The Era of the Business Idiot, Part 2

alarmingly large part of society. The business audiot is the manager that doesn't seem to do anything but keeps getting promoted, and the CEO of a public company that says boring, specious nonsense about artificial intelligence that the tenured professor that you wish would die, the administrator whose only job appears to be opening and closing the laptop, and the consultant that can come up with a million reasons to charge you more money, yet not one metric to judge their

success by. Also the marketing executive that's worked exactly three years at every major cloud player but does not appear to have done it anything. And of course the investor that invests based on founders but really means guys that look and sound exactly like me. These people are present throughout the private and public sector and our governments too, and they paradoxically do nothing of substance, but somehow damage

everything that they touch. This isn't to say our public and private sector is entirely useless, just that these people are poisoned so many partss of our power structure that avoiding them is entirely impossible. Our economy is oriented around them, made easier and more illogical for their benefit because their literal only goal in life has been to take and

use power and help others who feel the same. The business is also an authoritarian and will do whatever they need to, including harming the institution that they work for or those closest to them, like their coworkers, of their community,

as a means of avoiding true accountability or responsibility. Decades of neoliberalism has incentivized their rise because when you incentivize society to become management, to manage or run a company, rather than do something for a reason or purpose, you're incentivizing a kind of corporate narcissism, one that bleeds into whatever field the person goes into, be a public or private. Our society is in the thrall of dumb management and functions.

As such, every government, the top quarter of every chart features little neroes, who, instead of battling the fire and gulfing Rome, are sat in their palaces, strumming an off key version of Wonder Wall and the Lyre and grumbling about how the firefighters need to work harder and maybe we could replace them with an LLM or a smart

sprinkler system. Every institution keeps its core constituents and labor forces at arm's length, and effectively, anything built at scale quickly becomes distance from both the customer and the laborer. This disconnection or alienation better put sits at the center of almost every problem I've ever talked about. Why would companies push generative AI in seemingly every part of their services even though their customers don't like it and it

doesn't really work. It's simple they neither know or care what the customer wants. They barely know how their businesses function, They barely know what their products do, and barely understand what their workers are doing, meaning that generative AI feels magical because it does an impression of somebody doing an impression of somebody doing a job, which is an accurate way of describing how most existives and middle managers operate.

But let me get a little more specific. An IBM study based on conversations with two thousand global CEOs recently found that only twenty five percent of AI initiatives have delivered their expected return on investment over the last few years, and were still sixty four percent of the CEO's surveyed acknowledged that the risks of falling behind drove their investments in some technologies before they had clear understanding of the

value they brought to the organization. Fifty percent of respondents also found that the pace of recent investments has left their organizations with disconnected, piecemeal technology, almost as if they don't know what they're doing and they're just put in AI and stuff because it feels good or for no reason. Johnson and Johnson recently decided to shift from a broad generative AI experimentation to a focused approach on high value

use cases. I quote from The Wall Street Journal adding that only ten to fifteen percent of use cases were driving about eight percent of the value pareto principle MVP baby its last two CEOs, Alex Gorsky and Yoki Duato, both have MBAs, with current CEO Duato's previous ten years at J ANDJ being some sort of chairman or vice president, and the previous two CEOs were both pharmaceutical sales and

marketing people. A fun fact about Bill Gorsky. During his first tenure at Johnson Johnson, he led marketing of products that deliberately underplayed some drug side effects and paid off the largest nursing home pharmacy in America to sell more drugs to old people. Well a lovely man. The term executive loosely refers to a person who moves around numbers and hopes for the best. The modern executive does not lead,

They prod. Their managers are hall monitors for organizations run predominantly by people that by design are entirely removed from the business itself, even in roles like marketing. In sales were cemos and vps park orders without really participating in

the process. We talk eagerly about how young people in entry level jobs should earn their stripes by doing grunt work, and that too, is the neoliberal poison in the veins of our society, because by definition, your very first experience of the workforce is working hard enough so that you don't have to work as hard, and you have to do the shit that nobody else wants to do and anyway.

The same managerial types you bitch about the entitlement and unrealistic expectations of young people are the same ones that are also viscerating the bottom rung of the career ladder, typically by offshoring many of these roles or consolidating them in responsibilities that they're increasingly burned out senior workers, or SEEAI as a way to eliminate what they see as an optional cost center and not the future of their workforce.

I should also be clear with that this is the big thing with AI and jobs right now, that people are afraid of these entry level positions that are going to get quote automated out. I made a point in the last monologue that I want to clear up as well. I don't think AI will not take any jobs. I think it's taken jobs already. Tons of freelancers, copy editors, aren't directors. People are really suffering. The point is these people,

the business idiots. They want you to believe that AI is going to take every job next year, in three months, or very soon. It isn't clear how soon. They can't tell you they don't understand they're fucking wrong. They need you to do this so that you start giving up. That you give up because you giving up gives them more power. If you believe they can replace you with AI that doesn't work or do your job, they will. They will do so. Now it may happen to you anyway.

They may happen that they'll put an AI that can't do the shit that you do and replace you with properly contract labor. That's gonna happen, regardless of whether AI happens. Off suring and contract to work have being eroding employment work for a long time at will. Employment in America is a big fucking problem. It always has been. The way that labor is treated here is fucking insane. And a little comment as well for this episode. As I record this, the Vox Union is yet to get an

agreement with Vox. In the event that Vox does not give the deal in the next week, you're probably gonna hear this one that's happening. I request that every single listener of Better Offline, I need you to actually boycott every single Vox property, which because the Verge has some great writers and also Neli Patel, and you should boycott everything that Fox is doing right now based on this anyway, which sucks because they just hired some really excellent reporter

called hayden Field. She's excellent. The writers are the ones who are the victims here. The power structure of Vox is not giving them a fair deal. Solidarity with Vox, do not fucking click their websites unless that deal gets done. Anyway, moving on, one of my favorite things that really fucking pissed me off was quite ac quitting it. It was something that they've berated people for in twenty twenty two. And is this gas the euphemism for doing the job

as specified in your employment agreement. Because journalism is enthralled by the management class, and because the management class has so thoroughly rewritten the concept of what labor means, the people got called lazy for doing their jobs. And this is because the middle manager brain doesn't see a worker as somebody hired and paid for a job, but as a kind of an asset that must provide a return.

As a result, if another asset comes long that could potentially provide a bigger return, like an offshore worker or a theoretical AI agent, that medal manager won't hesitate to start getting hot and heavy with the idea of getting rid of this annoying person who keeps doing the thing that the manager needs them to, but won't magically read the manager's mind, and also keeps asking the manager all these annoying questions. Leave the manager and learn to get paid.

But really, though, our official intelligence is the ultimate paniseer of the business city, a tool that gives an impression of productivity with far more production than the business city it themselves because they don't really do any work. The Information reported recently that Service Now CEO Bill McDermott, the chief executive of a company with a market capitalization of

over two hundred billion dollars. By the way, despite the fact that like Salesforce, nobody really knows what they do, he chose to bush Ai across his entire organization, both in the product and in practice in the organization itself, based on the mental consideration I would usually associate with a raven finding a shiny object. The following is an actual quote from the article HM. When chain GPT debuted in November twenty twenty, McDermott joined his executives around a

boardroom table and they played with the chatbot together. From there, he made a quick decision, and this is a guy's voice. Bill's like, let me make it clear to everybody here. Everything you do Aiyi Hei Ai AI recalled sitson the Service Now Vice chair to begin a customer meeting on AI. Mcdommot has asked his salespeople to do what amounts to their best impression of him. Hi, I'm Bill McDermott. Ooh,

I'm a fucking idiot. Anyway, present AI not as a matter of bots or databases, but in grand sounding terms like business transformation. During the push to grow AI, mcdommot has insisted these manager's improve efficiency across their teams. He's laser focused on the sales team's participation rate. Let's assume you're a manager and you have twelve direct reports, he said. Now, let's assume out of those twelve, two people did good, which it was so good that the manager was one

hundred and ten percent of plan. I don't think that's good. I tell the manager what did the other ten do? You'll notice that all of this is complete nonsense. What do you mean, efficienc See what does that quote even mean? One hundred and ten percent of plan? What are you on about? Did you hit your head on something, Bill, did you like, do you have a gas leak in service? Now? I fucking swear these people make so much money, but when you hear them talk, they sound so stupid. They

sound so very stupid. If you or I said stuff like that to someone, they check us for a concussion. But I'd wager that mister McDermot is concussion free. And then true example of a business idiot, a person with incredible power and wealth that makes decisions not based on knowing things or caring about his customers, but on the latest shiny object that makes him thing line go up. No,

that's really Bill McDermott's thing. Back in twenty twenty two, he said to Yahoo Financed that the metaverse was real and that service Now could help someone create an emil in the metaverse and have a futuristic storefront of some sort. One might wonder how Service Now provided that, and the answer is it did not provide that at all. I cannot find a single product that it's offered that includes anything of the sort. But like any of these CEOs, he doesn't really know stuff or do stuff. He just

is des can't asked. Motherfucker. The corporate equivalent of a stain on a carpet that nobody really knows how it got there, but hasn't been removed, and it's kind of difficult to get out without ripping the whole fucking thing up.

The modern executive, like I have said, is symbolic, and the media has due to a large amount of business idiots running these outlets and middle managers stuffed into the editorial class, being trained to never ask different questions such as, what the fuck are you talking about, Bill, or even the simple what does that mean? Or how would you do that? Or I'm not sure I understand? Would you mind explaining? Perhaps the last part is the symptom of

the overall problem. Though so many layers of editorial and managerial power are filled full of people that don't know anything, and there's never anyone crueler about ignorance than somebody who's ignorant themselves. We're still, in many fields, journalism included, we're rarely rewarded for knowing things or being right, being right in the way that keeps the people with the keys

from scraping them across our cars. We are, however, rewarded for saying the right thing at the right time, which more often than not means resembling our white male superiors, speaking like our peers, and delivering results in the way that makes them feel the happiest or the best about themselves. Now.

A great example of our vibeespace society was back in October twenty twenty one, where a Washington Post article written by two Harvard professors rallied against remote work by citing a Microsoft funded anti remote work study and quoting an one hundred and thirty year old economist called Alfred Marshall about how and I quote workers gather in dense clusters, ignoring the fact that Marshall was so racist that they've written academic papers about him, and also ignoring how excited

he was about eugenics or the fact that he was writing about fucking factories. Remote work terrifies the business idiot because it removes the performative layer that allowed them to stomp around and feel important, reducing their work to work, you know, stuff they've done. Office culture is inherently heteronormative, and white and black women are less likely to be promoted by their managers, and continuing the existence of the office is all about making sure the business idiot continues

railing supreme. Removing the ability for the MANAGERI or horn monitors to look at you and try and work out what you're doing without ever really helping is a big part of being a manager. And if for a manager hearing this and saying you don't do this, I challenge you to talk to another person that doesn't confirm your biases.

The business idiot does reim supreme. Their existence holds up every public company almost and remote work was the first time they've willingly raised their heads and started honking angrily. Google demanded employees returned to the office in twenty twenty one, but let one executive work remotely from New Zealand because absolutely none of the decision making was done with people

that actually do work. In mind, while we can, well you can, I'm not interested debate whether exclusively working remote is productive or not. The return to office push was almost entirely done in two ways, one executive's demanding people return to the office, two journalists asking executives if remote work was good or not, entirely ignoring the people that do the work and mostly not seeing if it was good, and mostly just asking whether it was bad and how

bad it was, asking managers. This guy called Callum Boucher's over the Wall Street Journal, and he has written some real scorches, Borcher scorches, if you call them, by which I mean, I've never seen someone so interested in publishing what bosses think in my fucking life. And I run

a PR firm that should tell you everything. But The New York Times, the Washington Post, the Wall Street Journal, and many many other outlets all fell for this crap because the business idiots have captured our media too, training

even talented journalists to dever to power every term. When every power structure is stuff full of do nothing management types that have learned exactly as little as they need to get by, it's inevitable that journalism will cater to them specious, thoughtless reproductions of the powerful sideas Look at the coverage of AI or the metaverse or cryptocurrency or clubhouse.

Look how willingly reporters will willingly accept narratives not based on practical experience or what the technology can do, but what the powerful and the popular as suddenly interested in. Every single tech bubble has followed the same path, and that path was paved with flawed, deferential and specious journalism

from small blogs to the biggest mast heads. Look at how reporters talk to executives, not just the way they ask things like Neeli Ptel's hundred plus word questions to send off as shy, or his interview with fucking Gary Vaynerchuk, the constant scam artist who has an FT thing. NELI, what the pardon me? Pardon me? Let me take this

from the top. If you look at how reporters talk to executives, you should look not just at the way they ask things, but the things they accept them saying, and the willingness they have to just accept what they're told.

Sach An Adela is the CEO of a company with a market capitalization of over three trillion dollars that's Microsoft, by the way, and, according to an interview mentioned in the last episode, uses AI to summarize podcast episodes and digest emails and effectively do all the obvious parts of his daily working life. I have no idea how you are a reporter. Do not say, Satcha, what the fuck you're outsourcing most of your life degenerate ive AI, that's insane,

or even do you actually do that? And then asking further questions but that would get you in trouble. And the editorial class is the managerial class now, and it's spent decades mentoring young reporters and teaching them how not to ask questions, how not to push back, and to believe that a big, strong, powerful CEO would never mislead them.

Karas wish as half asked interviews are considered daring and critical because journalism has at large lost its teeth, breeding reporters rewarded for knowing a little bit about a few things, and punishing those who ask too many questions or refuse to fall in line. The reason that they don't want you to ask these questions is that the business idiot

isn't big on answers. Editors that tell you to not push too hard at doing so because they know the executive one have an answer, or they themselves don't know fucking anything. It isn't just about the pr person that trained them, but the fact that these men more often than not do not have a glancing understanding of their

underlying business or even the things they're saying. Yeah, in the same way that business idiots penetrated every other part of society, they eventually have found their way to journalism. While we can and should scream at the disconnected idiots that ran vice into the ground, the problem is everywhere because the business idiots aren't just at the top, but

infecting the power structures underlying every newsroom. While there are some really great editors, there are plenty more that barely understand the articles they edit, the stories they commission, or that make reportersable punches for fear of advertiser blowback, or worse still, just worried they'll get attacked on social media. Fucking cowards. Go hide under your table, you fucking coward.

That and mentorship is dead across effectively or parts of society, meaning that most reporters, as with many jobs, learned by watching each other, which means they all make sure to not ask the rough questions and not push back too hard against the party or market or company messaging until everybody else is doing it. And under these conditions business idiots thrive. The business idiot's reign is one of speciousness and shortcuts, of acquisition, of dominance, and of theft. Mentoring

people is something you do to pass on knowledge. It may make them grateful to you, but it ultimately in the mind of a business that it creates a competitor or arrival. Investing in talent or worker conditions, or even really work itself would require you to know what you're talking about or actually do work, which doesn't really make sense when you're talking to a work who should be doing it for you, and they're the ones that are

meant to work, right, you're there to manage them. Yeah, they keep talking back, asking questions about the work you wanted to do. I ask you need to step in and help on something. And that's so annoy you. Oh, I'm a manager. I'm not here to non sir, I'm a blog here. I'm not here to do work. Just know the stuff, do the stuff. I have to go get lunch, and then I have to go back out because I have another lunch. Okay enough, Oh my god, you want another thing. Why haven't you done the thing?

I didn't tell you yet. Anyway, I believe that this is the predominant mindset across most of the powerful, to the point that everything in the world is constructed to reaffirm their beliefs rather than follow any kind of logical path. Our stock market is inherently illogical, driven not by whether a company is good or is bad, but whether it can show growth even if said growth is horrifically unprofitable

or ultimately unsustainable. I'd argue it's because the market has no idea how to make intelligent decisions, just complex ones that mean you don't really have to understand the business so much as you have to understand the associated vibes of the industry and the weird black magic of how

hedge funds work. Freedman's influence and Reagan's policies have allowed our markets to be dominated by business idiocy, where a bad company can be a good stock because everybody, specifically other traders and the business press likes how it looks and smells, which allows the business idiots to continue making profit using illogical and partially rigged market making, with the business press helpfully pushing up their narratives. This also keeps

regular people from accumulating too much wealth. If regular people could set the tone for the markets as a company that makes something people like and people pay them for it, and they make more money than they spend, that may make things a little too even. It would make things too accessible. Why would you hire a hedge one where you could just follow a common sense No, no, no,

that's not how we run our markets here, sir. It doesn't matter that core Weave, a company that went from mining crypto to taking on multi billion dollar contracts to provide compute for open AI and other companies, quite literally does not have enough money for its capital expenditures and lost over three hundred million dollars in the last quarter.

But everyone still liked it because if it's year over year of growth, which was four hundred and twenty percent, it doesn't matter that Corewave has an October loan payment that will crush the life out of the company either. These narratives referred to the media knowing that the media will print them because thinking too hard about stock would mean the business idiot had to think also, and that

is not why they're in this business. The AI trade is the business idiot nirvana, a fascination for a managerial class that long since gave up any kind of meaningful contribution to the bottom line, as moving away from fundamental creation of value as a business naturally leads to the same kind of specious value that one finds from generative AI. Not even saying there's no returns from generative AI or that llms don't do anything or even than there's no

possible commercial use case for them. They just don't do enough, almost by design, And we're watching companies desperately try and contort them into something, anything that might work, pretending so fucking hard they'll stake their entire futures on the idea scrimming just fucking work? Will you? Agent Force doesn't make any money? It sucks, But goddamn is Marky Mark Bennioff gonna make you bear witness? Does it matter that Agent

Force barely makes Salesforce any money? No, because Bennioff and Salesforce have got rich selling to fellow business idiots who then shove Salesforce into their organization without thinking about who would use it or how they'd use it other than in most general purposes, which they can barely explain anyway.

Agent Force was and is a fundamentally boring and insane product, charging right now two dollars a conversation for a chat that to quote, the information provides customers with and I quote incorrect answers AI hallucinations while testing how the software handles customer service queries. I should also add I've heard rumblings that salesforce will actually be changing to a different model now because the two dollars conversation one has really not been working for them. I just don't think the

new one is going to work either. But generat of AI this hit is catnip to the business idio, because the business idiot really ideally never has to deal with work workers or customers. Generave AI doesn't do enough to actually help us be better at our jobs, but it gives a good enough impression of something useful so that it can convince someone really stupid that doesn't understand what

you do that they don't need you. Sometimes, a generative output is a kind of generic solus version of a production, one that resembles exactly how a know nothing executive or manager would summarize your work. Open AI's deep research. Wow's professional business idiot Ezra Cline, and I'll link to his shitty fucking article in the show notes, because he doesn't seem to realize that part of research is the research itself,

not just the out as you learn about stuff. As you research a topic and you come to a conclusion, you search for things, and you don't just go I have enough research now. You kind of like dig in and you learn things and you come to something called a conclusion. This is what you would know if you did work. But back to AI. The concept of an agent you've sure heard about is the erotic dream of

the managerial sect. It's a work that they can personally command to generate product that they say as their own, all without having to know or do anything other than the bare minimum of keeping up appearances, which is the entirety of the business that it's resume. I should also add the other term for this is slave, and it's

something that everyone's fucking dancing around. And the reason the AGI people Kevin Ruson included, don't want to talk about what the actual consequences of conscious AI, which is fictional by the way, are is because what people are describing me with AGI is a form of slavery. If this thing is conscious, it means that we are enslaving a conscious being to do our bidding. That's called slavery. And

we're not going to get AGI from these freaks. But I think the next person that interviews Wario Ama Day or Sam Moltman or satchan Adella and they bring up agents, they should say they should bring up AGI and say what do you think of AGI? Get talking about it and then say so this conscious creation? They say yes, and you say this conscious creation that you own? Yes, so you own the conscious creation? Yes, I own the agent. Great, so you own slaves? And just see what they do,

because that really is it. I feel like every AGI conversation really that this is what they don't want to talk about because they're describing how do we make a digital slave and they're afraid of that language because they know the shit storm that would come, which is why I think everyone needs to start calling it that it is slavery. That's what they're trying to do. They want a digital wife, or a digital work slaver, or a

digital home slave. They love the idea of a robot that does things that go up and get them a soda. And I drink like eleven diet cokes a day. I can get up and do it myself. I'm not fucking stupid or lazy, but I think it's important. This is such a tangent as well. But I'm glad I said

it put back to the thing. As far as the business idiot career goes, though they've mostly built it on only knowing exactly enough to get by, and they don't dig into what large language models can actually do other than hammering away at Chat GPT in saying we must put this in everything, Everything must have AI now. Yet the real problem is that for every business city it's selling a product, there are many more that will buy out.

Which has worked in the past for software as a service or SaaS companies that grew fat and happy, howking giant annual contracts and continual upsells because CIOs and CTOs that's chief information officer and chief technology officers work for business city at CEOs that demand that they put AI in everything now, a nonsensical and desperate rebit that's part of the growth last and part ignorance born of the fear that one gets when they're out of their depth

and want to follow everyone else, and how they are honking Look at every single institution installing some kind of

Chat GPT integration and look for the business idiom. Perhaps it's the cal State University Chancellor Mildred Garcia who claimed that giving everybody a Chat GPT subscription would elevate students' educational experiences across all fields of study in powers faculties teaching and research and help provide the highly educated workforce that will drive California's future AI driven economy, Which is a nonsensical series of words to justify a sixteen point

nine million a year single vendor, no bid contract or a product that is best known as either a shitty search engine or a way for college students to cheat. And I think that any actually tons of teachers listen to this. Sorry for how much that paragraph pissed you off in some ways. By the way, Sam Altman is also the business idiot's antichrist. He takes advantage of a society with a powerful rarely know much other than what

they want to control or dominate. Chat, GPT and other AI tools are for the most part sold based on what they might do in the future to people that will never really use them. An Aortman has done well to manipulate, pest and terrify those empowered the idea that they might miss out on something. Does anyone know what

what it is? No, they don't, because the powerful are business idiots, too willing to accept anything that somebody brings along that makes them feel good or bad in a way that they can make headlines with in any case, alltmand's whole Slopenheimer motif has worked wonders on the business idiots in the markets and global governments that fear what AI could do. Even if they can't really define artificial intelligence or what it could do or what it is,

they're scared of it doing. The fear of China's rise in AI is one particularly based on sinophobia, but also based on the fact that China has their own business idiot's willing to shovel hundreds of millions of dollars into data centers which are, according to some stories, not being used over there is that good anyway. Generative AI has created a reckoning between the business idiot and the rest

of the society. It's forced adoption and proliferation, providing a meager return for the massive investment of capital, and the revulsion it causes in many people, not just in the business idiot's excitement in replacing them, but how wrong the business idia is. Well, there are people that dick around with chat GBT. Years since it launched, we still can't find a clean way to say what it does and why it matters, other than the fact that everybody agreed it did and a lot of people are putting a

lot of money into things that look like it. The media, now piloted by business idiots, has found itself deplored, its reporters, unprepared, unwilling, and unsupported. The backbone torn out of most newsrooms for fear that they're being too critical and that doing so is somehow not being objected, despite the fact that what

you choose to cover objectively is still subjective. Report are still to this day as these companies burn hundreds of billions of dollars to make an industry the size of the mobile free to play gaming industry, refuse to save things that bluntly, because the cost of influence is coming down and these companies have some of the smartest people in the world, they ignore the truth that sits in front of them that the combined annual recurring revenue of

the Information's comprehensive database of every single generative AI company is less than ten billion dollars or four billion dollars if you remove anthropic and open AI. You can add on top of that, by the way, the thirteen billion dollars that Microsoft makes, ten billion dollars of which is open AI's compute spend on Azure and there's an information story behind that too. Yeah, it's so small, man, it's so small. The revenue is so small. I cannot get

over how small it is. But chat GPT's popularity is

the ultimate business city, its success story. It's the fastest growing product in Silicon Valley history that didn't grow because it was super useful or good at anything, or able to do a specific thing, but because it could do a lot of vague things, and because the media is controlled by business idiots who decided it was the next big thing and started talking about it NonStop since November twenty twenty two, guaranteeing that everybody would try it, and

even to this day, even if the company can't really explain what it is you're meant to use it for, everybody still acts super impressed. Much like the business city it themselves. Chat gpt doesn't need to do anything specific. It just needs to make the right sounds at the right times to impress people that barely care what it does other than the fact it makes them feel forward looking,

trail blazing and futuristic. Real people, regular people, not business idiots, not middle and just not executives, not coaches, not NBA's not CEOs, not Kevin Bruce, not Neeli Patel have seen this for what it was early and often, but real people are seldom the ones with the keys, and the media, even the people writing good stuff rigally fails to directly and clearly say what's going on. The media is scared of doing the wrong thing, of getting in trouble with

someone for misquoting them or misreading what they said. And in a society where in depth knowledge is subordinate to knowing enough catchphrases, the fight often doesn't feel worth it. Even with Needitor is blessing and frankly, I don't believe that most outlets give their writers any backing. Sam Willman humiliated a writer from The Verge last year. I didn't see fucking Neeli Patel say boo. Probably can see once I'm on the pod. I'm backing on Neelight because Neil

has done some good shit at some point. It's just that when you have power and you use it in such a Lasaday's agal power forward way, someone's got to do it, you know. I wanted to wrap this up into a nice two part, so that was the original plan. I couldn't do it. It's not going to happen. But this next one's gonna be fun. The third part is gonna be a laugh. It's gonna give you some hope, and we'll both enjoy being pissy about something together. And

this next episode will truly wrap this up. And I really appreciate you for listening to our first three part episode. I'll see you tomorrow. Thank you for listening to Better Offline.