Speaker 1: Alz Media. Hello and welcome to a special exclusive episode
Speaker 1: of Better Offline. I'm Your host ed Zitron. As a
Speaker 1: result of discussions with sources and documents viewed of the
Speaker 1: amounts built on Amazon Web Services, I am for the
Speaker 1: first time in history able to disclose how much AI
Speaker 1: firms are spending on AWS, specifically Anthropic and a coding
Speaker 1: company Cursor, its largest customer for API services. I can
Speaker 1: exclusively reveal today how much Anthropics spent on AWS for
Speaker 1: the years twenty twenty four and from the beginning of
Speaker 1: twenty twenty five through the end of September twenty twenty five,
Speaker 1: and from what I can see, their compute spend may
Speaker 1: vastly exceed what has previously been reported. Furthermore, I can
Speaker 1: confirm that through the end of September twenty twenty five,
Speaker 1: Anthropic is spent around one hundred percent of their revenue
Speaker 1: in twenty twenty five on Amazon Web Services, spending two
Speaker 1: point sixty six billion dollars on compute on an estimated
Speaker 1: two point five five billion dollars in revenue. Go to
Speaker 1: the newsletter. I source the whole goddamn thing, and if
Speaker 1: I'm honest, this piece is the culmination of several months
Speaker 1: of articles about how Anthropics business tactics have made be
Speaker 1: turned the screws on their biggest customer. I can exclusively
Speaker 1: reveal today, as well as many other numbers in the newsletter,
Speaker 1: the curs of Amazon Web services bills doubled from six
Speaker 1: point two million dollars in May twenty twenty five to
Speaker 1: twelve point six million dollars in June twenty twenty five,
Speaker 1: and have stayed inflated since Anthropic increased the costs with
Speaker 1: the launch of priority servers, tiers and aggressive rent seeking measure.
Speaker 1: I need to be clear I cannot one hundred percent
Speaker 1: guarantee that's what did it. I'm going to hedge my
Speaker 1: bets very hard on that, but it certainly Bloody Wealth
Speaker 1: seems that way. It's my guard instinct. I'm not going
Speaker 1: to say it declaratively, but I'm going to show you
Speaker 1: why I believe this, And I admit I struggled with
Speaker 1: how to turn this into an episode because the newsletter,
Speaker 1: which is on my free feed, is a series of
Speaker 1: numbers and analyzes that if I just read them aloud,
Speaker 1: would sound extremely dull and at times be quite hard
Speaker 1: to follow. It's not something that naturally plays well for radio.
Speaker 1: So instead of giving you the audible version, I'm going
Speaker 1: to give you the cliff notes and speak to a
Speaker 1: degree of vindication I feel on reading these costs. So
Speaker 1: let's start with a number. One point two two five
Speaker 1: billion dollars. That's how much Anthropic spent on Amazon Web
Speaker 1: Services in the third quarter of twenty twenty five. They
Speaker 1: spent eight hundred and twenty nine point seven million in
Speaker 1: Q two twenty twenty five, and six hundred and ten
Speaker 1: million dollars in Q one twenty twenty five. Oh and
Speaker 1: one other number, they spent one point three five billion
Speaker 1: dollars on AWS and twenty twenty four. So yeah, just
Speaker 1: in another way, talking of their twenty twenty five numbers,
Speaker 1: anthropics spend on AWS doubled over the course of three quarters.
Speaker 1: Now a little backstory about Anthropic that's necessary to understand
Speaker 1: this fully. Anthropic was originally invested in by both Google
Speaker 1: and Amazon. According to The New York Times, Google owns
Speaker 1: around fourteen percent of the company. An analyst, yes Tomate,
Speaker 1: Amazon owned somewhere between fifteen and eighteen percent, and both have,
Speaker 1: in not so many words, said that they're the main
Speaker 1: or primary compute part for Aanthropic. It's unclear how much
Speaker 1: Anthropic spends on Google Cloud, but semi analysis believes they're
Speaker 1: a big client, and that's about as much detail as
Speaker 1: I can get from anywhere I've really looked. In any case,
Speaker 1: Anthropic is spending effectively every dollar they make on Amazon
Speaker 1: Web Services, and Amazon has appears to be booking this
Speaker 1: as revenue, though I can't directly confirm that, though I
Speaker 1: do know these numbers are cash, they're after credits. Though
Speaker 1: in the recent months, Anthropic has lowered the amount of
Speaker 1: revenue they're spending on it to eighty six point two
Speaker 1: percent in Q three twenty twenty five, which is an
Speaker 1: improvement from Q two to twenty twenty five, where they
Speaker 1: spent one hundred and six percent of their revenue and
Speaker 1: Q one, where they spent one hundred and seventy five
Speaker 1: percent of what they made on Amazon Web Services. It's
Speaker 1: quite horrifying when you say it out loud. Now, if
Speaker 1: you're thinking that, because these numbers are quite close, that
Speaker 1: this might suggest that Anthropics costs are improving, think again. Anthropics.
Speaker 1: Amazon Web services costs of a habit of massively spiking.
Speaker 1: For example, their AWS bill led from three hundred and
Speaker 1: eighty three point seven million dollars in August twenty twenty
Speaker 1: five to five hundred and eighteen point nine million dollars
Speaker 1: in September twenty twenty five. That's one hundred and thirty
Speaker 1: five million goddamn dollars. And my hunch is it's because
Speaker 1: they have a massive problem where clawed code users are
Speaker 1: each costing them thousands of dollars despite only paying one
Speaker 1: hundred or two hundred dollars a month. There's also the
Speaker 1: nasty matter of Google Cloud. Anthropics Amazon Web Services bill
Speaker 1: is two point sixty six billion dollars from January through
Speaker 1: the end of September, as I said, and that is
Speaker 1: pretty close to two point five to five billion dollars
Speaker 1: in revenue. But if Anthropics spend on Google Cloud was
Speaker 1: only twenty five percent of what they spent on AWS,
Speaker 1: its compute cost would jumped to three point three three
Speaker 1: billion dollars through the end of September, way more than
Speaker 1: it brings in. If it's half of what they spent
Speaker 1: on Amazon Web Services, this becomes a three point nine
Speaker 1: to nine billion dollar compute bill, and if they spend
Speaker 1: the same amount, the bill becomes five point three billion dollars,
Speaker 1: and again that's just through the end of September. Another note,
Speaker 1: cursors spend on Amazon Web services is comparatively small, but
Speaker 1: includes some spend on Anthropics models because Amazon is allowed
Speaker 1: to sell them. And I believe that the reason that
Speaker 1: they do this, because they do directly pay Anthropic like
Speaker 1: they actually send money directly to them, is because Amazon
Speaker 1: offers significant discounts in some cases for running models through
Speaker 1: their service. I think it's their bedrock service, and my
Speaker 1: source confirmed that this was the case, though I could
Speaker 1: not get granular data on what exactly CURSES spend was
Speaker 1: on Amazon, like I can't say, oh, they use this
Speaker 1: model or that model. Now, Cursor spends most of their
Speaker 1: compute money directly with Anthropic, as well as every other
Speaker 1: model developer whose models they use. AWS is a small
Speaker 1: piece of the puzzle, and while small, it's spending data
Speaker 1: provides evidence of how much this shit actually costs, though
Speaker 1: I also concede that some of the money CURSES spends
Speaker 1: with AWS likely goes to the non AI part of
Speaker 1: the business, like file hosting and other tech infrastructure. Nevertheless,
Speaker 1: the timing of the massive jumps in CURSES AWS bill
Speaker 1: from six point two million dollars in May to twelve
Speaker 1: point six million dollars in June directly correlate with the
Speaker 1: massive changes made to their product, increasing the costs on
Speaker 1: any users that wanted to use Cursor in the way
Speaker 1: they had in the past by making them face the
Speaker 1: actual costs of serving models on a per million token basis.
Speaker 1: I've written about this a lot, By the way, it's
Speaker 1: hard to describe it in detail because it's going to
Speaker 1: take forever. But around mid June, Cursor had to change
Speaker 1: everything because mysteriously they had to stop spending so much
Speaker 1: money with their customers. Their customers would burning a hole
Speaker 1: in their pocket, and I think we can kind of
Speaker 1: see why. Curses costs have also never come down, spiking
Speaker 1: to a higher fifteen point five million dollars in June,
Speaker 1: dropping to a still high nine point six million dollars
Speaker 1: in August. I need to spike again to twelve point
Speaker 1: nine million dollars in September, though I cannot declaratively state
Speaker 1: that this is exactly what happened. Curses costs doubled immediately
Speaker 1: following the addition of anthropic service tiers in late May
Speaker 1: twenty twenty five, which require an upfront commitment of token
Speaker 1: spend and token throughput, and when Curser announced the launch
Speaker 1: of their two hundred dollars a month ultraplan amidst massive
Speaker 1: product changes, they cited how it was and I quote
Speaker 1: made possible by multi year partnerships from open Ai, Anthropic,
Speaker 1: Google and Xai, and that their support was instrumental in
Speaker 1: offering this volume of computer the predictable price. Now, really,
Speaker 1: I'm being as fair as I can. Another factor might
Speaker 1: be that the new Claude four models was significantly more expensive.
Speaker 1: It's entirely possible that all of these things are true.
Speaker 1: I just want to make sure I cover my basis
Speaker 1: because I do not know for sure. But the timing,
Speaker 1: the timing man and another thing, you know what. Anthropic
Speaker 1: also launched a week before service Tears a competing product,
Speaker 1: a Cursor called claud Code one that they could run
Speaker 1: with as little restraint as they'd like to drain as
Speaker 1: many monthly customers away from Cursor, who is also their
Speaker 1: largest customer, buying Anthropic models through their API. Real fucking mystery, right,
Speaker 1: If it quacks like a dark where's a T shirt
Speaker 1: that says dark? And Claude tells you you're absolutely right,
Speaker 1: that's a duck. When you upload a picture of it,
Speaker 1: it's probably a fucking duck. But I obviously can't say
Speaker 1: for sure. I need to be explicit here with what happened, though.
Speaker 1: Anthropics supplied access to their models to a company Cursor,
Speaker 1: and then released a product claud Code that did exactly
Speaker 1: the same thing as that company Cursor, turning it both
Speaker 1: into a customer and a competitor in the process, creating
Speaker 1: a massive conflict of interest, as not only did Anthropic
Speaker 1: have an incentive for that customer or competitor to fail,
Speaker 1: though they also needed their compute revenue, which is kind
Speaker 1: of a bugger. Anthropic also had the means to make
Speaker 1: this failure happen in the most painful and expensive way
Speaker 1: possible by worsening the terms in which that competitor required
Speaker 1: the compute it needed to function. Could be a coincidence,
Speaker 1: I guess. And when I say compute, I mean tokens.
Speaker 1: Just I'm reading a script. Okay, where us going to
Speaker 1: eam Anyway, I'm not going to turn this into a massive,
Speaker 1: sprawling episode about this company. I wanted to give you
Speaker 1: the raw information so you can go and read the
Speaker 1: detailed analysis. I did. It's free, by the way, don't worry.
Speaker 1: But now I want to talk about how all this
Speaker 1: made me feel, because that's what makes this show unique.
Speaker 1: I think is the appropriate way of coming out this.
Speaker 1: I'm going to be honest, I find what it looks like,
Speaker 1: and I'm hedging my beds again. Anthropic did to Cursor
Speaker 1: truly disgusting. Cursor hit five hundred million dollars in annualized
Speaker 1: revenue in the same month that they then saw their
Speaker 1: cost double, dramatically reducing the value of their subscription product
Speaker 1: at the apex of their success. Yes, Cursor is an
Speaker 1: unsustainable AI company I know, and like all of these companies,
Speaker 1: has no part of the profitability. Anthropic should have always
Speaker 1: charged sustainable rates, even if it meant that it wasn't
Speaker 1: possible to build a big company based on their models. Sadly,
Speaker 1: we don't live in that universe. And while you could
Speaker 1: make the case that startups like Uber didn't at first
Speaker 1: charge sustainable rates, I'd argue that the reason why its
Speaker 1: initial rates weren't successful was because of the steep upfront
Speaker 1: cost of customer acquisition, which is the problem that could
Speaker 1: be solved through the lifetime of the customer and Uber
Speaker 1: had the means to gradually ratchet up the costs of
Speaker 1: rides or mores. Italy reduced the cut that they pay
Speaker 1: to drivers in a way that wouldn't be immediately paying for. Furthermore,
Speaker 1: Uber never had a fuel problem. What Anthropic has as
Speaker 1: a fuel problem, they have a compute problem for the
Speaker 1: amount that they're paying to run their goddamn services. Cursor
Speaker 1: is also Anthropic's largest customer, and the timing of priority
Speaker 1: tiers to coincide at the moment when they were growing
Speaker 1: fastest is a suspicious and potentially disgraceful move. While you
Speaker 1: could describe it as a necessary step in the direction
Speaker 1: of sustainability, that plausible excuse is undercut by the overall
Speaker 1: timing of the move. One cannot ignore how close the
Speaker 1: launch of these tiers were to the launch of anthropics
Speaker 1: clawed Code, a product that lacks curses, flashy front end,
Speaker 1: but performs similar functions, all subsidized by anthropics massive hordes
Speaker 1: of venture capital, and its chummy relationships with hyperscalers like
Speaker 1: Amazon and Google. The thing is, even with these moves,
Speaker 1: Anthropics still spent a dollar and four cents on Amazon
Speaker 1: Web services for every dollar they made through the end
Speaker 1: of September twenty twenty five, and that's for just twenty
Speaker 1: twenty five. By the way, their costs increase nearly with
Speaker 1: their revenue. And while they've improved, when they spent a
Speaker 1: remarkable two hundred and twenty seven percent of their revenue
Speaker 1: on AWS in January, they still spent eighty eight point
Speaker 1: nine percent of it on a western September. Now, if
Speaker 1: you're worried hearing how close these numbers before, like I said,
Speaker 1: means there's somehow approaching profitability. Good lord, No, I'm repeating myself.
Speaker 1: I realized, But I really need you to come away
Speaker 1: with this with reality in your brain. These digital mister
Speaker 1: beans very likely spend comparable sums on Google Cloud unlikely
Speaker 1: another billion or two one salaries data And I don't
Speaker 1: know that one point five billion dollar settlement with all
Speaker 1: the authors that they just agreed to. This company absolutely
Speaker 1: fucking sucks. I don't care if you like Claude Sonnet
Speaker 1: or claud Opus. I don't give a fuck. Claude Opus
Speaker 1: and Claudes on It are not worth burning billions of
Speaker 1: dollars a year in cloud costs, fueling an environmentally destructive
Speaker 1: plagiarism charge pseudo company that would roll over and die
Speaker 1: within months if it didn't constantly get fed billions of
Speaker 1: dollars a year. What are you gonna tell me they're
Speaker 1: gonna turn this ship around. They're gonna make some sort
Speaker 1: of autonomous AI coder. You know that's bullshit. Every goddamn
Speaker 1: one of you boosters knows that total bullshit. I'm sure
Speaker 1: son at four point five is somewhat better than Sonnet four,
Speaker 1: but what does that actually mean? Anthropic raised twenty billion
Speaker 1: dollars this year? Do we give them more next year?
Speaker 1: I've heard reports that they're actually targeting twenty billion dollars
Speaker 1: in anialized revenue, so one point six to seven billion
Speaker 1: dollars a month in revenue by the end of next year.
Speaker 1: It's an absolute fucking joke. But the only thing funnier
Speaker 1: than that joke is that it will likely cost them
Speaker 1: twenty five billion dollars to make that fictional money. And
Speaker 1: where preytell is that coming from? And why? Why? What
Speaker 1: is so remarkable about this company that gives them a
Speaker 1: free paster burn two point sixty six billion dollars in
Speaker 1: AWS in fucking nine months. I'm not talking about your
Speaker 1: cynical oh, Amazon is booking at is revenue crony capitalisms?
Speaker 1: Here an'tswer it. I'm not, I'm not. I'm talking about
Speaker 1: the scientific or technological reasoning for keeping Anthropic alive. And yes,
Speaker 1: I feel exactly the same way about Open AI. What
Speaker 1: possible achievement does Anthropic have that warrants this needless, endless,
Speaker 1: sprawling financial destruction. Why are we rewarding a company with
Speaker 1: bad business practices for making a product that loses more
Speaker 1: money the more money it makes. I'll even try and
Speaker 1: see this through the eyes of an AI booster. Damn,
Speaker 1: all I'm seeing is blue and yellow anyway, And even
Speaker 1: from here, the only reason to keep Anthropic alive is
Speaker 1: because you see these companies as sports teams. You see
Speaker 1: Dario Amiday as the equivalent of Dan Campbell or Greg Popovich.
Speaker 1: You root for them and their causes because you think
Speaker 1: that if they win, you as a fan will be rewarded.
Speaker 1: You don't think too hard about what it is that
Speaker 1: Claude Sonnet or Claude Opus do, and you find enough
Speaker 1: ways that this is somewhat kind of useful to you,
Speaker 1: and you use those reasons to justify the proliferation of
Speaker 1: a wasteful and destructive technology. What exactly happens here? Anthropics
Speaker 1: AWS bills are not really going down. They've normalized in
Speaker 1: an eighty eight to ninety five percent range and they're
Speaker 1: clearly going to stay there. And if your argument is
Speaker 1: they'll go down, your argument is quite literally no, eh.
Speaker 1: Go read semi analysis for seventeen hours and come up
Speaker 1: with some demented GPU based argument about inference smax scores,
Speaker 1: pretend like you give a shit, come up with a
Speaker 1: real argument against mine, because I am working hard, are
Speaker 1: at this than you are, And if you believe otherwise,
Speaker 1: you should ask yourself why the guy who said Sam
Speaker 1: Altman's no it loads refused cash dump in a premium
Speaker 1: newsletter got this scoop and you did not. But that
Speaker 1: actually leads me to a key question. How long do
Speaker 1: we hand Anthropic and by extension, open AI billions of dollars?
Speaker 1: And for the first time in your goddamn life, it's
Speaker 1: time to ask, what if I'm right? What if these
Speaker 1: companies are incapable of becoming profitable? What if there really
Speaker 1: is no massive demand for generative AI? Do you really
Speaker 1: think Anthropic will make one point six billion dollars a month?
Speaker 1: Sometime in twenty twenty six, do you really think that?
Speaker 1: And even for Amazon, it's kind of shit wow to
Speaker 1: do a couple billion on one hundred and five billion
Speaker 1: dollars of capex. I might have even said this later
Speaker 1: in the script, but just thinking about it makes me
Speaker 1: feel a little crazy. And look, I get there's a
Speaker 1: middle ground here where people say that there's some sort
Speaker 1: of use case that sort of works for AI, where
Speaker 1: you hit it hard enough to write good enough prompts
Speaker 1: or whatever that you like it for search, that your
Speaker 1: brainstorm with it, they helped you pick out a hat
Speaker 1: that you used it to solve some sort of problem. Once,
Speaker 1: I just want to ask you how much of those
Speaker 1: anecdotes really worth to you? How impressed with these things
Speaker 1: are you? Would you pay double, triple, quadruple? Would you
Speaker 1: pay on a meted basis where those little flights of
Speaker 1: fancy cost you a few cents, then ten cents, then
Speaker 1: a dollar, because that's how much it costs to provide
Speaker 1: these services, and at some point you're going to be
Speaker 1: made to pay for it one way or another. Advertising
Speaker 1: won't be the answer. By the way, the literal only
Speaker 1: company to try advertising in large language models is an
Speaker 1: AI search engine company called Perplexity, and they just paused
Speaker 1: accepting new advertisers too, and I quote ad week rethink
Speaker 1: how ads fit into its AI search experience. They made
Speaker 1: twenty thousand dollars in twenty twenty four in advertising revenue.
Speaker 1: Are we supposed to be impressed that Perplexity made enough
Speaker 1: revenue to buy a second hand Toyota Corolla. There are
Speaker 1: people making more money than that's slinging fucking Herbalife. And
Speaker 1: this is literally the exact company that should have succeeded
Speaker 1: based on any kind of ads will fix everything argument.
Speaker 1: And they couldn't even buy courtside tickets at the NBA playoffs.
Speaker 1: The costs are increasing linearly with revenue, and I've fucking
Speaker 1: proved it. I am open to any compelling arguments that
Speaker 1: can explain how this ever changes. And my god, if
Speaker 1: you say trainium, I will absolutely lose my shit. Chips
Speaker 1: aren't fixing this. By the way, if your answer is
Speaker 1: the anthropic will make some sort of theoretical ultrapowerful large
Speaker 1: language model or invent agi, you are a goddamn mark.
Speaker 1: You are being conned. Look join me. I'm serious. There's
Speaker 1: no harm in being wrong I've been wrong tons of
Speaker 1: times in my life. Being wrong and admitting you're wrong
Speaker 1: is an act of bravery. Shit, actually kind of get it.
Speaker 1: This stuff feels if you let it, like it's doing
Speaker 1: something for you, even though interacting with it is actually
Speaker 1: draining you because you're constantly having to find ways to
Speaker 1: make it do what you want it to do, to
Speaker 1: the point that when it actually does something for the
Speaker 1: first time, it almost feels magical. You feel very powerful,
Speaker 1: despite the fact that you have been put to work
Speaker 1: to make automation work. That's not how automation is meant
Speaker 1: to work. And sure, there are software engineers out there
Speaker 1: who have, like any good software engineer, found a way
Speaker 1: to take the useful parts of llms and use them to,
Speaker 1: to quote Carl Brown of the Internet at bugs, make
Speaker 1: the easy things easier. Then there are the ones that
Speaker 1: are spending more time than they were building software, prompting
Speaker 1: l elms and rewriting claude dot md files and thinking
Speaker 1: that because things sort of worked off they hit enter
Speaker 1: that they're privy to a great becoming. And there are
Speaker 1: the victims, of course, of vibe coding startups companies that
Speaker 1: sell the outright lie that somebody who cannot read or
Speaker 1: write software can write secure, effective and functional software. Look,
Speaker 1: I'm serious, join me. If you're an AI booster, I
Speaker 1: don't care. Everybody is welcome. In reality, I don't care
Speaker 1: who you are. I don't care if I've called you
Speaker 1: a booster and given you a verbal swirly one hundred times.
Speaker 1: Now is the time to accept that this software is
Speaker 1: too expensive, too destructive, and too wasteful to continue backing it.
Speaker 1: I'm not even saying you have to say fuck AI
Speaker 1: or shun chat GPT like you're an armish teenager that
Speaker 1: looked at porno. But it's time to be loud and
Speaker 1: direct that these products are not worth the egregious and
Speaker 1: perpetual annihilation of billions of dollars every fucking year. I
Speaker 1: don't even know if this means you have to stop
Speaker 1: using them. I don't want you to, but I don't like.
Speaker 1: What are we gonna do. These things are not gonna
Speaker 1: go away because you stopped using Claude. They're gonna go
Speaker 1: away because you stop talking about them. They're gonna go
Speaker 1: away because they cost too much in their pay pigs
Speaker 1: stop paying them. What I am advocating for is for
Speaker 1: everybody to openly discuss that the amount of money it
Speaker 1: costs to run these companies is that odds with what
Speaker 1: they have built, are building and will build in the future.
Speaker 1: Nothing they are building is moving towards superintelligence or AGI.
Speaker 1: No combination of Amazon Tranium or Google TPUs is going
Speaker 1: to usher in the birth of the machine guard. The
Speaker 1: products they make are, at best, and in inconsistent moments,
Speaker 1: kind of cool, but one hundred times more often mediocre, unreliable,
Speaker 1: and outright ridiculous, even if you really get a lot
Speaker 1: out of these models. Do you think that these companies
Speaker 1: should be allowed to burn billions of dollars every year?
Speaker 1: How much do you think they should be allowed to burn?
Speaker 1: And how much is too much for you? It's time
Speaker 1: to start having this conversation and having it publicly, especially
Speaker 1: as Clammy Sam Mortman Bloviate's about building two hundred and
Speaker 1: fifty gigawatts of data centers in seven goddamn years at
Speaker 1: the cost of one third of America's entire fucking economic
Speaker 1: output in twenty twenty four. Anyway, this has been a
Speaker 1: big day for me, so I'm going to leave it there.
Speaker 1: It's a huge scoop. I'm grateful that I get to
Speaker 1: do this every day, grateful for you listening, and grateful
Speaker 1: for your reading. I hope you've enjoyed this episode and
Speaker 1: thank you as eva for supporting my work. Thank you
Speaker 1: for listening to Better Offline. The editor and composer of
Speaker 1: the Better Offline theme song is Matasowski. You can check
Speaker 1: out more of his music and audio projects at Matasowski
Speaker 1: dot com, M A T T O. S O w
Speaker 1: Ski dot com. You can email me at easy at
Speaker 1: Better Offline dot com or visit Better Offline dot com
Speaker 1: to find more podcast links and of course, my newsletter.
Speaker 1: I also really recommend you go to chat dot Where's
Speaker 1: Youreed dot at to visit the discord, and go to
Speaker 1: our slash Better Offline to check out our reddit. Thank
Speaker 1: you so much for listening. Better Offline is a production
Speaker 1: of cool Zone Media. For more from cool Zone Media,
Speaker 1: visit our website cool Zonemedia dot com, or check us
Speaker 1: out on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you
Speaker 1: get your podcasts.