Speaker 1: Welcome to zero. I am Akshatrati this week. The billionaire
Speaker 1: taking on Elon Musk, Vinoth Cosla is the definition of
Speaker 1: a Silicon Valley veteran. In the nineteen eighties, he started
Speaker 1: Sun Microsystems, which was later acquired by Oracle in twenty
Speaker 1: ten for seven point four billion dollars, and in the
Speaker 1: decades since, his influence in the tech world has only grown.
Speaker 1: After his stint at Sun, he became an investor, starting
Speaker 1: with Kleiner Perkins. In two thousand and four, he founded
Speaker 1: Cosla Ventures, which has backed big tech success stories like door, dash, Stripe,
Speaker 1: and Instacart. Cosla Ventures now has fifteen billion dollars in
Speaker 1: assets under management, including more than four hundred companies in
Speaker 1: the portfolio, things like plant based burger replacement company Impossible Foods,
Speaker 1: and Lancetech, which turns pollution into sustainable fuel. At the moment,
Speaker 1: he's especially focused on artificial intelligence, and it's an obsession
Speaker 1: he shares with another tech billionaire founder, Elon Musk. Recently,
Speaker 1: Wynode and Elon have been locked in a pointed debate
Speaker 1: on x not just about AI, but also things like
Speaker 1: beachfront property and immigration and the Big One politics with
Speaker 1: just weeks to go to the US election, I wanted
Speaker 1: to ask Winnode what he thinks the titans of the
Speaker 1: tech industry get right and wrong about politics and climate change.
Speaker 1: I had fun in this conversation, and as you'll hear,
Speaker 1: Winnode did too.
Speaker 2: He also had strong opinions.
Speaker 1: Welcome to the show, winner, Great to be here. Now
Speaker 1: you've seen it all in the climate tech space. You've
Speaker 1: been investing in the space for more than twenty years,
Speaker 1: and you still invest in climate startups even today. And
Speaker 1: there have been some real success stories, like for Terror,
Speaker 1: which makes low carbon cement, which had a big round
Speaker 1: raised recently. There's also a lance attech which turns pollution
Speaker 1: into sustainable fuel. And there have been failures too. But
Speaker 1: as you look at the technology set today, apart from AI,
Speaker 1: what do you think is still missing from the climate
Speaker 1: tech space.
Speaker 3: So I do think there's a compliment to fusion that's very,
Speaker 3: very important. So far, geothermal has mostly been about low
Speaker 3: temperature geothermal, so whether you're talking about EVO or FERVO,
Speaker 3: they do a good job. So they improve the economics
Speaker 3: of geothermal, but want increase capacity fifty fold. I'm interested
Speaker 3: in technologies that operate at four hundred and fifty degrees centigrade,
Speaker 3: not two hundred and fifty degrees centigrade or three hundred
Speaker 3: degrees centigrade.
Speaker 1: And you're going to do that because you will drill deeper,
Speaker 1: and that in accessing these hotter areas, you are going
Speaker 1: to increase the temperature by fifty percent, but power output
Speaker 1: by a lot more than fifty percent.
Speaker 3: That will ten x the amount of power produced from
Speaker 3: the same well. So one you can get ten x
Speaker 3: the amount of power and be a much bigger play.
Speaker 3: But more importantly, it can really work in many more
Speaker 3: locations at four hun and fifty degrees if we solve
Speaker 3: one problem that we don't understand how to solve today
Speaker 3: and we are working on actively, which is how do
Speaker 3: you drill at four hundred and fifty degrees because metal
Speaker 3: drills don't work, and that's been the technical problem. If
Speaker 3: we solve that, and we have two separate efforts to
Speaker 3: do that, geothermal can be a very large percentage of
Speaker 3: your selectricity. Most of the western United States we can
Speaker 3: access four hundred and fifty degree heat if we get
Speaker 3: a couple of technologies right, and that's where technology risk
Speaker 3: is needed today. Geothermal is point four percent of your selectricity,
Speaker 3: and we've seen Google signs some deals and others. Those
Speaker 3: are incremental technologies in my view. But if we want
Speaker 3: to go from point four percent to ten percent or
Speaker 3: twenty percent or more of US electricity, you need four
Speaker 3: hundred and fifty degree geothermal, and I think we are
Speaker 3: well on our way right.
Speaker 1: And then one thing that has happened recently with the
Speaker 1: AI boom is requirement for energy has gone up a lot,
Speaker 1: and you've seen tech companies recently start to invest in
Speaker 1: small modular reactors. Microsoft has a deal, Google has a
Speaker 1: Amazon has a deal. What do you think about the
Speaker 1: future of nuclear fission through small modular reactors? Is this
Speaker 1: just a new hype cycle or are we entering a
Speaker 1: new phase of growth for nuclear fission.
Speaker 3: I think the people who are doing SMRs and other
Speaker 3: versions of fission like care power are doing a good
Speaker 3: job of developing the technology. And I'm a huge fan
Speaker 3: of more nuclear fission deployment, so I'm a real fan
Speaker 3: if he can make it happen. Unfortunately, I think the
Speaker 3: problem is a social one and nimbiism and lawsuits against
Speaker 3: fission projects will cause ten year plus maybe fifteen year
Speaker 3: delays in even finding a site that's approved, that the
Speaker 3: community has gone through, community has approved. Nobody wants a
Speaker 3: nuclear plant, a fission plant, anywhere near their neighborhoods. So
Speaker 3: I think the fundamental problem is that technology. And I
Speaker 3: wish there was a dictator who dictates, say you are
Speaker 3: going to get a nuclear fission plant a well, but
Speaker 3: fission is so much more possible now. I do think
Speaker 3: five six years from now, we won't be talking about
Speaker 3: fission because fusion will be real.
Speaker 1: Right now, talking about dictators, the US election is coming up,
Speaker 1: and you've made it clear who you support. You tweeted,
Speaker 1: It's hard for me to support someone with no values,
Speaker 1: who lies, cheats, rapes, demeans women, hates immigrants like me.
Speaker 1: He may cut my taxes or reduce some regulations, but
Speaker 1: that is no reason to accept depravity in his personal values. Now,
Speaker 1: putting aside the question of personal values, I want to
Speaker 1: ask you how you feel about the two candidates when
Speaker 1: you think about it as a tech investor. What changes
Speaker 1: in terms of our technological future under Trump versus under Harris.
Speaker 3: I don't think there'll be any difference in policy between
Speaker 3: the two when it comes to tech. Trump has historically
Speaker 3: created in benefit of traditional players instead of new players,
Speaker 3: so his instincts during his last administration was the incumbents
Speaker 3: get the benefit of the doubt as opposed to the
Speaker 3: technologists get the benefit of the doubt. I don't think
Speaker 3: he had very friendly policies to tech last time around,
Speaker 3: and clearly the Biden administration listens a lot more. The
Speaker 3: Executive Order on AI was a really balanced approach to
Speaker 3: AI regulation. Clearly there were huge number of Republicans and
Speaker 3: Democrats supporting that executive order, and I engage with any
Speaker 3: of them. That was balanced policy. What else would say
Speaker 3: is Trump tends to do more Nieja things based on
Speaker 3: who he's talked to most recently than a thoughtful ten
Speaker 3: twenty year policy. So I'm very afraid of random things
Speaker 3: Trump might do.
Speaker 1: So, and I know you've been thinking a lot about
Speaker 1: this election. I these days don't spend that much time
Speaker 1: on X, but every so often when I'm there, I
Speaker 1: have seen this exchange you've had with Elon about Trump. Now.
Speaker 1: Elon Musk is one of the biggest donors to the
Speaker 1: Trump campaign. According to The New York Times, he's given
Speaker 1: seventy five million dollars in this quarter, and you called
Speaker 1: Musk's interview off Trump dumb, and then he responded by
Speaker 1: calling you dumb. And this back and forth has been
Speaker 1: going out for quite sometimes. You've argued about immigration, about OpenAI,
Speaker 1: about climate change. And I don't want to disturb our
Speaker 1: lovely conversation by recapping all the things that happen and
Speaker 1: on X, but I do want to get into some
Speaker 1: of these exchanges because I think they're not just internet spats.
Speaker 1: There are some substantive discussions here about climate. People have
Speaker 1: thought Elon Musk was a climate guy, but now he's
Speaker 1: backing Trump, who likes to riff on the green news camp.
Speaker 1: So what are you doing outside of X to change
Speaker 1: Elon's mind on climate change? Have you reached out to
Speaker 1: his inner circle? Have you talked to board members at
Speaker 1: SpaceX and Tesla, who I presume you have connections to.
Speaker 3: So let me first address my conversation with Elan, because
Speaker 3: it's mostly been civilized, logical back and forth. Right when
Speaker 3: I first called the conversation around climate as dumb, which
Speaker 3: was very specifically saying this climate policy assertions are dumb,
Speaker 3: responded and we had a back and forth, and I
Speaker 3: think it was a civilized back and forth. So I
Speaker 3: think Ilan didn't want to address the climate issue, which
Speaker 3: is fine. But I responded by saying, my priorities for
Speaker 3: a president are values first, climate, second, economics third. On
Speaker 3: all three, Kamala Harris wins. So on values, nobody can
Speaker 3: have as bad a set of values as Trump has shown.
Speaker 3: But on climate, he's been very clear his policy is drill, baby, drill,
Speaker 3: and he dances to that tune. But on economics, sixteen
Speaker 3: Nobel Prize economists have set high tariffs and taking ten
Speaker 3: million farm work or immigrant workers and deporting them will
Speaker 3: be an economic disaster. These are Nobel Prize winning economists
Speaker 3: who say inflation will get through the roof and carits
Speaker 3: will of course raise prices. So the consequences of his
Speaker 3: economic policy are horrendously bad if he goes through with them,
Speaker 3: which he probably will, and.
Speaker 1: He said he will go through with it. In a
Speaker 1: recent interview with John Micklethwaite, whose Bloomberg News is editor
Speaker 1: in chief, he said he's ticking a tariffs even though
Speaker 1: economists clearly say is going to hurt the US economy.
Speaker 1: But going back to elon, if you think you're having
Speaker 1: a logical conversation with him, and you think you have
Speaker 1: these strong set of arguments on all these things, these
Speaker 1: three points. Why is Elon still supporting Trump? Why aren't
Speaker 1: you able to convince him to change his mind if
Speaker 1: you are having a logical conversation.
Speaker 3: Well, so, first let me say the logical conversation. I
Speaker 3: pressed him a couple of times to say, was the
Speaker 3: election's last elections stolen? And his answer in then, after
Speaker 3: avoiding it for a bit, was no, it wasn't stolen,
Speaker 3: which is a rational answer, probably the only correct answer
Speaker 3: that everybody would say, except Trump. It's a new test
Speaker 3: for loyalty. It's my test for marga extremism. If you'd
Speaker 3: believe the election was stolen, I don't want to talk
Speaker 3: to you. That's the beginning.
Speaker 1: Well, Elon is now one of the richest people, if
Speaker 1: not the richest person in the world, and you've also
Speaker 1: clashed with him on the role of government in supporting innovation.
Speaker 1: You've made it clear, which is actually true, that both
Speaker 1: Tesla and SpaceX wouldn't have become the companies they have
Speaker 1: without US government subsidies. But Elon thinks otherwise, Why is
Speaker 1: that the case? If that, again is a factually true
Speaker 1: logical argument.
Speaker 3: Well, I'm a huge admirer of Elan. He was an
Speaker 3: instigator of the change to electric and without him it
Speaker 3: wouldn't have happened. He's been hugely successful with space AX,
Speaker 3: so you have to give him credit. He's a great
Speaker 3: entrepreneur and he's done a lot of good for the world. Now,
Speaker 3: I don't believe Kesler would have survived without the early subsidies.
Speaker 3: The first couple of billion dollars of subsidies for Tesla
Speaker 3: allowed him to survive. Now, Elan's a daring entrepreneur. He
Speaker 3: almost went Backkraft a couple of times, but he every
Speaker 3: time he was willing to push his personal wealth, put
Speaker 3: it at risk and risk takers. I hugely admire for
Speaker 3: the cause he was after. So same thing with space AX.
Speaker 3: I think it was phenomenal catching. Essentially the equivalent of
Speaker 3: a falling building with chopsticks. It's a little bit of
Speaker 3: an analogy, but it is stunning engineering. So I'm a
Speaker 3: huge fan of what he's done in space and electric
Speaker 3: cars and a couple of other areas he's driven the
Speaker 3: world for great innovation. Having said that, I do think
Speaker 3: Ilan has focused on one issue that he's dealt with
Speaker 3: which is too much regulation? And I don't think regulation
Speaker 3: is a top three issue. I think economics, values, and
Speaker 3: climate are the top three issues. And I would like
Speaker 3: to see less regulation. But there are times when regulation
Speaker 3: does make sense, like if the FDA regulating what drug
Speaker 3: is approved.
Speaker 1: And so that's why you think he's supporting Trump now
Speaker 1: because if Trump comes in, he's going to take away
Speaker 1: electric car subsidies.
Speaker 3: I don't think that's his motivation. It will help him
Speaker 3: if he take away electric car subsidies. I think his
Speaker 3: motivation is less regulation, not his interest in Tesla or
Speaker 3: SpaceX or anything else.
Speaker 1: After the break, more from my conversation Silicon Valley veteran Cosla.
Speaker 1: By the way, if you've been enjoying this episode, please
Speaker 1: take a moment to share with a friend. Now let's
Speaker 1: take the longer view outside of Elon and your spat.
Speaker 1: If you just look at Silicon Valley and you spend
Speaker 1: majority of your career there, these are people who are
Speaker 1: facts driven. They care about innovation, They want the numbers
Speaker 1: to add up. Recently, that's shown up in them caring
Speaker 1: about climate change. We've seen a number of these billionaires
Speaker 1: investing in climate take innovation not just you, but when
Speaker 1: we look at the moment in the election today, there
Speaker 1: is a very loud, influential tech billionaire crowd, Elon Musk
Speaker 1: being one of them, but he's got others like Peter
Speaker 1: Thiel and Mark and Reeson who are pushing for a
Speaker 1: Trump election that, according to you, will affect these three things.
Speaker 1: So it values climate and economy. So have you felt
Speaker 1: pressured in this moment to be a more vocal person
Speaker 1: with your views to counter the narrative because Silicon Valley
Speaker 1: in a way is starting to show this seam and
Speaker 1: show this divide.
Speaker 3: So let me be clear. A survey was done recently
Speaker 3: by somebody and said seventy two percent support for Kamala
Speaker 3: Harris over Trump in Silicon Valley. I think the narrative
Speaker 3: of people in Silicon Valley supporting Trump has been amplified
Speaker 3: because it's news. If Silicon Valley is a cultural attitude,
Speaker 3: which I also think it is, then they're only partially
Speaker 3: Silicon Valley and partially subscribed to as Mark says, techno optimism.
Speaker 3: I'm a big fan of techno optimism. In fact, I've
Speaker 3: been using that phrase, but I add two words to
Speaker 3: techno optimism that Mark Hits. It's techno optimism with care
Speaker 3: and caring and care means safety and regulatory like an AI.
Speaker 3: But there's a balance to be achieved because capitalism is
Speaker 3: by permission of democracy, and we don't have permission for capitalism.
Speaker 3: I think it'll be rained in.
Speaker 1: So in a way, we're talking about regulations as this
Speaker 1: big dividing line. There's the people on the right who
Speaker 1: are supporting from who don't want regulations, and then there
Speaker 1: are people on the left who are wanting regulations because
Speaker 1: they think they need this care because technology is a
Speaker 1: difficult double ed sword and you need.
Speaker 3: Let me be clear, I think we have too much regulation.
Speaker 3: I'm saying some regulation is needed. A lot of regulation
Speaker 3: is not needed.
Speaker 1: So let me be clear, say, Kamala Harris wins, what
Speaker 1: would be your dream role in a Harris administration to
Speaker 1: address the too much regulation point? No role.
Speaker 3: I never want to do anything in any administration, Republican democratic.
Speaker 3: I'm a registered independent. By the way, I used to
Speaker 3: be a Republican and changed to independent after the Republicans
Speaker 3: stopped supporting climate issues. Let's be clear, Bush supported climate
Speaker 3: Many people like Lindsey Graham and others Republican Senators supported climate,
Speaker 3: but now it's become unacceptable to support climate if you're
Speaker 3: a Republican. I think that's unfortunate, and that's when I
Speaker 3: registered to be an independent. But I'll never have a
Speaker 3: role in any administration, no matter what the role.
Speaker 1: I'm just saying, if you want to address this issue
Speaker 1: of too much regulation, what should the administration be doing?
Speaker 1: Even if you don't take a role.
Speaker 3: In, I think we have to systematically look at all
Speaker 3: areas with both the administration, the Senate and the House
Speaker 3: and start to reduce overhead for getting things done quickly.
Speaker 1: Are there too much regulations in the climate space? You
Speaker 1: mentioned a little bit about permitting issues, et cetera, but
Speaker 1: anything else.
Speaker 3: Generally, California has bad policy when it comes to implementing
Speaker 3: climate projects. So our cement plant in northern California for
Speaker 3: Terra was delayed significantly and frankly costs so much more
Speaker 3: because of some frog and so that does happen in California,
Speaker 3: and California needs to fix that.
Speaker 1: So, given disagreements, but you're also a fan of Elon
Speaker 1: Kamala Harris has promised that she will put a Republican
Speaker 1: in her cabinet if she's elected, would you support Elon
Speaker 1: getting that Republican seat.
Speaker 3: Oh, I won't speak for Kamala. Of course, I'd be supportive,
Speaker 3: depending upon what that is.
Speaker 1: This is a lot of deregulation, right. He wants to
Speaker 1: bring in efficiency in government and wants to deregulate.
Speaker 3: No, I think he could do that job pretty well.
Speaker 3: My bet is he'd get frustrated with all the processes
Speaker 3: and procedures. But I'd be supportive of that absolutely.
Speaker 1: And given there is a real chance that Donald Trump
Speaker 1: is going to win the election, have you reached out
Speaker 1: to his team to try and change their mind on
Speaker 1: climate given how much of an impact that could have
Speaker 1: in your view?
Speaker 3: Well, I'm hoping if they do win, which I hope
Speaker 3: won't happen, Elan would be that advocate for a better
Speaker 3: approach to climate. Look at it this way, and I
Speaker 3: think many people would agree with me. We do have
Speaker 3: thirty four trillion in economic debt has to be addressed,
Speaker 3: but we have much larger climate that we're accumulating, and
Speaker 3: climate debt is much harder to pay off than economic debt.
Speaker 3: Take a simple example, right, I think the twenty year
Speaker 3: forecast for the amount of wealth transfer from rich people
Speaker 3: to their kids is about eighty trillion over the next
Speaker 3: twenty years. Taxing that at twenty five thirty percent would
Speaker 3: pay off most of our debt. For example, there's other
Speaker 3: inflationary strategies to pay off debt. I do believe economic
Speaker 3: debt is easier to pay off than climate debt, and
Speaker 3: so climate that should be our great priority.
Speaker 1: Now, one thing that you have cared about a lot,
Speaker 1: given you move to Silicon Valley from India and how
Speaker 1: much climate change is going to affect developing countries, especially India.
Speaker 1: One way in which America can contribute to the world
Speaker 1: is through technology leadership, through ensuring that these green technologies
Speaker 1: are cheaper and they're widely accessible. Right now, that is
Speaker 1: not what America is doing. It is China that is
Speaker 1: making these green technologies cheaper and more available to developing countries.
Speaker 1: What do you think America needs to do to actually
Speaker 1: play the role of realizing the costs and making these
Speaker 1: technologies really affordable.
Speaker 3: Look, America doesn't own any of the climate technologies. Private
Speaker 3: companies do. So if we have a new fusion technology,
Speaker 3: it depend on that company to decide where they deploy it,
Speaker 3: not depend on the US government. Now, China paid attention
Speaker 3: to solar, and solar is now a half a trillion
Speaker 3: dollar market annually, and we lost the lead in manufacturing
Speaker 3: a couple of countries Europe, and Europe is a hopeless
Speaker 3: case when it comes to regulation, and the US should
Speaker 3: try and develop battery technology, but it looks like the
Speaker 3: Chinese companies will own battery technology manufacturing at the lowest
Speaker 3: costs unless we have breakthroughs, which we are trying. So
Speaker 3: quantum scape is a great example of a technology that
Speaker 3: can win against the Chinese. So we have to win
Speaker 3: at these But there are new areas. Obviously fusion would
Speaker 3: be one of those massive areas. Steel could be one
Speaker 3: of those areas, though there's very little steel business in
Speaker 3: the US. Cement is clearly an area where US could lead.
Speaker 3: So there's very very large markets the US could win
Speaker 3: at and US companies would then deploy them and not
Speaker 3: transfer them to China. So I'm very much at China
Speaker 3: Hawk and do feel like we should be very aggressive
Speaker 3: with China, but I do think it will depend on
Speaker 3: innovators to develop new technologies, not try and address lost markets.
Speaker 1: But aren't you contradicting yourself when you say that it's
Speaker 1: only company is that choose and that decide which countries
Speaker 1: they build their technology in, while also saying you see
Speaker 1: the role of how government subsidies have been important in
Speaker 1: certain types of early stage technologies and early companies to
Speaker 1: actually take off. Right a Tesla? Could it have happened
Speaker 1: in Europe? According to you, why did it happen in America.
Speaker 3: If they didn't have the early subsidies for electric cars?
Speaker 3: I don't believe it'd be hard. It'd be hard to
Speaker 3: build that company. I won't say impossible, but very hard
Speaker 3: to build a company on strict economics because there was
Speaker 3: a huge cost when the volumes were low. But we
Speaker 3: did get Tesla going, but we lost the battery market.
Speaker 3: We might have said, for example, that you don't get
Speaker 3: subsidies if you're importing your batteries from China, for example.
Speaker 1: Right, But if that is the case, then you are
Speaker 1: saying that the government does play a role. So is
Speaker 1: it just companies that are going to build a technology?
Speaker 1: Does it not matter what governments are doing to enable
Speaker 1: these technologies to be built out?
Speaker 3: So climate technologies need both breakthrough innovation and good policy,
Speaker 3: and good policy means kickstart those innovations. Because day one
Speaker 3: they can't compete with, say oil and gas, and oil
Speaker 3: and gas have huge subsidies. I mean the amount we've
Speaker 3: spent trillions and trillions of dollars defending the oil lanes
Speaker 3: in the midies. Those are subsidies because without those defense
Speaker 3: spending costs, oil and gas would be way more expensive.
Speaker 3: So that's an example. You have tax policy like MLPs
Speaker 3: master limited partnerships that are subsidies to the oil and
Speaker 3: gas industry. So we have subsidies and industrial policy everywhere,
Speaker 3: whether we like it or not. But good policy can
Speaker 3: courage climate technologies. But the core of climate technologies is
Speaker 3: going to be innovation at which America is best.
Speaker 1: One last question for you, what should India be doing
Speaker 1: right now in trying to fight climate change.
Speaker 3: Well, first, India can much less afford some of this,
Speaker 3: especially when they're at high higher than fossil competitors. I
Speaker 3: call any technology as important if he'll eventually get to
Speaker 3: the Chindia price right be adapted in India or China,
Speaker 3: irrespective of climate or not. Solar has reached that and
Speaker 3: India is deploying solar very heavily, and that's a great thing.
Speaker 3: But could India afford technologies today that cost more than
Speaker 3: their fossil competitors or afford to subsidize them. No, and
Speaker 3: I do think the West and West won't transfer billions
Speaker 3: of dollars or hundreds of billions of dollars a year
Speaker 3: to the developing world, but they can get technologies going
Speaker 3: in their own countries and win the manufacturing battles, so
Speaker 3: they get benefit from these new climate technologies when they
Speaker 3: get to unsubsidized comparative nests and then deploy them all
Speaker 3: over the world.
Speaker 1: Great, thank you for not thank you, thank you for
Speaker 1: listening to Zero. And now for the sound of the week,
Speaker 1: we can see those. That's the sound of the SpaceX
Speaker 1: starship Rockets upper stage being caught mid air. If you
Speaker 1: like this episode, please take a moment to rate and
Speaker 1: review the show on Apple Podcasts and Spotify. Share this
Speaker 1: episode with a friend or with someone who is still
Speaker 1: on X. You can get in touch at zero pod
Speaker 1: at Bloomberg dot Net. Zero's producer is Mike lee Raw.
Speaker 1: This episode was mixed by Blake Maples. Bloomberg's head of
Speaker 1: Podcasts is Seje Bauman and head of Talk is Brendan
Speaker 1: nunam Our. Theme music is composed by wonderly Special thanks
Speaker 1: to Shawan Wagner, Jessica beck Ethan Steinberg, Monique Malima, Angel Roussio,
Speaker 1: Michelle ma and Biz Carson. I am Akshatrati back soon.
Speaker 3: Oh. I think they were great questions, and I think
Speaker 3: I had good answers. I get sometimes I get a
Speaker 3: little too excitable about these