Speaker 1: It's my worst and I haven't here.
Speaker 2: Talk to me about this hair who flex and rooms?
Speaker 1: It's lex and brooms cater.
Speaker 3: Today we're talking about whether or not having a backup
Speaker 3: boy is a bad thing. So this essentially refers to
Speaker 3: when you have a partner and then you have someone
Speaker 3: waiting in the wings.
Speaker 2: I would like to introduce a concept that I have
Speaker 2: called next in line please, and it's when you see
Speaker 2: someone who is eligible and you're not that close with them,
Speaker 2: but you think to yourself, I'd like to be next
Speaker 2: in line for you once that relationship deteriorates, I would
Speaker 2: like to be considered damn.
Speaker 3: And also I have found out through a woman called
Speaker 3: Emily Naysmith who runs Ingridipedia podcast the especially ingredient in Boston.
Speaker 3: Mun's my favorite snack from Baker's Delight.
Speaker 2: I can't believe that's what they're.
Speaker 3: Called, mate, I know. Just just you wait for this one.
Speaker 3: It's flex and frooms.
Speaker 1: Let's go. This is flex and frooms.
Speaker 3: I'm cater, make nomous, I get myself around a bakery,
Speaker 3: treat give me a little Baker's Delight. Tell me why
Speaker 3: I'm going to my local rumbies and I'm loving the
Speaker 3: little hats they're wearing.
Speaker 2: So you like corporate bake treats.
Speaker 1: I don't mind both. I'd prefer one.
Speaker 3: I like the ones that have the bread and it's
Speaker 3: like not sour dough, like the ones where give me
Speaker 3: the white sluiced with the slaugh so police and the
Speaker 3: little tiny pizzas. Now I came across this podcast. It's
Speaker 3: called ingredia Pedia, ingreedy Pedia.
Speaker 2: So like ingredients, like an encyclopedia of ingredients.
Speaker 1: Ingreedypedia exactly.
Speaker 3: And it is by a woman called Emily Nay Smith.
Speaker 3: I'm not gonna lie. I don't know what the man's
Speaker 3: name is. And however, and that's okay.
Speaker 2: We are on a bit of a tight schedule.
Speaker 3: It's podcast and this radio show, so.
Speaker 2: Research in fact checking could not happen.
Speaker 3: Yeah, the other day on Emily's story, she posted it
Speaker 3: about Boston buns.
Speaker 1: So they're these like.
Speaker 3: Bunge you can get it from Brumbies or baker like.
Speaker 3: They are like a long bun or somethings, like a
Speaker 3: round bun, and they've got the icing.
Speaker 2: And the desecrated coconut.
Speaker 3: The desecrated, desecrated, desecrated is like when someone's dead. So
Speaker 3: it's a desicated coconut.
Speaker 2: They're too close for me.
Speaker 3: And Emily talks about how she would like lick all
Speaker 3: the icing off the bun. I personally like to eat
Speaker 3: it whole. Well, so please be gentle. She's a big
Speaker 3: fan of the podcast. You just said, Ill, Yeah, you're
Speaker 3: a PO, you're a post, you're a co host. And
Speaker 3: I would still say, ill, I'm.
Speaker 2: A PO host and you're a LA.
Speaker 1: Get my moment in your mouth? Do you know?
Speaker 2: I don't the licking that gets me. The thing about
Speaker 2: licking the the the cream off the Boston bun is
Speaker 2: I think I just have very uncomfortable memories of watching
Speaker 2: fellow children play with food when I was younger, and
Speaker 2: I really didn't like it, And now as an adult,
Speaker 2: I've doubled down.
Speaker 3: The same people that play with food are the ones
Speaker 3: that turn their eyelids inside out. Yes, it's a very
Speaker 3: particular Yes your people. No, I can't relate anyway. She
Speaker 3: dropped an incredible diabolical She dropped an incredibly diabolical hard
Speaker 3: fact on Instagram regarding Boston Buns and a crazy ingredient
Speaker 3: that is part of them.
Speaker 2: Are you ready flex Ready?
Speaker 1: Episode?
Speaker 4: And I came across the recipe in the New Zealand
Speaker 4: Women's Weekly. This was the oldest kind of recipefore I
Speaker 4: could find. And I'm just reading through the ingredients. First
Speaker 4: ingredient one cup of mashed potato.
Speaker 3: Yeap, what the secret ingredient of Boston buns is mashed potato?
Speaker 3: There is no way, babes, I'm serious. And allegedly this started.
Speaker 3: I'll get to the next bit of the podcast. It
Speaker 3: started in the nineteen thirties.
Speaker 2: You're with Luthy when you bring in facts and dates, I.
Speaker 1: Do, don't, I hold on.
Speaker 2: Don't worry about it.
Speaker 4: Has a little context for the mashed potato, So she says,
Speaker 4: the Boston bun dates back to the earliest twentieth century
Speaker 4: in Australia, where mashed and seved potatoes commonly you as
Speaker 4: an economical substitute for flower in.
Speaker 2: What in what world can you imagine living in a
Speaker 2: world where using potato is more economical than flower?
Speaker 1: I know, I don't get it.
Speaker 3: I mean, I guess the potato just comes straight out
Speaker 3: of the ground. Yeah, well, there you go, guys. I
Speaker 3: want a bust and bud right now. We are learned girls,
Speaker 3: and we love, love, love to share big important technological
Speaker 3: news with you hit it.
Speaker 1: Caitlin, tech Time, tech Time, tech Time.
Speaker 2: It's tech time with flex and froomes on Cater put
Speaker 2: it to the next level.
Speaker 3: Oh my god, we will never stop talking about AI.
Speaker 2: Why is that?
Speaker 1: Because we like to.
Speaker 3: Think of ourselves as early adopters, and it's only a
Speaker 3: matter of time before AI makes irrepairable damages or potentially positives.
Speaker 1: To the world.
Speaker 2: So it's humans have done worse.
Speaker 3: Precisely, I mean, I don't I think we should not
Speaker 3: say it's an all knowing being. Don't give it too
Speaker 3: much power.
Speaker 1: We can harness it.
Speaker 3: Yes, correct final last words, famous last words. So I
Speaker 3: came across the story in the Atlantic.
Speaker 1: It's an American website.
Speaker 2: We do love the Atlantic here we doy does plagiarize
Speaker 2: quite a bit from the Atlantic.
Speaker 1: He is it.
Speaker 3: Plagiarizing if you cite the sources? Hmmm, ridle me that.
Speaker 3: And we're on a new medium. It's not like I'm
Speaker 3: writing it out and putting it on my newsletter. It
Speaker 3: was just frooms world anyway. Allegedly, pirated copies of Margaret
Speaker 3: Atwood's books are being used to train AI.
Speaker 2: Pirated as well, they can afford to buy.
Speaker 3: That's what she said.
Speaker 2: Margaret's books are no more than maybe twenty dollars a copy.
Speaker 3: That's what I've been doing with that book.
Speaker 2: Truly get it secondhand.
Speaker 3: I really gotta say, guys, that's a life hack. Start
Speaker 3: buying secondhand books. Some people don't like because there's like
Speaker 3: weird crumbs and stuff in them. But trust me, I
Speaker 3: hate buying brand new books because I'm very doggied with them.
Speaker 2: So you can get into ebooks like me, they still
Speaker 2: cost no.
Speaker 3: I like having the physical It's a piece of art
Speaker 3: every time. So they sort of say, Margaret in the
Speaker 3: Atlantic took to the website to give a clap back,
Speaker 3: if you will. So thirty three of her books have
Speaker 3: been used as training material for wordsmithing computer programs. So
Speaker 3: essentially they can say, write a Margaret Atwood novel and
Speaker 3: it will glurb forth five fifty thousand words like soft
Speaker 3: ice cream spiraling out of a dispenser. And essentially what
Speaker 3: she's saying is that she's likening this kind of art,
Speaker 3: if you not even art, she's likening this kind of
Speaker 3: program to a Stepford wife. So if you ever watch
Speaker 3: the Stepford Wives, I don't remember, but Nicole Kibn was
Speaker 3: in it.
Speaker 1: What they do.
Speaker 3: Is someone maybe the husband's start making these clones of
Speaker 3: their wives.
Speaker 1: They do all the cooking, do everything.
Speaker 3: They're really hot, but they don't have the annoying emotional
Speaker 3: aspects of the actual wives, right And Margaret at what
Speaker 3: he's saying, this is what they're doing with their books.
Speaker 1: And it got me thinking, like.
Speaker 3: If a program can come up with a Margaret Atwood
Speaker 3: type style, which is like, she's a very particular style
Speaker 3: of writing. Have I ever read Margaret Atwood book? Absolutely not,
Speaker 3: but just from reading this article, it's my first piece
Speaker 3: that I've read of hers.
Speaker 1: She has a very particular tone.
Speaker 3: Is it ever does it ever have life? Or is
Speaker 3: it always quote unquote dead? What do you mean, like,
Speaker 3: you know how some art or some movies. I was
Speaker 3: reading this other thing about AI, like, sure, someone could
Speaker 3: make a Christopher Nolan movie, but and it might be
Speaker 3: better on paper, like it might be not as long,
Speaker 3: it might have more succinct storylines. But do you reckon
Speaker 3: humans have this particular kind of like innate understanding that
Speaker 3: we need to know another human.
Speaker 1: Made it in order to completely relate.
Speaker 2: No, if people really respected the human element of creation
Speaker 2: of creating media, creating art, then they wouldn't critique it
Speaker 2: so heavily. I don't think it's the human element of
Speaker 2: a movie or the human element of a TV show,
Speaker 2: a human element of music that makes it feel good.
Speaker 2: I think people, especially these US modern day consumers who
Speaker 2: would trade, you know, who would easily sub out like
Speaker 2: human rights for convenience. I don't think they care that
Speaker 2: the media they're consuming didn't come from a human I
Speaker 2: think what makes AI. I think what makes consuming AI
Speaker 2: media difficult is that it's trying really hard to be human,
Speaker 2: and that's not what people want. I think if you
Speaker 2: told the average person you can get the new season
Speaker 2: of your favorite show in half the amount of time
Speaker 2: because robots made it and AI made it and it's
Speaker 2: just like the seasons you watched thus far, people would say, yeah, great.
Speaker 3: I wouldn't mind a new Sex and the City, Oliver,
Speaker 3: former Damn writer, A strike is quaking.
Speaker 2: Yeah. Look, I think people are fearing Okay, what in
Speaker 2: this article? Where okay in this article where you're saying
Speaker 2: markret Atward wrote this article for The Idea, Yeah wow.
Speaker 2: So in this article where Margaret Atwood is insinuating that
Speaker 2: to have AI spit out stories, right, is the equivalent
Speaker 2: of you know, in the Stepward Wives, like you were
Speaker 2: saying earlier, when you create this figment of a woman,
Speaker 2: but you take out all the things that make her
Speaker 2: quote unquote human, which in this example was the nuances
Speaker 2: and the neuroticisms and like the the irritating bits. That's
Speaker 2: what most people don't really like in their art. Like,
Speaker 2: I think people get really frustrated to hear that their
Speaker 2: favorite artists won't release an album because they have anxiety.
Speaker 2: People don't like that. People don't like hearing that the
Speaker 2: reason why they couldn't see their favorite movies because the
Speaker 2: real people aren't eating because there's a writer strike. They empathize,
Speaker 2: but they don't like that. Hearing about Euphoria was going
Speaker 2: to come out in twenty twenty four, and now it's
Speaker 2: maybe going to start filming in twenty twenty six, They
Speaker 2: don't like that.
Speaker 3: Are they gonna have all the same characters? Who knows
Speaker 3: it's gonna be Euphoria? Like post college, like no one.
Speaker 1: Can get a job vibes.
Speaker 2: So I think what people what we should be talking
Speaker 2: about is this conversation about AI gives people the impression
Speaker 2: they care more about people than they do.
Speaker 3: It is that time of the week again. It is
Speaker 3: time to get down and deep into the relationship bag.
Speaker 1: Hit it, Kaylein, Hello, lovel.
Speaker 3: God, you hate to be driving right now and you're
Speaker 3: thinking I'm getting a call through the blue tooth. No, no, no,
Speaker 3: it's just flexing frooms.
Speaker 2: I don't think I've heard my phone ring like make
Speaker 2: a noise since twenty eleven. Seriously, truly, well, I.
Speaker 3: Went through the other day and changed all the sound
Speaker 3: effects like for my messages and for my calls, and
Speaker 3: I got the one that goes no, no, no. The
Speaker 3: pianof it cracks me up. You just gotta add a
Speaker 3: little bit of joy throughout you day. Guys, go and
Speaker 3: change back to the original iPhone ones. And that's grateful
Speaker 3: when you keep getting these robo calls. All right, this
Speaker 3: is a love line by a listener. It's a real listener, Guys.
Speaker 3: I'm not gonna lie sometimes it isn't okay, high flex
Speaker 3: and frooms and Mickey, I love the pod.
Speaker 2: Caitlin producer. Kaitlyn's here.
Speaker 3: Kaitlyn wasn't there at the time, however, we'll extend the
Speaker 3: hello to Kaitlyn. We'll extend I love the potty sm
Speaker 3: so much hoped you'd get some intrigue out of my dilemma.
Speaker 3: Please keep a noon, love Hut. I've been exclusive with
Speaker 3: my boyfriend James for about two weeks now, and we're
Speaker 3: mutually healthily obsessed. I really appreciate the preface there. The
Speaker 3: other day, I was playfully rummaging around his Instagram dms
Speaker 3: and he casually said, Hey, you can only look at
Speaker 3: mine if I can look at yours.
Speaker 1: Very bold of you to just go through straight.
Speaker 2: Through the Yeah, just how do we get here? I
Speaker 2: like that for you.
Speaker 3: In the moment, I did give him back his phone.
Speaker 2: No no, no.
Speaker 3: She said up, which hopefully doesn't make me look to
Speaker 3: sus I've been thinking that if he did go through
Speaker 3: my messages, he'd come across my ex long term situationship Danny.
Speaker 3: We were off and on for about four years and
Speaker 3: have been friends for seven years. Because of sporadic messages,
Speaker 3: it wouldn't take long for James to realize Danny and
Speaker 3: I weren't one hundred percent platonic. I'd flirt with him
Speaker 3: and we talk about how to handle another girl coming
Speaker 3: into his life. Ultimately, I do see Danny as a
Speaker 3: backup even though I'm not sure.
Speaker 1: He feels safe.
Speaker 3: And anyway, we live in coasts opposite the US with
Speaker 3: no plans.
Speaker 1: Okay, are you in New York?
Speaker 2: Give me any tips?
Speaker 3: With no plans to move out, a move from our
Speaker 3: beloved cities. My question is, when, if ever do you
Speaker 3: tell my boyfriend? When, if ever, do I tell my
Speaker 3: boyfriend about my ex friend? Also, what are your thoughts
Speaker 3: on backups? Is it wrong to be connected with that
Speaker 3: kind of person when you're in a relationship if you
Speaker 3: have no plans to act on it. Danny and I
Speaker 3: share particular neurodive urgencies, special interests, and he's supportive in
Speaker 3: the hard times. He is a genuine close friend. What
Speaker 3: do I owe in this situation? Babes, listen before flex
Speaker 3: opens her mouth because she's making some crazy hand movement
Speaker 3: and she has her hand up against her mouth in
Speaker 3: a concerned way, like when you when you find yourself
Speaker 3: holding your neck, could be scared. It's give me that,
Speaker 3: so let's take a little break up. Next, we're gonna
Speaker 3: get the bottom of whether or not it's okay to
Speaker 3: have someone on the back burner when you're in a committed, healthy,
Speaker 3: obsessed relationship.
Speaker 1: Flexi I've just told.
Speaker 3: You the story from a listener and non of course
Speaker 3: like hard. She is in a mutually committed, healthy obsessed
Speaker 3: relationship with a new boyfriend. Meanwhile, she has a guy
Speaker 3: on the back burner. They're in a situationship for four
Speaker 3: years and friends for seven. Her BF is like, let's
Speaker 3: look through each other's dms. In fact, she actually started
Speaker 3: that line of query.
Speaker 2: And he was like, Okay, if you're looking through mind,
Speaker 2: I'd like to look through yours. And she says, take back, yeah,
Speaker 2: take the phone. Did we mention that they've been boyfriend
Speaker 2: and girlfriend for two weeks?
Speaker 3: Yes, but I'm a you know, exclusive for two weeks,
Speaker 3: so who knows how long this has been a courting process.
Speaker 3: She wants to know, is it okay to have Danny,
Speaker 3: who's the old situationship on the backburn of if it
Speaker 3: doesn't work out with current boyfriend James?
Speaker 1: What your thoughts? Flicks? Mummy?
Speaker 2: First, I have questions, Okay.
Speaker 3: I'll attempt to answer on behalf of the listener.
Speaker 2: Thank you so much. So we've got a mutually healthily
Speaker 2: obsessed relationship exclusive for two weeks. Yes, so one would
Speaker 2: say that when you're in a mutually healthy obsessed dynamic,
Speaker 2: that your eggs are in the horn basket.
Speaker 3: Okay, would you say personally yes?
Speaker 1: Okay.
Speaker 2: Now we go on to say that there's Danny, the
Speaker 2: situationship on and off for four years, friends for seven
Speaker 2: They flirt, and they talk about how to handle another
Speaker 2: girl coming into Danny's life. This listener sees Danny as
Speaker 2: a backup. However, does not feel or know if Danny
Speaker 2: the same way. So it's not as though like we've
Speaker 2: been there, We're like, it's not the right timing. It's
Speaker 2: it's plausible that what you're experiencing to be a situationship
Speaker 2: is a platonic friendship with romantic tingencies. It's tingencies because
Speaker 2: this person is a agenda you're attracted to. But I
Speaker 2: don't know if there's anything here that you should be
Speaker 2: concerned about, or in the sense that I mean that,
Speaker 2: like you in this moment decide what it is or isn't.
Speaker 2: So like, if they're on the back burner, then put
Speaker 2: them on the back burner. Don't be keeping up the
Speaker 2: flirty flirty flirty while you're in this quote unquote mutually
Speaker 2: healthily obsessed dynamic. Right, And then the question what do
Speaker 2: I own the situation. You don't owe anybody anything, but
Speaker 2: what is your responsibility in the situation? I would say
Speaker 2: often to behave in a way that sets a precedent
Speaker 2: for how you expect your other half to behave. Not
Speaker 2: that you hold them to that standard. But if you
Speaker 2: find find out that your boyfriend James is in the
Speaker 2: DMS with their friend that they've been put on the
Speaker 2: back burner with, would you not feel some type of
Speaker 2: way I think you might look.
Speaker 3: I I am hesitant to say this because it is
Speaker 3: a real list in the DM.
Speaker 2: Yeah.
Speaker 3: I have a bit of a a sixth sense about
Speaker 3: this one. Ooh, I believe that Danny, who's the X
Speaker 3: situation ship deal a little number on your heart.
Speaker 2: Oh.
Speaker 3: The vibe that perhaps there are some unrequireded love there because.
Speaker 1: You say you were never.
Speaker 3: Going to move from opposite cities, sounds like maybe you
Speaker 3: would consider it, but he didn't.
Speaker 1: Just getting a sense.
Speaker 3: There for it to go on for four years, there's
Speaker 3: got to be some kind of hankering there.
Speaker 2: Like I personally, that's an emotional commitment.
Speaker 3: Emotional commitment and friends for seven years, where we're also
Speaker 3: keeping tabs on how long that's been.
Speaker 2: And also there was a vibe shift. You didn't say
Speaker 2: it's been on and off for seven years. There would
Speaker 2: have been three years of platonic friendship, a vibe shift
Speaker 2: exchange due to one or both parties acknowledging that it's
Speaker 2: not just platonic. And maybe the only limitation is that
Speaker 2: you're at a distance.
Speaker 1: I think that's what we're getting.
Speaker 3: Yeah, because she says, you know what here, darling, You've
Speaker 3: never said anything about what you and James have in common. Instead,
Speaker 3: you've said, Danny, who's the exitration chip, share neurodivergencies, special interests,
Speaker 3: and he's supportive in the hard times. I get the
Speaker 3: vibe that maybe you are potentially in love with Danny.
Speaker 1: That's why you would keep him on the back burner.
Speaker 3: Other's not giving some random situationship that is still in
Speaker 3: the DMS, A bit of a like letting.
Speaker 2: Okay, so this is different.
Speaker 1: This is just my surmising.
Speaker 2: This is different. What I will say in summary, it
Speaker 2: is okay to conceptually have people that are next in line. Okay.
Speaker 2: Love is not eternal, unfortunately, and you don't want to
Speaker 2: be the dimwit who assumes that they won't be someone
Speaker 2: else to move on to next. However, you shouldn't be
Speaker 2: nurt sharing the romantic part of that relationship in any
Speaker 2: kind of way while you're in a platonic no sorry,
Speaker 2: while you're in a monogamous relationship.
Speaker 1: I tend to agree.
Speaker 3: Yeah, but also like I reckon pay yourself on the
Speaker 3: back for having options full stop.
Speaker 1: Exciting.
Speaker 3: I feel like sometimes people stay in relationships that are
Speaker 3: bad because they feel like there's no other option. So
Speaker 3: relish in the fact that you are a woman with choices.
Speaker 2: Yeah, definitely the choice feminism. You do have a bit
Speaker 2: of a bone to pick with pop culture, bear with us.
Speaker 2: Pop culture would describe the pick me as historically a
Speaker 2: woman who distances herself from other women to be more
Speaker 2: appealing to men or the patriarchy.
Speaker 3: We have make me in our midst hold on just kidding,
Speaker 3: oh oh, tendencies without growing them.
Speaker 2: Yeah, rooms is the pick me in the room now
Speaker 2: for those of us who For those of us who
Speaker 2: have the acquainted with the very famous Gorne Girl monologue
Speaker 2: in which this protagonist lists out the key features of
Speaker 2: a pickney, which is oft referenced in pop culture, including
Speaker 2: but not limited to it's hot dogs, never gains.
Speaker 3: Weight, drinks beer yeah, and actually likes the taste, loves beer, serious,
Speaker 3: watches sport, or at least gives the impression she watches
Speaker 3: sport to become more appealing to men, likes doing anal
Speaker 3: that was in the monologue.
Speaker 2: It was in the monologue, But I don't think they
Speaker 2: can use her. We can use her redacted. And with
Speaker 2: that in mind, I have a fear of a feeling
Speaker 2: that the sudden uptick in women in particular being more
Speaker 2: interested in watching sports or liking sports more broadly because
Speaker 2: of the way the social zetgeist is changing, is going
Speaker 2: to be misattributed to a wide pickny issue. I think
Speaker 2: that people are currently viewing the widespread nature of women
Speaker 2: watching sports as a way to pander to men, and
Speaker 2: it's so far from that right now.
Speaker 3: Do you reckon people still attribute that? Look, I'm going
Speaker 3: to say I'm going to say a bit of a
Speaker 3: reverse one that I hope you can bear with me,
Speaker 3: because I'll be bearing with myself in this monologue. But
Speaker 3: sport is not inherently something that enjoying as a woman
Speaker 3: should be picked me.
Speaker 2: I believe that it has historically.
Speaker 1: Been a pick me.
Speaker 2: I don't think you would have said that say that
Speaker 2: pre well Cary.
Speaker 3: Place do not do not talk over the lady.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I'm sorry, sorry, bro.
Speaker 3: Historically sports have been exclusionary to women. Tell me why
Speaker 3: I hate going on to a pub during September. The
Speaker 3: pub in Paddington absolutely raucous with feral dogs, top vibe. However,
Speaker 3: so as a woman to enjoy that scenario and that subculture,
Speaker 3: there had to be an element that picked me. I'm sorry,
Speaker 3: I got a point. Some fingers, however, now.
Speaker 2: Pointing fingers, let's put them all.
Speaker 3: However, now, liking sport is a different There is a
Speaker 3: different essence of different genes in the pubs, in the clubs,
Speaker 3: in the sporting rooms, in the alf.
Speaker 2: W afl W.
Speaker 1: Do you know what I'm saying, babes, it should be afloat?
Speaker 2: Do you say I'm with you? I guess is that
Speaker 2: what you were saying? That it is it's the point
Speaker 2: that I made. You've reiterated the same point, which I love,
Speaker 2: which I love.
Speaker 1: A woman explaining you're taking that back.
Speaker 2: To that's what I'm saying. So if we're saying traditionally,
Speaker 2: the idea of being a pick me me is being
Speaker 2: a straight woman who distances herself from her womanhood to
Speaker 2: be more to pander to men him whatever we're talking
Speaker 2: for us. Okay, then what is it called when women
Speaker 2: pander to women? Because that's what I'm on.
Speaker 1: It's called the sistern.
Speaker 2: Gang Gang, fingerhearts, fingerhearts women pandering to women.
Speaker 3: Honestly, there's nothing better.
Speaker 1: You've been listening to the Flex and Frooms Daily podcast.
Speaker 3: For more, tune Indicater on DAB or stream it on iHeartRadio.