Marie Antoinette and a penis shaped rocket and the sub headline here is Katy Perry. Boasts about ridiculous rocket launch. While NASA is scrubbing, history of women in space. That's, that's something that actually happening. While they sent like a bunch of rich women into space, is that the pictures of women, and people of color, astronauts and Engineers, scientists are being removed from NASA's. Hallways, part of a Dei Purge. The word, the word inclusion has been removed from one of their core pillars. NASA Personnel have been directed to remove mentions of women in leadership positions from its website. So, there you go. That's so the Bezos. Just the women though, right? Like that are still alive, people of color. So I guess God guy a black man. I guess you're removed. Yeah. So this is Bezos. What's Bezos is playing like A little bit of a, what a deception game at what pays us doing, why is he sending a bunch of women into the into space and a penis shaped rocket? I do you think it was? It was bezos's idea? Or do you think it was Lauren's idea? I guess I don't really know or care. Yeah, I could. I like literally, this is the thing I could care least about on Earth. Yeah. Send them all into space. What do I care? The thing? That upsets me a little bit about all these stories is that, that, you know, rightfully so a lot of people are a lot of Articles. Kind of claiming that Katy Perry was a hypocrite because she, she had a long history of fighting against climate change, although she's kind of stopped recently and now she's kind of in this stupid, you know, manosphere rocket ship, that has no point other than just space tourism. But they always just focus on they always just find a woman to kind of kick her and they're not kicking. They're not upset Bezos, they're not upset CEOs and upset. They're always they kind of find like a an out of it, a celebrity or Know that I, you know, what the things that she was saying, like, in front just say some stupid stuff. She said, here I have a quote, she said it's about a collective energy and making sense and making space for future women. It's about this wonderful world that we see right out there and appreciating it this is all for the benefit of Earth. That's what she said. Yeah, no, it's not shut up that but that you know that I don't mind dunking on Katy Perry for saying stupid shit in front of a penis shape rocket flow you know like Bill by a billionaire and she's sending up his socialite fiancee. I could I as he's dismantling the editorial process at the Washington Post. Yeah, exactly. I I care very much about scrubbing history. I'm not a big fan of History scrubs. Yeah, but launching these I don't, I don't care. And, and just for the record, when you talk about a penis rocket, it literally looked like like a circumcised penis. That's not like yeah, exaggeration. It's like, I don't I don't love that kind of Middle School humor usually, but I remember you were joking about a back in the day, but then when I looked at it, it's really shocking. It's really jarring like how penisy it is really uncomfortably. It is it is I agree. So I get, this is zero, I don't care. we spent a lot of time talking about something I don't care about Well, let's move on to open AI. This category is called. Open AI nonsense. I have three just an extension of the last cat. Three juicy open. AI stories. First open AI is secretly building a social network, you know that to compete maybe with Elon Musk? Did you read that when you're away? No, I did not. What do you think about this? I think I'll never use it ever. Okay, but let me ask you this. Would you use it over Elon musk's social media company? Know what's the difference? Yeah, do a class middle schoolers, I don't know what. Well, that's what, that's one of the things they're suggesting is that this is just part of a rivalry that Sam Altman is just doing this because they're fighting, Know, they're doing it because they're going to run out of content to feed to their machine. Okay. Interesting. So the the genius move of musk was to put Twitter in his AI bot. Sure to wish you could do because he owns it's not stealing pirated book. Well, he actually combined the companies right doesn't isn't it? Yes Ai and X like own together whatever valuation that he deems whatever he thinks I mean he's turning him into everything into a meme stock anyway but like it is very smart to affectively have a, but he bought a bunch of users who put shit on a platform and then he just can feed all of that into why I, why are people still using that platform? I don't even understand that one. Well, here's the problem with building like there's building a social network from scratch, right now. If you're open AI you need like a like 100s of millions of users to actually get enough content to be useful and the AI is just a jerk internet trolls. Does chat gcbt not already have at least tens of millions I thought chat CPT was pretty popular already know it is but it's like all people do is ask it questions so it can learn. How about that social media Network? Why don't we just see all the questions? Well, I just like that. We think the solution is for millions of internet trolls to teach the robots. What it is to be a person. You know that people aren't that way, like they are the way they are in real life on the internet, right? Tech Bros, you know, actually, I know that right. I hadn't considered that. Yeah, that's true. That's a good point. It's a fake. It's a fake version of humanity, right? Where the worst fake? Yeah, yeah. The one with like no moral compass and no empathy, and like where women are higher young women are being shamed into like body dysmorphia and young. Men are like pretending to be Warriors and threatening to kill everybody, right? That's That's what that's the AI will be. Yes you know I hadn't even considered that that's a that's a very fair point. They're not even capturing a real version of humanity because when you meet people in public generally speaking people are pretty polite. They're pretty helpful. Yeah. For sure. Yeah. Like they may hate you quite sure but they rarely say it to your face. Yeah. Listen to Northeast. Thank God where you'll get the sarcastic. Yeah that's the funny part about living in the north people. Like hate people from the Northeast because they think they're like colds and no and crash. But we tell you to your face, what? Yeah, or we ignore you. And that's all for our way of telling that somewhere literally saying I don't care about you but you can't you can't teach that to an AI. Yeah, so yeah, this is this is horrible. I think it's stupid and I give it a two, I don't use it. I love horrible, meaningless. The scoring of this game has become. Okay. How about this one? I handed it. This one. This one seems like a big deal although you're gonna say this is just the way it is. But open AI updated. It's safety framework but no longer sees Mass manipulation and disinformation as a critical risk. So they're saying they're gonna they're gonna stop say am Altman is a horrible person. Matt. So they're gonna wow, that's shocking news. They're gonna stop assessing, its AI models prior to releasing them for the risk that they could persuade or manipulate people instead they're gonna address those risks through its terms of service. Which is horrifying to me, which means Matt that they're going to monitor how people are using the models. After they're already doing the they're already dressing which to me is the worst dropping of the ball. It's like, oh, that's everybody else's job. I know. But I yeah, this was this one hurt me. I this one hurt me but he walked out in the world. That's not to a higher standard than most people. And it's a pretty low fucking standard. But you know what? If everyone else is at the Was possible standard, maybe we should be too. That's basically this and listen to this to make it worse. Is that previously openai said that it would not release any AI model that presented more than a medium risk. So they have these different levels of potential risk which is great. Now they are saying that they will consider releasing AI models, that it judge to be high risk, as long as it has taken appropriate steps to reduce those dangers, whatever that means, and it would even consider releasing a model that presented, what it called a critical risk. If Matt if arrival AI lab had already released a similar that's like movie level Evil, right? Like Lex Luthor shit. No, that's fabulous. What Sam is saying, is if someone else is already about to ruin the world, then, yeah, we too can ruin the world because we have to compete with them. It's all about competition. I said, how do you do that? They're not a private. They're not like a for-profit company yet. Well, the transition so they got rid of the do this, but they got rid of the board that pushed back on them, so who's gonna stop them? Mandate. Can they like it? But they're already overlooking them and they're ignoring the Mandate. The, the fired board members were trying to serve them mandate. All right, I'm going to give this a 10. This is, I don't know, I don't know. This is This is next level to me, I don't know. This is like next level, horrible to me. And again, part of the embedded reason here, of course, that I didn't actually write down in the notes is China, of course, everything is like, everything is available, everything is this veiled, whisper that, you know, if you don't let us be evil first, they're gonna be evil first and then that's the wrong kind of evil. And these, these middle stash with Bros these man flakes. They they are China. So when they say China, like anytime somebody have you, you know, like you ever like met those people who are like constantly accusing you of having done a thing? Meanwhile they're doing the thing like that's that's like the human pattern. Right? Like our president. Yeah well you're like looking for everyone an idiot loser that you know is wrong and everybody else. Sure like that's what they're saying. China just saying like China because we're the we are the we're doing that right? Like and we're afraid China is going to This is the what makes this? The worst is not that they're doing this. What makes this the worst is that they know that they can do it. We've already failed. Like we've learned this lesson, we fail at it. You set it up. So they wouldn't repeat history. But they literally said, you know what? We'd rather repeat history and end up trillionaires, then. Fucking do. Do the thing that we learned doesn't work, right? I'm giving this a 10. Oh I don't know how to score any of these. I'll try to change the mood here. A little bit with a more open, a high open AI headlines saying, please. And thank you to chat GPT costs. Open AI. Millions according to Sam Altman. So being nice to your AI chatbot, requires computational power, that raises electricity and water costs, you know? Oh, now he's worried about it. So, just be a dick, like normal. And this funny, I, I do actually find myself when I use the chat. I do actually say please and thank you more often than I than I realized. Like, I don't know why I do it. I it's like I'm talking to the the person at my doctor's office. I just kind of litter in pleases and thank you. So now that I know it's costing him. Look at Penny, I feel a little bit better about it. Maybe I know you're not gonna care about this one, but I had to throw it in. I had to throw, not only do I not care about this but like, you know, what doesn't cost you any money? Like what doesn't use any water, doesn't cost any electricity when you tell a real person, please or thank you, rather stupid fucking chatbot. So if you, unless it's a laborious boring conversation and you, you like drive them into dehydration because you know, that has happened. I'm sure. And I just add that Sam Altman was talking about this on Twitter of all places. Like, like, he's actually still using the platform which I don't understand for the life of me. Yeah. Just, you know, start a blog sort of blog. Yeah, he knows who owns it. So you give me a zero that I I'm sure that makes a lot of sense scoring wise. Let's quickly move on Anti-Trust nonsense. There's two big antitrust. Stories going on. First, you know, Trump's department of justice has released its plan to restructure Google and the headline essentially. Is the Google is angry saying it hurts Consumers National Security and basically suggesting once again that if you messed with Google a little bit too much, you're opening the door for China. You know what? The worst part about this is. Yeah, so two things. Go strike me about this number one. If, if it's if it was the Biden doj, I would think like, okay, well I don't have to clean a company, but but they probably have a plan, right? Like, they probably have thought there were through it a little bit thinking, they're thinking things through, I don't know if they thought it all the way through, but not be the perfect answer, but yeah. We know for a fact that the Trump doj they have thought any of it through like zero things have been thought through, is this like mildly political theater. The next headline is also about the Anti-Trust trial going on at Mark Zuckerberg's meta. What's going on? Why are the Trump Bros? What are they? Okay dismissal in the monopolies of tech is but no because they thought they marginalized conservative voices in. So it's a bit of political theater. So this is the same thing about going after American universities the yeah, the American University in college system, which is like the basically the Envy of the world, essentially. The Trump is attacking Because, you know, maybe making America great by dismantling, our University system, and dismantling our thoughts, their tech companies that the world also envies. Like it's, you know, when it's out of line, though, of like Trump Behavior. It's just a little strange to me. I don't know when Putin invaded the Ukraine. He said there were Nazis in the Ukraine. That's why he did it right. Despite the fact that Ukraine was run by a Jewish man. But yeah, sure. Trump is invading, you know, like that wispy Tech, bro, monopolies, and, you know the the edge no power here because as I said to them, like it's a leftist, an anti-semitic leftist. Yeah. But they are monopolistic, right? Like that's true. So it's true. They're not wrong that. It is a novel that should be broken up the worst part about this to me. Yeah, it is not even that I'm sure Trump doj is going to do it wrong, but it's that with Google with meta like you've destroyed Humanity, his Mark is destroyed Humanity, he's still destroying, he's still young. He's still young still talking about selling Chrome off. You know how much? I like the fact that Chrome works with all my Google shit like it works. Well, yeah I don't I don't feel like yeah, I know I'm giving like an evil empire. My my information. But this is actually a product that we do. You do have a there are actually are a lot of really good alternatives to Chrome too. So it's not like you're stuck using Chrome. I mean, I know I'm not stuck using quick, but I sign in as my Google in Chrome. All of the docs like work perfectly in Chrome and I can use them on any device. Sure. Like, there's just lots of nice little things about it. Again. Nice nerdy. You mean nice nerdy organizational features. Exactly. Right. Whereas, like Zuckerberg's control is over, just like Instagram and Facebook. Yeah. The worst stuff, the worst that doesn't actually help you function as an office for that shit. No, I agree with you on that one. But what's so, why don't you write both of them? Because so the first one is about Google. The second one is about the Anti-Trust trial going on at meta and I don't know, I have a bunch of things. From that trial that I could highlight but a lot of it's just stupid. I here a couple that I thought were funny is that they revealed in the in the antitrust trial that Cheryl cerber Sheryl Sandberg wanted to play Settlers of Catan. She wanted Mark Zuckerberg, the teacher, how to play a board game? I don't get that. Why is it the other thing is that Mark Zuckerberg admitted that Facebook isn't really for friends anymore. He said the friend part has gone down quite a bit. It's turned into more of a, basically entertainment space, so I don't know. So, by entertainment, he means the Fox News brand of entertainment, right? Where we get outraged about everything. Every every possible thing. The one I love the most is that these Anti-Trust worries surface years ago that Marcus on record of think he's speaking to his border. He's speaking to company Executives. This is remember this is an emails. This isn't a back, no gossip not saying no basically saying that I we should. It are the extreme step of spinning Instagram out as a separate company because he's saying that basically they're gonna within five to ten years, they're basically going to force us to sell Instagram and WhatsApp anyway, because this is a fucking Monopoly because he knew it. Yeah. And so they called them on it and then he said in the trial he says asking him about this view at the trial. He said, I'm not sure exactly what I had in mind, then that's what he's fucking said. I'm not sure exactly what I had in my I mean I right there and the trial good morning that you're losing your child. We know exactly what you had in mind. You had in mind this trial. Yeah, this trial that you had in mind then that should be the mic drop moment of the trial. It should be over at that point, but so why don't you rate how much you care about both of the Anti-Trust, trials, Google first and then meta. What Google, I care less about. I know I'm like, Google's in the worst position because it's a it's a, it's a commercial like there's a there's a paid to play with Google, right? So it hurts a consumer in a more real way, but I like Google more, they're the products so four for Google. Yeah. And what Google's not doing that Mark Zuckerberg is doing, so is so Mark. What Mark is doing is it's putting people like Dana White on the board. It just added a former Trump advisor. Another Trump person to the Bourdain a Powell McCormick. Whose husband is a Republican senator. He was the former CEO of Bridgewater Associates. And Mark is buying property in DC. He's like, he's cozying up to the Trump Empire. Where's where's Google? I don't think they know what to do. Because they you they hate him and they're pretending to like these. Like a little boy. Like, at the feet of daddy, begging bully. Yeah. What a fucking sick of fan suck up? Yeah. On top of having, arguably the most punchable face of every single okay. Now, you're an anti-semite. Yeah. But you're right. Yeah you're right. When you just I mean there's a lot of CEOs. Yeah. And if you just put them in all in a lineup that's a new data point actually we should consider adding. I would love to be a part of that space. Would you rate the face? You'd most, like the punt isn't the opposite. It's the opposite of face Mash. Like I would hotness, I would actually put Elon ahead of Mark to like, as of today, just a pure face basis. You don't know who they are. I Zuckerberg has a more punchable face. It's true and Zuckerberg Empire is more odious and harmful, although but now since musk has fired every federal worker in the last two months, now, he's definitely more punishable to me but look, you know, it's a tomato. I mean, I do have I have two, I have two Fists. That that's true. Right? So he was problem solved. Yeah, I'm gonna rate this one in eight. I'll write the Facebook one and eight. So four for Google 8 for for meta. Okay. Well, yeah, what are you predict gonna happen with the meta Trail? By the way, I predict that Zuckerberg will win really think, like, in an appeal. Are you think outright the first time he's gonna win? How, how does he argue that? This is not. I'm gonna because of tiktok or something. No, because of the nature of antitrust and Monopoly, right? He offers a free service and and it's really hard to show consumer harm. I don't know. I, in my mind, even if Zuckerberg had to sell, you know, spin-off, Instagram and WhatsApp and let's say, so what is that actually mean? Right? Like he spins them off, he sells them to somebody who can afford to buy them. Number one. So just be like, oh he sold it to Google his wife. Probably yeah. Yeah. Um or facility he retains a massive stake in all of them and sells them so you you're making him maintain Shadows, right? Like he'd have some Shadow Ctrl or He sells it to investors and we realized that the things that he does are he is actually not that good like even Oh by Instagram or Whatsapp. What is he cares about this fucker? Let me talk about that and this is like a great backdoor way of explaining. One of the things that we talk about here a lot which is why you need, which is why we hate dual-class structures. Why we hate outside control of voting power? Why we hate the boards that don't provide oversight? Here's a couple of great tidbits of why Mark Zuckerberg basically sucks. First of all and this is the whole show in 2012. He said that he was not impressed with one of the WhatsApp co-founders calling him a disappointingly unambitious. Oh and then cheers later, he bought WhatsApp for 19 billion dollars. There's a window into Zuckerberg's insanity and then the other one I love is So I this when I really don't understand, so they had a, they had an app called Facebook Camera app which was supposed to be a rival to Instagram and he was bitching that the members of that team had checked out and that nobody wanted to work with the team because he thinks the team sucks. Oh, but Matt, he bought Instagram like a month before he released that app. So why wouldn't they checked out why? Right? He bought the company to replace the internal and he's bitching about them for being checked out. It's like yeah could I who was this guy's Zucker? He just sounds like I'm Middle School full I look that was my experience you know frankly. So you came to msci through GMI. I did which you came through overbought library before that. Yeah, like you were the GMI lineage, right? We were in the ESG rating. Yeah. But when I was at msci, I started wrist metrics and then was msci. Um well technically we're metrics the contractor but we had ISS for a little while sure. Because it was part of the msci group, right msci, sold ISS because their shit so they sold them, but then in the ESG group, we needed to replace the G. So there was actually a small group. I don't think I told you this ever there. It was me and two other or three other people and the entire organization who needed to build a whole new G, okay? Like we needed to build a governance model, we didn't have a governance model, we need to replace ISS. We had this ticking Time Bomb of a contract that we were gonna have to replace. And the things that we were doing was you actually try to build a model? You why didn't you just pull a Mark Zuckerberg and just download a pirated version of a model? So well, I decided to start from scratch and got crazy like, came up with all these like I was like, why? Don't we do this, why? Why is it done this way Hurley opportunity? Actually time to innovate? We could be the one in the space. Who's innovated on governance? We spent six seven months building stuff. Oh sting. Yeah. Like like checking things out, getting some data, doing some stuff and then one day they called me up and said we just bought GMI, you could stop. And it wasn't you, we didn't close for like, you know, six months or something, but they basically just shut us down and then you wonder why? Like, oh, like we stopped trying to innovate because it was, we were, it was because it was a clients back up. Well, in that case, are they buying the Clients of GMI like, what are they doing? No clients they were okay. They were like five clients, you know? They were fly. Why do they were buying the model? Okay. Yeah. All right, they wanted your brain. And well, I would say maybe they want to bring what your brain had built, they didn't want you. Yeah. Which is evidence by the fact that they then closed every GMI office. Yeah. They laid off the Portland office within. I don't know how many years, but it was like within the two, three years. Yeah, but yeah. So I know what these these zucker's were feeling right. Like, you know, like, they they checked out they were building. The best thing, you're buying the fucking other company, like, that's gonna replace them anyway. All right. She wanted to do more of this is more. I mean, I don't know. I see River. Doesn't show me how long the show was anymore. Do you want to do? You want to wrap this up? You want to speed round, what do you? Let's do the next. There's one more section. Right? Like let's do it. Yeah, we have. The next section is called stakeholder shareholder activism nonsense. I do that one. Yeah, because relatively quick, there's a couple, big stories. All right, let's let's just go quickly here. First of all, BP suffers investor Rebellion at first AGM since climate strategy, U-turn, that's a weird headline. But and here's what it's based on the fact that the chair Helga looned got 24%, votes against him in the first time at least a decade that more than 10% of BP shareholders voted against the election of a chair. This is an investor Rebellion. This is what he got reelected. That's the real, but maybe we should be rethinking. Then remember, I told you that I don't think we should actually be waiting for 50% of the vote against the director. We should be more like 30% because that's, that's the number that's considered effective control over her company, if you hold 30% of shares. So, I think that this headline is kind of a agreeing with me that if you really get above 20%, it's an investor Rebellion. Right? I mean, it's everything's gone. Crazy. What what? Yeah, what do we, what's the point? What's the point of? I don't understand the point. And here's why I picked the story map to is because they're mad at supposedly according to this, this article and they talked to Mark Vaughn ball, the founder of fall, this who said this is a clear mandate that shareholders had, made it clear. That weakening climate commitments is unacceptable so blaming for this and yet, The new CEO Murray, ocean Claus, who was getting rid of everything, ESG related, he gets only 3% against his vote. So why did Target him? You are getting the chair. I don't understand. Really showed him who's boss. Follow this talking about why do you think anybody talking about? Okay. This is not it like shareholders, like so the board lied to your faces. Yeah, the board said we're going to set this Target and then the board said, we don't care about the target. They basically set a Target that they had no intention necessarily A following through on, they proved that. We will change our targets that are voluntary With the Wind. If the political winds shift, no change our Target. Like we're not actually wed to anything, we're doing, except like making sure that, you know, we make as much money as possible, which is fine, right? That's saying, yeah, this what the Cheryl's are effectively saying with his vote is Yes, we largely agree with the fact that we don't care. If you have any morals or any like, you know, you know, we don't care if you held yourself to a standard, the only thing we want to be sure is, is you pivot to whatever makes us the most money. That's what this vote, isn't it well? So, what percent, so explain to me, who was angry at the chair? Is it the, the, the Greek, the environmentalist, or the pension, the Pension funds, which when you look at actually flip-flopping or for having it in the first place? The Pension funds are largely upset with the flip-flopping pullback, the pullback, and the set of thing. Like when they do those climate targets for instance, they, they talked to shareholders about that before they do that. It's not like they just set a Target. Like they often go to the shareholders themselves, they probably talked to helium the chair of BP. I'm 100% sure that Pension funds and like a promise like norges. Yeah. Like, you know, the bank of England or Church of England or like you know, like Calpers and stirs nicer. The ones that still care They're talking to the board saying, like climate change is an issue. We're gonna hold on to these assets for the next 50 years. We need you to Pivot so that you live through climate change, you need to like start preparing for that now, right? When they flip-flop on that, those are the ones who are upset, the ones who aren't upset are BlackRock and Vanguard and State Street. Once you probably lobbied for them to hire Murray ocean, Claus in the first place, right? There's a lobbying, they'll give a fuk who runs the company as long as it's not green focused. Make sure that that like the stock goes up. That's all you care about. All right. Matt, then explain this to me. So this article again, I I'm gonna repeat it quotes. Mark Vaughn ball, founder of follow this. Who said this historical result serves. As a wake up call to BP's board and emphasizes his investor expectation. For robust governance mechanisms and genuine leadership on ESG issues. And then there's another article map suggests that climate activist group. Follow this, pauses Big Oil campaign and they said, there is a lack of investor appetite. Has forced it, suspend its nearly decade, long campaign, seeking stronger, commitments, for major oil and gas, producers to Mission Cuts. So what is what are they what are they talking about? So there so BP shareholders are into it but they're pausing their what's happening. What's real here. I believe the follow. This was The co-molded Proposal at Arjuna sued by Exxon? Yeah. They were named in the lawsuit by And I think all that you're seeing is like their that fear. Okay, fear, we're cowering now because the bullet said there's a lack of investor appetite yet, there's also saying there's a huge investor peptide of BP. So, bully, took your lunch money, you didn't go take, you know, karate classes to fight the bully. You decided, you know what we're gonna do. We're just not gonna eat lunch anymore, like, that's basically what you just said. I don't fucking eat lunch. I'm super pro fall this but but honestly, it might be time to fold if like, like the company, like, if this is your this is this is how you're going to treat things. I just gonna sit on the sidelines and comment about other thing. You just not fighting and I don't really understand. It's worth pointing out though, right? Like we talked a lot about the anti-esg proposals and how they're only getting like 2% shareholder support. We make fun of them. Meanwhile, the sort of air quotes Pro ESG performance, the environmental proposals and stuff like that. They get like 12%. And and we're we're like looking Down on the anti you both lost like you're all fucking losers. So, when we're talking about like 24% votes against Helga Lund, we're really saying, that's great, because all we ever get is 12% on our shareholder proposals. That's double what we normally get. That's basically like a demand a mandate from share. It's like an investor Rebellion. Yeah. It's like, it's like Trump saying, like, there's a mandate for me, to restructure the car, the country, when he didn't, really win by much more than like three guys. Well, not only that, but I think if the, since not everybody voted only really like 30% of Americans, actually voted for him, like no one like it's not what you think it is, right? And but we have to spin it as a victory for our side, every single suppressing. Yeah, pressing that I'm gonna give this one of five because it's not an investor Rebellion. I'll try to go quickly here. This one is just I I'm just dumped by this one. I explain the political theater of this one. The headline is Starbucks CEO faces major backlash. After details of his work, routine are revealed The national Center for Public Policy. Research is all is fighting is attacking from the left. They're fighting, they're fighting Starbucks CEO, Brian Nichols, Transportation practices because the because it's against the company's commitment to eco-friendly practices. But of course, I know this is a political theater like, mind, warp. So what exactly are they trying to do here? Are they trying to prove the hypocrisy of woke washing corporations? Are they actually angry at Brian Nichols for flying in his jet to the headquarters? Why are they attacking from the left? What's happening here? So, look, I've spent Way too much time on their website reading their blogs like under. Like I've way too much time looking at the like National Center for Public Policy research and their sister org and National legal policy Center, or whatever. I, I will say this, the incredible cynic in me. Just thinks they want to increase the average votes they get for them for their proposals, by appealing to less than the more than The Lunatic Fringe that they're already appealing to me. So they, they did a couple of clever things this year so far. One of which was at I think it was Apple. Yeah, they did AI proposal and they just it was a relatively reasonable what they're out for. Not only was it reasonable. It was actually relatively well researched and there was no some real work and there was no weird political theater in there where they were mad. So alright guys, you know, a person they didn't mention like, you know, you know, wombs at all. Like it was it. They were mad at Spike. Lee. Yeah. This but that proposal got like nine or 10% support which is, which is probably the highest they've ever received. I, I legitimately think that they probably found something here that they can say is like well, look, these these, they're all Hypocrites, about climate change. So in Their mind, they can say. Like if you're Hypocrites about climate change, you shouldn't be setting these stupid climate change reports, you shouldn't be like set these targets anyway, right? Antithetical to shareholder value in their minds. It's still congruent with what they're doing. But in reality this is it this is like a 9 10 11 percent vote for the proposal and then you can look at then they can put out the average razor that says and I'm just going up here, average vote, we're getting now is in the 789% range, not the one, two percent range proving that investors are really into our talking points about trans. Well, you might be right because this is an exercise in Mad Science because they're actually they're using the language of the ESG Movement by saying things, like they're talking like each round trip made by Nichols roughly, the annual energy consumption for Prince of the typical American household. I mean they're basically Co-op thing language of the eco-friendly movement, right? I mean I'm really torn by these because Is I think they're they like there's some level of reasonableness to them. Sure. And like on the merits, you can look at this and say. I agree that they like we but that's it. We pointed this out when he got the job like we so it wasn't like unknown, but they're asking for it to proposal and somehow they snuck the proposal by the SEC because, you know, their anti-wolf. So this because this is that now. Yeah, that's a good point too. Because Exxon is celebrating the fact that it has no shareholder proposals this, you're saying that the SEC, let it kill it. The one share proposal because it was micromanaging. But this all is my man, this is as micro manager, because that's like, because this is the guy moving around. Yes, this is the guy who came from Chipotle Chipotle is a major success. So you would think that he would be the right guy. Maybe to turn around another useless company, like another like addicted, Starbucks type of company. So why would they be micromanaging? Where the hell he wants to live, right? I mean, but so I'm torn because on the merits it's like An interesting proposal, but I also know that the intent might matter, right? Like the Optics in the intent matter like John puts in a proposal and I will vote for it. Almost no matter what he writes because John Chavez and his I can Trust has thought about shit like yeah he's a he's a guy who thinks about stuff. He's been doing it for 30 years, his proposals are well you know, researched and sure. But this group is the one that was writing about reverse discrimination against women, who want to have babies and, you know, like reverse discrimination by offering trans benefits but not, you know, like white male benefits like Robbie Starbucks as some kind of like leaders. Yeah. That's basically anyone who's on a journalist, right? That's the same group as is putting in this reasonable thing so it's like you're voting for the group as much as the thing. I don't know. It's gonna lose it doesn't make a difference. Well, I know that but I want to give me a score in this one. I care about that. You see the Keras seem to care, that one's innate to me that you have. You have appetite for any more, you want to get out of here. Let's you know what? I want to again you. I don't know why. Riverside doesn't give me control the clock anymore, so you can, you can wrap us up whenever you need to. I'll stay with some of this shareholding shareholders stakeholders stuff. So, we did BP, we did start barks. What do you think about Target now? So Target is Target. CEO, Cornell meets with Al Sharpton discuss. D, E, I roll back. So now so, okay, here's what happened in a nutshell. First Target, They removed, you know, gay pride merchandise. And then they said no one Dei because Of an of a democratically held election. United States did that. And now for traffic is down, everyone's gone to Costco because Costco, very sort of vocally supported to EI and now they're scrambling. They don't know what to do. What do you think about this one? I just think it's funny. I mean it is funny. I mean to funny against Brian Cornell, right? The CEO of Target for not anticipating this. Not only did they not anticipate it they like like they freaked out about like the potential losses from a customer base that largely doesn't pay attention closely to some of this stuff. Like they're just they're loud the loud minority. Actually still is the minority as in. Yeah. The people you mean the people shooting Bud Light cans is still the minority. Yeah, it turns out that just because they're loud. Yeah. Doesn't actually mean they buy a lot of shit from you because there's not a lot of them, right? They're not there. The first place is, there is a majority. I mean, I don't mean just people. I know people who are like, I don't get why Target would roll back any of this shit, right? Like, you know, I don't care, right? But now I think they're fickle losers, right? That there's some vast majority that does go to your stores and buy stuff who now aren't going to your stores because your fickle losers. Yeah. And the response is, can we find any remaining phases of the Civil Rights Movement to bring in right? Like, like, literally, anyone like Jesse Jackson was is he's next on the, you know, the on the call lists, are you gonna call him? You know, John Lewis died, sadly. So you can't call him now and man, it's worth pointing out. The Brian Cornell asked for this meeting. It's not like Al Sharpton came knocking on the door. Brian Cornell wanted this meeting, the whole thing is such theater, it's such bulshit theater, but it's what it's not. The theater is, is from Al Sharpton's perspective. I, I'll sharpen has some of a good quote on this, which is he says, you can't have an election come and all of a sudden, change your old positions. He said, if an election determines your commitment to fairness. Fine, you have a right to withdraw from us but then we have the right to withdraw from you. I think he puts a very, very nice simply and clearly there that is simple and clear, right? Just think it's like like that, so nothing. I gotta say, man. Nothing makes a CEO, a board look worse than than making this decision based on a democratically held election where we're still hasn't been proven what Trump and his people is doing is even legal in the first place. Which is why, you know, most of one other story you missed that we're not covering is why we're all cheering Harvard University for the first big entity to finally fight back, basically saying, like, what the hell are you even doing in the first place? Like even, but even Harvard. Yeah, for honest. They fought back after they tried to negotiate and capitulate and it failed. Yeah, that's true. Because the Trump industry demands from Trump were two or two owners. They were having Negotiations. And then the Trump Administration, accidentally sent out the memorandum with like a list of Demands. And and then, and then they said, oh, this isn't going to work, they're not going to care. The reason they at least fought back well and they're gonna win the fight. Right? Like but that's just one else. Sharpton simple points here is this is just like, you can't like you can't and it's never happened before. And incorporation we haven't seen from boards and CEOs, like you can't wait for an election to happen and then change something. And what's going on with that board anyway, I mean, I just I what what is Al Sharpton going there? Going to like target has destroyed any brand value. Am I going back to Target? No time soon? Well, I did. Would you I said on these shows, I think it was a show. I think you were on the show. When I was talking about, I did actually make the switch to Costco on their support of Dei and based on what Target did and the people at Costco themselves. Actually told me That there there are uptick in membership, they're getting so many people coming to them. Saying the exact thing that I'm talking about which suggests method they're all listeners to our show of course. Yeah every single every single one who are good joint but that foot traffic has gone directly to Costco which means it's not the case. And as I told you yesterday my Affairs I'm also now realizing that Costco is 50 times better, it's way better. So so what they've done is a one-way outdoor, not like so you call the Al Sharpton, you had them come and talk to who Brian Cornell and the board or just Brian Cornell. I don't know Brianna. That's a good question. I hope to Dimitri Stockton Target directors there because he what was he? Yeah yeah no it's it's dear. I think yes I hope Sharpton gives him an uncomfortable in Target. Yeah. But like so so what is the goal? Now you're bringing in Al Sharpton. So that what? I don't know who left you or like, oh I guess it's okay to shop there again. We've the problem is once we found somewhere else to go and build routine. It's hard, it's sticky. I'm not going back and why would we but then again and also why would we trust you? Yeah what? Yeah like so. So in the midterm elections, you know, what if it goes hard harder right? Are you gonna then? Like you know you know fire everyone with labias like how was that work right I don't care that much about this. Okay. I'm giving it a four. All right I think I have a couple of more. Okay well I did mention Exxon no shareholder proposal the first time 25 years SCC let them get rid of a proposal and as part of this fall this suspending it's it's basically, it's worth 100. I carry 100 about this. I'm gonna let you have a 100 on this one because this is, this is first time took your lunch money and you motherfukers are now terrified. Everybody like everyone's terrified, not just, we should have flooded the shareholder proposals. They should have been like every point. Should put in there a Cheryl they should have had 300 deal with Not three. In fact they should have had proposals that said, how are you now? We want to report on your engagements with shareholders following the fact that you sued some that you didn't like we want to know how you're born as communicating with shareholders that you don't like. We want to know like environmental issues social issues. We want to know like you said, you said targets you flipped on them. I want to know everything. I want to rip you apart. Instead, what we did was we cowered there was only one that got put in that got rejected. That's it. That's it people. Exxon Mobil has been the face of climate change for 20 years. 20. What? 20, 25 years 25 years. For 25 years, they've been the face of climate change. And now you're quitting on it. You look like this during the worst of climate change, is strange time to stop and I will say to that the article cited other companies that have no proposals this year, and I'm sure that's because of the Fallout from what Exxon did they cited? Occidental Petroleum, which had one proposal last year, Dao Dao ink had two proposals last year. So this is obviously, there's some the collective domino effect here, yeah? Like, like I get, if you are a non-profit, that's been filing these shareholder proposals for 25 years and you're afraid to get sued because you don't have the budget to fight a lawsuit from Exxon Mobil. That's the point of the loss against. But then, what are you fighting for? What are you doing? What's the point of what you're doing? It's nine seconds to set up a non another non-profit. Frankly you should be going to every funder that you have and telling them. We got sued. That is actually a badge of honor. We're doing something to force change. This should be, you getting arrested in the 50s for his stand-up comedy, right? It was a badge of honor. Absolutely. You should fund the shit out of us, like, after they got sued. I like I'm happy to donate to these places. Yeah. Like like that way. It should work. That's a good Network cowering and you and you fucking back off in cower at the worst possible moment. This is exactly when you need to fight. I know occasionally if you're if you're still listening this show. I know occasionally I say something stupid and some of our listeners actually do respond to some of the stupidity. I say, I'll say this right now, if you're one of these organization organizations like fall this, that's pulling back this year and it's not just fall this clear. Early. And you're trying to show is pulling back, everyone's pulling and you're trying to figure out A New Path forward like reach out to us. We would love to partner with any of these organizations and and think of a different way of fighting back. It doesn't have okay. Okay, let's just say it's not Cheryl proposals this year, but there are Myriad ways of fighting back. We could Target directors or we could just come up with with, you know, marketing campaigns a different ways of telling investors and consumers about what you're trying to do, what you're trying to achieve. Don't you just what you just said is brilliant. I'll never say that again, but it's brilliant. Well, you're getting tired, too. You copying off. Coffee is wearing off Big Show. Yeah, that That's 100% correct. The way to fight back, is don't submit a shareholder proposal. Do a Non-Stop set of campaigns to vote against directors. You won't win but that's not the point. The people here are the ones taking your lunch money. It's not the faceless organization. It's fucking Darren Woods. Yeah and his horse on the board right? Vote identifiable all of them and identifiable subset of Exxon. It's not just a random Exxon and don't vote against them at Exxon vote against them on every board. They sit make it your priority to say. These are people who are willing to fly in the face of what a shareholder asks, they are willing to sue their own shareholders. They don't agree with. They were willing to buy press do bypass due process everywhere they possibly can. These are people who do not deserve board seats. Not only do they not Do what they said they were going to do when they set targets and all that kind of shit but they also are willing to sue you for asking them to do stuff as the owner. They're suing you. You should be setting up vote. No campaigns on every single director, you should not be sitting down and saying, okay, we won't do any more proposals. We got to figure out what we're going to do know this year. We should have said vote, no on every motherfuker on all these boards. Yeah, and you know what? And if you're worried that you're, you're hitting the wrong targets because some of the directors, actually voted like no one some of these things. Then let them come out and tell you how to say it. Let me say it. Tell us, tell us how you let Exxon, tell us how you handle these meetings when it came time to sue your your shareholders. Let us know. Maybe some maybe we will withhold. Maybe we will support some directors knowing how they handle that. I'm guessing it was group. Think it was an awesome decision, but whatever like put make Exxon do a thing. Say a thing. It's not just Exxon. We just talked about targets Stockton who's on two different boards that have rolled back Dei. These are the things that these shareholders have been putting proposals in for two decades. Now, you're in a position where you're like, okay, the shareholder proposals the SEC is going to stop. Stop, allowing them like, and we're just only gonna let anti-walk proposals in pretty soon. It's gonna be no more Cheryl to proposals that look woke, but they cannot stop you from voting against a director. They cannot stop you from saying Dmitri Stockton. Should not be on another fucking board anywhere because he's a guy who's willing to roll back every single Target. They make, he's a perfectly happy on a voluntary targets to get thrown out the window. Everyone on Exxon, vote against him everywhere. We can make shortlist for you. We can spend all day doing podcasts and live streams and like social posts saying, like here's the face of the enemy, forget the fucking proposals where you got 12% called it a victory and used that for funding put a face to it. Yeah, for this people who fucked up, people have all this will even realize if you if you want to do a regular podcast about this, just we'll put you out under the free float media umbrella, bring it. I care. 100 about that. Okay, and I, I'll let you decide. This is something, this is another maybe too long of a story. So we can wrap up here. Maybe we can cover this in the proxy countdown instead, but the last story I was gonna cover was the the mess going on at Harley Davidson, I love that. Do you want to talk about now, or do you want to wait for the proxy? Let's do shortly. And then and then we'll do a long version on proxy countdown. So the verse the headline I picked was Harley Davidson slams activist. Investor saying it's campaign is messing up its CEO search, so all this stem right around. When you left Jared door DeVille, he was he's a heart in his HP Partners owns about 9% of Harley shares. He stepped down from the board from Harley had a very public resignation which we don't often see Basically referring to a cultural depletion at Harley. What? One of the reasons why he's he's angry at work from home policies. But what we kind of learned is that what he was really angry about was that they didn't the board did not want the CEO that he has picked to the age Partners wants to replace a Harley CEO yokin sights. So now there is a, so now there's a big proxy contest and what HP Partners is doing is actually not trying to put its directors on the board. They're starting with hold campaign against three directors already on the Harley board that includes CEO chair zeit's who's already stepping down as CEO? Lead director Norman, Thomas Linebarger and long-term director Sarah Levinson, who the three of them combined control 63% of board influence to according to our data. So they are good targets. So this is the kind of mess going on at Harley-Davidson map. I don't know how much you've read about this or know about this, but that's the Highlight two things. Struck me one. Is that we had due to reveals influence number wrong because he's a representative of heart and they have 9.1%. I don't know when they accumulated that 9%, how they had that 9% for a long time. They're a long time, share. So we missed. So we missed that. He's a representative and it's not just us that missed it. It's a lot of our third party. Yeah. Because we usually wait for other entities, the tag, the directors, as significant shareholders, so that we can then know, could we can't go over every direction, right? So we buy a bunch of data. So that's number one. But, but more important and more, interesting, What is the combined? Shareholdings of zits? Linda Berger and Levinson? This can't be much, right? One percent. Is it one? Yeah. And my point is that the guy who resigned represented a group that has 9% of the shares and they didn't listen to him. Okay, but what fucking Universe do you live in people that talk about an insular board because that's like, like I own your company. I'm the largest I'm one of the largest single shareholders of this company and you won't listen to what I'm saying. And the only thing he was saying was that rather than zeets like staying on in his role until a successor is found, they said, just get out. Now we don't need you to find a successor. Right. But I yeah it's confusing. There's something else going on underneath this. I'm not really sure about what are the things is that? I I think hardtner might be part of this group is angry that Harley Davidson has gone quote, unquote, woke. And they want that from their wokeness, and I think that's what cultural depletion is referring to, is that Harley-Davidson part of what the new CEO was doing. And I think he came from a Brands, like Puma, he came from, like, European Brands was, he was trying to make, Harley Davidson appeal to not just white hairy dudes, right? Like he was trying to like Rodney peel the brand and and for some reason I think people like heart is suggesting that. That's a, that's a whoa, I guess woke now means Matt, if you if you bring if you invite anyone to the party, that's new Right. It's that woke I guess right? Anyone we're not comfortable with is woke. So I don't know if that's part of what age Partners is doing here and I don't know if it's because it's a political thing or because they think that that actually hurts the bottom line of the brand, I don't know if this is what I think about this. Yeah. But let me ask you this before. You asked me that before you say that, why why resign in protest, why not keep the board position and fight from that? Why does he need to resign? I don't understand. They are setting up. This is not an activist campaign in which they are slating directors, right? They're just worth holding vote. They are voting. It's a vote, no campaign on three. Yeah, three directors. Why? So, why should step down stay? I think the bylaws of the company are like, they're gonna be down for directors, right? Like if the vote no campaign is successful, he's resigned. And there's three others. Like they're going to. They're going to have be under the Amount of people that they require to have the board, constituted a quorum. I think he could fuk with them in a totally different way. Also, there's some recognition I think that because they had so much he had so little influence on the board to make change, but he's one director, but I hear what you're saying it. He represents a significant shareholder but Matt there's still 40. Even when you take out a partners are the equations still. 44% of shareholdings is held by institutional investors including BlackRock Vanguard. Do you think they're going to care about this with whole vote? I I don't know why they would care but I don't know. I just I don't really get the battle here. Other than that, is this kind of a political theater battle. Is this like a trying to get some attention here? I think well, it is, it's all political Theory, right? And I like theater and Jared doorbell. I actually reached out to him on LinkedIn. So I know you're listening Jerry because you accepted my connection. I invited Jared to come on the show. Come on the proxy content. He loved to talk to you. We could talk about all of this. Go ahead support. We'll, we'll support. We love vote. No campaigns. Come on, come on, come on the show. I'm going to give this a 7, we'll talk more about it, on proxy countdown. I still don't really know what you think but I don't know. Maybe you don't know what to think. I don't know what any of the scores meant for the entire show. Yeah, well yeah, that's a really different a lot and a lot I I'm exhausted. That was it. Well, this is what happens when you leave. We do kind of get backed up and I'm glad we could kind of clear the deck a little bit. Here, we got rid of some stuff, all right, we're clean now. So come back. We're actually got a doubleheader we're doing tomorrow. Okay. What is that? I'm gone on Friday again. Okay, but can we is the show coming out on Friday? Where's it coming up? I don't know what they'll be shows this week. Just go see those more shows. Yeah, that's right. We are free float. We will be back again this week. We'll be back again next week. We're getting back to our regularly scheduled program shortly as fast as possible when I'm done with work, travel, until then Bye.