John, this is your first experience of me recording from the back porch of my father-in-law's shore house.
First time caller, a long-time listener for something like this.
It's always a key part of the summer for me is when Marty transitions to his shore house and does all the pods on the back porch.
It's a real vibe I look forward to.
It's a great vibe. We've got birds chirping in the background. There's not a cloud in the sky.
It's about 74 degrees, very comfortable, not sweating.
and after the the heat and the smoke that that hit the area last week this is a much a much
need of reprieve from from the weird weather yeah you uh i'm glad i'm glad you you made it through
that that rough rough period there did the smoke make it down your way at all no no we're uh we're
insulated from all of canada's uh shenanigans down in uh the uh lower half of the country
Hey, it turns out forest management control burns kind of important.
You neglect them for a decade.
Bad things happen.
And then again, then it gets blamed on climate change.
And you're forced to to move around your whole life in your portfolio
to make sure that we're investing in in clean climate tech.
I think the narrative was a little less powerful this time
for for one reason or another.
Fortunately, we're past the the ESG days of early 2020s.
But never say never.
Investment cycles are always come back around.
Well, I mean, they may come back around, but as you said, it's out of favor now because war is not good for the environment.
War is back on the table. Iran, Shraddh Hormuz, back on the table, boys.
Yeah, here we are again. All this has happened before, all this will happen again, as they say.
We don't have to hit these too hard. I'm sure anyone who is a professional doom scroller or a professional situation monitor is well aware that where we're sitting right now is definitively less encouraging than it was perhaps a couple months ago.
perhaps not totally surprising that we would see re-escalation maybe you might have thought that
it would have waited until after midterms but i think anyone probably would have assumed that the
the mou that was put across the table a couple months ago was was not super well defined on a
variety of terms which we talked about a couple months back but you know here we are again
straights open straights closed michael scott snip snap gif a schrodinger's cat type situation but
Either way, you know, the punchline here is WTI, Brent up back into the 80s.
But I think even more notably, you've got, you know, European nat gas benchmarks, all getting back into kind of highs of the early, early chaos we were seeing earlier this year.
So that'll be, I think, the biggest constraint on, you know, or the biggest pain point, I guess we would say, is the countries, Europe, Southeast Asia, that are maybe less well supplied on a variety of key energy inputs really getting squeezed here again.
So that'll be the main vulnerability to watch.
Stateside, we have the Strategic Petroleum Reserve falling to 43 days of reserves left, lowest, I think.
83, lowest since 83.
Louis since 83. Yeah. So got done to 46 days in 2023. So I guess we replenished it a little bit
and we've drained it down to its lowest level in over 40 years. So not great, Bob.
No. Well, it might've been a good idea to deal with that before kicking the hornet's nest here,
but here we are. But I think, you know, everyone, everyone knows there's the war is on,
if we can call it that now. I think maybe the more incremental or like interesting pieces out
of the last week where some headlines just on basically the accelerated urgency to route around
straightforward news by various GCC countries. We've talked about these a little bit in the past
on the pod, but just mentioning analysis out of Goldman this week, kind of suggesting that a
variety of these projects could get up to say 60% of pre-war levels of oil exports in the next two
years being essentially straight proof. And definitely looks like there's a significant
appetite as you would expect to ramp up both investment in these and then also the pace at
which they get completed. Now, this isn't going to help you if you end up with the Houthis over in
the Red Sea causing a lot more trouble and they're Iran aligned. So you're not necessarily out of the
woods just because you built some of these pipeline projects. And of course, they're not
going to materialize tomorrow. It's going to take one or two years to really get meaningful benefit.
But the world really moving kind of in a direction, it seems, of minimizing dependence on and ability to this particular maritime choke point, which interestingly was specifically called out, as we mentioned before, in the national security strategy document last year as a key priority of the administration, you know, minimizing the disruptive impacts of the Stradivariah Hormuz as a choke point.
So, you know, a tinfoil hat theorist might might say that this was maybe an outcome that was that certain parties were looking for.
But we'll see how it actually shapes up.
Yeah. And I'm not sure if you saw the headline this morning out of Yemen, but it looks like the Yemeni's government or the many government, excuse me,
has announced that they're going to put a naval blockade on Saudi Arabia's ports.
I actually I actually missed that one. So you're you're breaking news for everyone here.
Yes.
So if you're thinking about what's going to happen when these pipelines do make it to the Red Sea, as you mentioned, the Houthis.
I mean, Yemen, I think, loosely lying there with some Houthi outshoots in the country.
Looks like they're already beginning to signal like, hey, you're not going to get away with this.
We have something to say, too.
So chaos in the Middle East oil markets.
And as this chaos is going, it looks like the U.S. is trying to carry favor with some of the countries in the area, and the latest of which is Iraq, which the U.S. and Iraq have a pretty muddy history in the 21st century.
But it looks like the Iraqi prime minister will be visiting Washington to talk about oil and gas deals.
Yeah. I mean, you talk about cyclicality, right? You think about the 90s and H.W. Bush shaking hands with Saddam Hussein.
15, 20 years later, he gets summarily deposed and we do some nation building and it's a chaotic scene all around.
And then 20 years later, here we are again, striking deals and building up partnerships that will benefit allegedly U.S. companies like Chevron.
So, you know, just I think these are these are self-explanatory, but I think it's as it relates to a U.S. that's looking to flex its might more and more in energy markets internationally and become more and more of a dominant player across petroleum markets.
clearly one to watch here, humorous enough that it's all coming back around to being a partner
with Iraq. But just the latest kind of puzzle piece, plug me in here to the US's clear desire
to be more and more influential and puts hand in the till more and more in global oil markets.
Yes. And I mean, we've been covering this extensively, which is a lot of the focus on
the straighter communities may be a focus that's not in the right area. It's what's happening
on the edges as the
Strait of Hormuz shuts down
and how is everything being
redirected and re-architected on the
back end and helium, which
as we now
know after becoming experts on
Middle East oil and gas strategy
is a key input
in fertilizer and other
sort of other
semis
semis. It's good for
helium is very important. That's what I'm trying to say
back deck fog is hitting, but it looks like the US is going to be a massive
benefactor in the helium markets because of all this.
So look, if you're looking at the chart that we have on the screen right now,
it's looking, it says US emerges as helium winner.
We looking at the import of noble gases from top three sources in 2026 percentage of total So US for looking at 2022 and to japan was hovering around 25 30 it be around 80 this year south korea it was below 20 in 2022 and is approaching 60 this year
and then taiwan similarly below 20 and looking like it's going to be just at 60 of their helium
imports will be from the US. So big winner in the helium markets, the US is.
Yeah. And if you look at kind of the trend here, if you're watching on video, like this was
already kind of in play and in progress over the last few years. So it's not just
the disruption that we've seen in the Gulf, but clearly there's been a jump this year,
a meaningful jump, especially for Korea and Taiwan across for the US as a source of helium imports
for these countries and you know it's the the the red bar here of china getting squeezed as a as a
player that was also that trend was was playing out even before this but i just thought it was a
good chart to to reiterate it came out of i believe nikai this this week something we've been talking
about again over the last few months just the the wins on the margin that the us is is seeing a lot
of kind of key key inputs that where it's becoming more and more of a relevant player an exporter
And I think, again, just cuts against the idea that there's no, you know, there's no edge, there's no strategy, nothing behind what the U.S. is doing other than kind of Trump flailing blindly in the Gulf.
Not to say that everything has been executed perfectly or without cost.
And, you know, we don't have the chart on here, but there was a really good paper out of, I forget the organization.
It's one of the big, basically, energy monitoring and commodity monitoring organizations, kind of their annual paper on the state of play on critical minerals.
So the flip side of this chart is, you know, unsurprisingly, China remains well ahead of anybody on kind of refined capacity for rare earths.
I think that explains, you know, unsurprisingly why you've seen all the headlines we flagged over the last few weeks on the U.S.
doing a lot more on the industrial policy side to build out dual sourcing capabilities and do partnerships with nations like Brazil to further bolster U.S. rare earth capacity.
So it's pros and cons on both sides, again, like we've been saying, but there's definitely clear benefit that you're seeing to the U.S. from this disruption kind of one way or another.
Yes. And then we transition to how the Fed is trying to operate and navigate in this world, not only this world, but in a world of their own in which they're trying to drastically overhaul, get away from forward guidance, add more data resources that can react in real time.
And we've got some statements from the Fed this week pertaining to inflation.
And I think they're really, again, trying to position away from forward guidance and saying they're going to be more reactive with lifetime data saying we can't get stuck in the cognitive dissonance of fighting the last war on inflation.
And a couple of Fed governors coming out and say they believe inflation has peaked and saying it pretty confidently.
So we've got the Fed beginning to position its new regime here.
Yeah, which is never exactly what you want to see the Fed trying to call it inflection one way or another, especially on inflation.
You know, it brings back the PTSD memories of inflation is transitory from anyone who lived through 20 and 21.
But I just thought it was an interesting set of comments that came out last week.
The top one is from new Fed chair Kevin Warsh in front of Congress testifying that, you know, the if we do things right, the inflation surge the last five years is a thing of the past.
And he talked a little about AI as well in in that in those remarks.
And in the past, if you've looked, he's been very on the train of AI productivity and enabling kind of a deflationary impulse that can counteract some of the more inflationary forces that we've seen over the last few years.
and not wanting to get in the way of that and hamstring that and really allow that to flourish
and to allow for that kind of deflationary impact. And then Fed Governor Waller
telling people that we shouldn't be, as he says, fighting the last war, just kind of looking
backward and doing what we should have done five years ago in a totally different set of
circumstances. And then John Williams saying, like you said, putting in a top for rightly or wrongly
on inflation. Collectively, I just think that's an interesting talk track from all these guys that
Um, allegedly we're moving away from forward guidance.
So I don't know if this is intended to be a forward guidance light, or if, you know,
maybe the worst doesn't totally have a handle on how much the rest of his team goes out
and talks to the media.
But in any case, the trend line here is not suggestive of, if a governor is trying to
tell you that they're going to have to get more hawkish and that their, their key focus
is on getting, you know, CPI down.
Which is interesting given that all of these comments were happening in the midst of, you
know, WTI ripping back over 80 and all the, you know, the energy input spikes that we talked about
as uncertainty flared up to, you know, a multi-month high in the Gulf again, against that
backdrop, you've got all these guys telling you, well, you know, inflation is probably like, it's
important, but let's not fight the last war. I think it's peaked. I think we can do enough to
make it a thing of the past. Like just an interesting dissonance between those two that
is, I think, indicative of how the, how the institution is, is shading toward positioning
itself. You know, there's a lot of internal division and strife apparently among all the
different Fed governors and people with a vote here. But I think this is putting into the zeitgeist
and expectation for incrementally, you know, incremental dovishness versus incremental
hawkishness. Yeah, it seems I mean, and then you factor in the inflation prints of last week, too,
which surprised to the downside. And you could see if the war is blowing up, obviously interest
expenses going up, I think this is going to be the biggest annual military spin that we've ever
seen. At least that's what Trump and the administration are asking for. So the fiscal
side is continuing to completely blow out. And I find it hard that they're going to be able to
hike rates into that. Yeah. I mean, we've talked about it a bunch here, but the flexibility isn't
tremendous here, particularly if you want to enable everything you just talked about
and enable Worsh's key priority of not stepping on the AI build out. And perhaps that
leads us nicely into this next topic.
Yes, which is Kimmy.
Kimmy's so hot right now.
Kimmy, come back.
Any other fool could see.
Yeah, I mean, this is...
It's an important component of every episode.
This is a shot across the bow of the frontier labs
in the U.S.
Kimmy K3 came out
surpassing many of the
U.S. frontier models on some benchmarks.
And I think
at least reading the tea leaves of people
who are using Kimmy K3
and comparing it to Fable 5 and Chachi BT 5.6 Sol and Terra,
it is a legitimate contender for top Frontier model out there.
Obviously, it is a Chinese open weight model.
And I think one of the interesting things here is,
I think we might have discussed it last week,
but if we didn't, Dylan Patel from Semi Analysis wrote a piece earlier this year
that said the Frontier Labs have a massive lead and will be able to defend that lead
because of the relative lack of access to GPUs that the Chinese market has.
He was making the case that they won't be able to train the models in the way that Anthropic and OpenAI can do so here in the States
because they have access to all NVIDIA's chips in China due to export controls, tariffs, and other reasons,
doesn't have access to those ships
and therefore will not be able to train models
comparable with U Frontier models But it can be launched It is comparable It is competitive And I guess that begs the question are they getting access to the GPUs Are they finding ways to train these models way more
efficiently with less tokens? And what does this mean for the future of AI, particularly as it
pertains to this juxtaposition of open weight models versus closed source frontier models here
in the United States, which are cozying up with the government to try to prevent the layman from
getting access to the full power of these AI tools. And I don't know if you have them on the
list, but I'm sure we'll talk about them. But there were two headlines that came out over the
last five days that really highlight this one pertaining to a dear friend of ours, Calais,
who's a developer of Cashew, getting a shout out from David Sachs last night.
Again, you're breaking news here. I missed that one. We should definitely talk about that
Um, cause that's, uh, that's big stuff.
Uh, if you've been following Bitcoin for a little while, but yeah, I think, I mean,
there's a ton to say here, you know, we're not gonna, you don't have time to get into
drill into every possible thing, but I mean, there's, there's a lot of nuance within the
chart like this and within this whole, this whole topic, this immediately kicked off,
you know, all of the debates about, well, are they, are they benchmark maxing?
And it's not actually as, you know, uh, it's not as actually as comparable in real world
use.
We've talked about kind of that dynamic with open source versus true kind of frontier models in the past.
I think I haven't played with Kimi K3 enough to have an opinion on that.
Definitely in the past, I've been less impressed for like at least agentic deployments by the open source models relative to everything else on the frontier.
And I think you've generally felt similarly, but, you know, maybe we'll come back in a week or two on analysis there.
But there's also the question of, well, is like you kind of alluded to, are there shadow GPU clusters in like Singapore?
There are all sorts of, you know, shell games that can be played to, you know, mask who the actual end user is.
So, like, has China actually been getting, you know, more access to true frontier accelerators?
TPD, are they using distillation that both the labs and the U.S. government could eventually, you know, crack down on more effectively?
You know, that's that's potential, too.
I think there's good arguments to be had by guys like Gavin Baker.
We'll have a tweet from him here in a second.
But, you know, some good analysis that you put out just on the relative cost of Kemi K3 versus, say, Fable or Sol on a true per task basis, because K3 appears to be much more token hungry.
And so if you need a lot more tries effectively per task completion, do you actually get real savings in commercial deployments or not?
I think that's, you know, very much TBD. All this is to say, like, I don't think that the massive kind of doomer headlines or the the the desire that I see from a lot of people, weirdly, especially like Bitcoiners.
I think there's like this this desire to like this desperation to call a top on the quote unquote AI bubble and to say, like, this is it.
It's all going to be, you know, one shot by open source models.
You know, so I think maybe there's like an underlying desire to tell people like sell all your semis and buy Bitcoin.
so maybe that's a piece of the the motivation but everything i'm kind of getting at here is that i
think all simplistic readings on kind of what this this headline means 48 hours in or you know
maybe quite overdone and need a little reconsideration but you know i think there's that's
that's all like one one piece of it um i have i have a sense that you you want to jump in here
on hugging face so i'm gonna pause and pause my rant well yeah the calling tops are like saying
that this is the death of US closed-source frontier models.
I think that's way overblown.
I think the more important signal here is the kneecapping of these models
and the sort of regulatory encroachment that the Trump administration is taking.
And I think that's what David Sachs was pointing out in his tweet last night.
But just to sort of preface this the right way, to your point, like who's to know?
If they're benchmark maxing, if they have these shadow GPUs,
if they're waging distillation training attacks, I don't know if they're attacks.
however you would describe them.
But I think that misses the point.
And I think the two headlines were the Hugging Face story
and then Calais, he basically wrote a tweet,
I think Friday or Saturday, basically saying,
I found 17 or 12 critical security vulnerabilities
in a couple of the projects I'm maintaining with Kemi K3.
I tried to do them with Fable 5 and with GPT 5.6 sold,
but due to the sort of curbing of those models,
particularly when it comes to working on code bases.
So for those who are unaware, Anthropic famously will let you use Fable 5,
but if you're doing anything that is security sensitive in a code base,
they will divert you to Opus 4.8, to a lesser model, to a model that's not as performant.
And I think this would be a signal that KimiK3 is comparable, at least to an extent,
but two cases over the weekend, Hugging Face, they had, I mean, this is just a crazy story.
crazy story generally and Kimmy K3 is just like a small detail of it but they had in the what
they're describing as the first sort of autonomous AI attack on their code base they got a code
injection in one of their databases and they had an autonomous AI attacker execute more than 17,000
events over the course of a weekend they they found the the attack and they started protecting
against it. But again, they were trying to use Fable 5 and chat GBT 5.6 sold to basically
wage a defensive attack, a security audit of their systems of what was being infiltrated.
And Fable 5 and GBT 5.6 said, you can't do this. You're not allowed to work on this type of
this type of task with with these models. And they were forced to download Kimmy K3 in a local
environment and run it and run the security audit with it against their systems. And it was able to
identify with Kimmy K3 what was wrong. Similarly with Kali, I don't know even say which project it
was specifically. It could be Cashew, it could be BitChack, it could be Klawi. He's running many
things, but similarly was trying to do a security audit of his systems and was using Fable 5,
GBT 5.6. They said, hey, you're not allowed to do this task with these models. And he was forced
use Kimmy K3 and was able to find 12 security flaws in the code base that he was auditing at
that time. So this isn't really a debate about whether or not which frontier model is better
than the other. It's what is the nature of being able to use these models? How are we going to be
able to use these models? And I think the open weight Chinese model is really proving that what
we're doing here in the United States is not going to work long term. You can't cuck the models. You
can't prevent people from using them or you're going to get out competed and whether or not
Kimmy K3 is actually as performant or more performant than Fable 5 or ChatGPT 5.6 sold
right now I think is irrelevant it's like if like people are going to want to use these tools in
particular ways and if the frontier models here in the U.S. don't let you do that because of
fears of of the models breaking containment or doing things that the government doesn't like
it doesn't matter if you have an open source competitor that's going to let you do it you're
going to fall back to that, even if it's not as performant. Yeah, I mean, I think this is a great
maybe segue into that, the Gavin Baker tweet, and the other thing on that page, which is basically
just getting to like your old friend, Jevin's paradox, you know, everyone, it's become this
Jevin's paradox was the thing that I think big corners were talking about, you know, well before
it became kind of a mainstream talking point among everyone in the world. But in any case,
just, just, we're not gonna read everything on here.
I would highly recommend going to read um Gavin tweet and and it his pen tweet and everything else that been on this timeline over the past couple of days On the right is just an example of this playing out where basically you got the CEO of Databricks outlining essentially this dynamic of as on a per unit
basis, this resource effectively gets cheaper. There is that much more or even more a compensating
amount of demand for volume for that resource. Like it's, you know, same as it ever was,
same dynamic that we've seen play out across commodity markets, you know, over the history
of capitalism. And so I think if you split out like what, who is this good for? Who is this bad
for in the broader AI complex? And I think this relates ultimately to not just companies, but also
the US and China. There's like the inference piece and the training piece. And I think this slide is
all about how, you know, the inference piece is going to, is going to be just fine and likely
continue to explode. I think, you know, I think open source models, especially like a diverse
ecosystem of open source models is, you know, giga bullish for most definitely pieces of compute
broadly, different pieces of semiconductors and, you know, the power suppliers that will ultimately
be required to stand up enough capacity to take advantage of all that. I think it's one of the
reasons you see NVIDIA promoting their own open source models so aggressively to kind of avoid the,
you know, the monopsony or the oligopsony of just having a few, you know, close frontier players in
the space dominating the whole, the whole of everything. But that's the inference side. I think
maybe the more interesting strategically like the derivative question is more on the training side,
which you see people kind of wring their hands once again over this last weekend on the degree
to which like training will be financeable at all. These, you know, these massive and increasingly
expensive training runs of tens of billions or like hundreds of billions of dollars over time
to get to the next frontier generation. How can you really underwrite that if, you know,
the ROI is going to be meaningfully undercut by, you know, whether it's a distillation attack or a
fast follower or however you want to think about it. But if, if open source can come in and, and
constantly just ride on the coattails of the, the gains that are made in training of these new
models, then, you know, how are you even going to get a further, further model gains over time?
Because there won't be like an incentive to continue spending on that. And I think this is
like, to your point on open AI and, and Thropic in different ways, cozying up to, cozying after the
government. Like, I think it just kind of gets to a point of like, I don't necessarily even think
that that's right. And that's how it's going to work out, especially if you think that the frontier
labs ultimate strategy is to verticalize everything and to stand up kind of, you know, their own
accounting and law firms and all these different professional services they could go attack as like,
you know, vertical infrastructure on what they build. You know, I think you can very easily
justify meaningful ROI, you know, on that basis, but like, let's even just game it out and say that
that's actually what happens and that you have a meaningful kind of headwind to training spend.
for that economic reason. I think you just have to ask yourself, well, as the tweet on the left
here suggests, K3 shows that scaling laws are continuing, right? Effectively, larger models
are still giving you concomitantly better performance and throwing more compute at
training, throwing more resources at it, growing the size gives you the ability to get better
models. I think if scaling laws generally are still holding and there's still meaningfully more
juice to be squeezed out of massive training runs. And there's still technically like progress that
can be made. It kind of doesn't matter like if the private ROIC is there because neither China
nor the US nor anyone else who's trying to play in this game is going to be able to say,
is going to be able to just concede and let the other side kind of get to it first and own this
incredibly important technology. And they're not going to, as you see on the right here,
of these projections of spend from AI and Anthropic over, especially OpenAI, over the
next five years, we're talking about hundreds of billions of dollars in incremental spend.
And this is very likely not even counting all the derivative spend that needs to come
in from the power and infrastructure side, which is very clearly critical to the way
that the Trump administration is thinking about re-industrialization.
It's critical to the way that Kevin Warsh is thinking about managing a monetary policy
and inflation is having this, having to spend, having to spend here, building this out and then
getting return on that. I think what I'm basically getting to is like, if even if you think that
that's what happens, the training just gets kicked to the sovereign level, right? Like,
you're in no way do I think that the US is ever going to look at this and say, well, we could
continue to dramatically expand model capabilities, if we just kept spending on, you know, these big
training runs, but it's hard to finance because open source, you know, makes it tougher to capture
those returns. And so we're just going to concede on that. I think like what you're looking at here
on the right side is even if you're super bearish on open sources impact on frontier labs, what
you're looking at is just another line item on the federal budget, right? Like someone's going
to be spending that money, right? Whether it's open AI and drop back in there, you know, their
investors or, you know, private financiers or like the government, I think like that curve is going
to move that way regardless, as long as scaling laws hold up. Yeah. And it'd be remiss of us not
to mention, but I think a whole new sort of twist to this juxtaposition of the superpowers in the
US and China and this AI race entered the conversation last Thursday night when President
Trump gave the speech on Chinese meddling in the 2020 election, which is probably a strategic
It's interesting timing, right?
A strategic announcement based off of everything going on right now in the AI world.
Yeah, it's an interesting time for sure to bring that up out of nowhere.
Speaking of interesting times, interesting times in Bitcoin hovering around $64,000 up from the lows of the prior week right now.
And our good friend Alex Thorne and his team at Galaxy Research are just putting together a chart to see what indicators have historically triggered a bottom in Bitcoin have been hit already.
And so we've had four that have hit, two that are approaching, and about seven that are not yet there.
Yeah.
You know, this is, if this is wrong, you know, this is, you can put it on Alex and Galaxy and don't blame us.
But just an interesting kind of data point or set of data points and mile marker on where we are in Bitcoin's cycles, such as it may be.
And I think it certainly looks like if you if you kind of just eyeball this closer, much closer to the bottom than the top, although not fully there yet.
And I just think interesting to as the market has completely moved on from Bitcoin, not in the meta at all, not in the zeitgeist, bouncing around this very kind of tight consolidation range in the low 60s.
If you compare that to everything else we've just talked about with war, defense budget, the Fed's current positioning on inflation, the potential need if you're super bearish on frontier labs for the government to effectively pick up that tab and backstop them, as has been hinted, if that's your belief.
then it's a really interesting time, I think, to consider all those topics against the backdrop of, you know, what Bitcoin's currently doing.
And this last headline that we have from BPI on the Bitcoin, the strategic Bitcoin reserve, Armabil, you know, moving, finally moving to committee, you know, for the first time.
Interesting set of data points here as we look at Bitcoin's breadcrumbs against everything else.
Yes. And I actually was in D.C. last week recorded with Connor Brown.
so if you want the inside look
from the Bitcoin Policy Institute's
perspective on what's happening
with Bitcoin on Capitol Hill
that'll be on the TFTC feed this feed
if you're listening to this on the podcast on Wednesday
so go check that out
and we'll be back next Monday