Is Software Dead?

The day on the AI Daily Brief is software dead? Before that in the headlines, why I think no one wins in everyone loses after the whole dust up around Anthropics New Super Bowl ad. The AI Daily Brief is a daily podcast and video about the most important news and discussions in AI. Alright friends, quick announcements before we dive in. First of all, thank you to today's sponsors, optimizely robots and pencils, Blitzy and Super Intelligent. To get an ad-free version of the show, go to patreon.com/aideleybrief or you can subscribe on Apple Podcasts if you're interested in sponsoring the show. Send us a note and sponsors at aideleybrief.ai. And lastly, one more chance, one more request for you to fill out the January AI usage pulse survey. Again, this is a survey we're doing to try to figure out what models were most used, what use cases were most prevalent, where people got the most value and generally put some real numbers and real experience around how we're all using AI. You can find it at aideleybrief.ai and it'll be closing at the end of the day on Friday. Thanks to everyone who has participated, can't wait to share what we've learned. Now one last note, I will fully admit that today's headlines is A, not really a headline, it's just about the Super Bowl story, and B is way, way more ranty than my normal. There is a lot more op-ed that I normally put into this show. I unfortunately think that the impact of Anthropics Super Bowl ads, if anything at all, is likely to be quite negative for the industry. Today there's plenty of critique to go around. Now I will not blame you at all if you decide to skip over that because who cares? I certainly think the IS software dead conversation is the much more pertinent one going forward. So however you decide to consume this episode, I appreciate it and let's dive in. Trick or Warning. If you work at either Anthropic or OpenAI, you are probably not going to like the beginning of this episode. Yesterday Anthropic absolutely took over the AI conversation when they dropped their first ever set of Super Bowl commercials. The commercials do not talk about the basically magic wand we now have in our pockets. They don't talk about all the things you can do. They don't talk about all the value that AI could be bringing to people's lives. Instead, all four commercials then the campaign are focused entirely on OpenAI's planned forthcoming ads. In one version, a user asks how to get along better with his mom. The AI portrayed as a middle-aged female counselor, delivers some generic advice, then the AI pivots hard into an ad for a mature dating site. Another version of the ad opens on a scrawny teenager struggling to do pull-ups in the park, copying one of the shots from last year's Sora commercials. In this one, the AI is depicted as a muscle-bound dude. It tells the teenager that it's achievable to get a six-pack quickly and offers to build a workout plan. Once the AI learns of the user's diminutive height, however, it offers a sale on a pair of insoles that, quote, "make short king stand tall." The ads each feature in opening titles splashed across the entirety of the screen, betrayal, violation, treachery, deception. They all close on the tagline, "Ads are coming, but not to clawed." So OpenAI shrugged it off laughing, saying, "Hey, those were funny, but we're going to do what we're going to do, right?" Or they employed their God-given right to say nothing, and to not have to comment on every single thing that happens? Right? No, they did not. Instead, they decided to bite back and bite back hard. CMO Kate Roush writes, "Those ads are funny. Here's what's not funny. Calling ads a betrayal when your business model is selling paid subscriptions to companies. ChatGBT has more free users in Texas than clawed has globally. Real betrayal isn't ads, it's control. Anthropic thinks powerful AI should be tightly controlled in small rooms in San Francisco and Davos, that it's too dangerous for you, that the future should be built somewhere else by someone who is smarter. We don't believe that." Sam Altman wrote more than 400 words in response on Twitter, saying, "I wonder why Anthropic would go for something so clearly dishonest. I guess it's on brand for Anthropic DoubleSpeak to use a deceptive ad to critique theoretically deceptive ads that aren't real. He also dropped the same line around more people in Texas using free ChatGBT than total people using clawed in the US. He even went so far as to call Anthropic an authoritarian company. Now, it does sound like OpenAI will also have a Super Bowl ad, so we'll see how that goes. But a couple quick thoughts about all of this. So first of all, let's talk about the response. The short of it is, this isn't how a market leader responds. There's a famous line in Mad Men where one of Don Draper's employees says, "I feel bad for you." Don Draper looks at him deadpan and says, "I don't think about you at all." That's the energy when you're the market leader. Or you make it playful when they're clearly trying to make it serious. What you don't do, I don't think, is ratchet it up to claims of authoritarianism. Or at least you don't before you take a night to sleep on it. But to be honest, in this particular case, I got more beef with Anthropic. This move is so out of character for them. And so wrong headed in so many ways that I'm actually trying to rack my brain to figure out if there's something that I'm missing. First of all, what I will say is, the odds are funny. And I actually think that if you look back at the history of Super Bowl ads, and I've actually done this numbers crunching before, because I made one a few years back, something like 90% of the top rated ads every year are humor. They're not serious, they're not uplifting, they're not tear jerkers, they're very, very few companies who can pull off that sort of highfalutin ad in the Super Bowl setting. It's the one time a year that people actually want to be advertised to, but they want to be entertained. So, I am sympathetic to wanting to do a funny ad. Here's where things go off the rails, though. I don't think anyone's going to really get the context. Expecting that users know that OpenAI has said that they're going to do ads in chat GPT is just not realistic. It would be one thing if ads had already premiered in chat GPT, and everyone was complaining about them. But the entire basis for Anthropics campaign is a critique of something that doesn't exist yet. It's a pain that people aren't feeling yet. I think that's going to significantly diminish the impact. Second, and this is where I start to move from having critique of strategy to being actively annoyed. My strong guess is that a pretty big chunk of people who like these ads are going to like it because it confirms their suspicion that AI is just the latest way that tech billionaires have come up with to control your life and take your money. I think that Anthropic is with this ad not primarily taking down a competitor, but feeding into a critique of the industry as a whole. I think that these ads make things worse, not better, in a US that is already more skeptical than basically any other country in the world of AI. Now as I've said before, people are allowed to be skeptical of AI, and the technology industry has made the bed that we now all lie in. But there is a tidal wave coming to shore, and the net impact of people being annoyed at AI is just another tech thing, is that they're not paying attention to it and they're not being prepared for it, and I think in that we are doing them a massive disservice. Finally, this is just the opposite of the brand vibe that Anthropic has spent three years building. It's petty, small, doesn't tell any of the stories that have made Claude such an insurgency recently, and ultimately, I just kind of think it's sad. It's not going to stop me from using Claude code for 24 hours a day, but I think when you take all this together, it is a big L for the entire industry. Now the funny thing is, for as much as we're talking about these Anthropic Superbowl ads, they actually weren't the biggest impact Anthropic had on the world this week. That came when a Claude code plug-in wiped billions of dollars off of the global markets. So for there, we will end our headlines and move on over into the main episode. Most marketing and digital teams don't have an AI ideas problem. They have an execution problem, lots of pilots, experiments, and tools, but very little making it into real living breathing workflows, AI sounds powerful, but scaling it without slowing teams down or breaking brand and governance is still hard. Content, experimentation, personalization, approvals, all the stuff that eats your week. That's why, optimizely, is hosting agents in action, a free event focused on putting agent to AI to work in real marketing and digital teams. You'll see how AI agents can support real workflows, not demos, and not hype. It's built for leaders and practitioners who want clarity on where agents fit. That stays human and how to operationalize AI responsibly. Less theory, more practical examples you can actually apply, and a conversation with me. I'll be talking about the big agent shift that we are living through, plus sharing what we've learned putting agents into practice for so many different types of enterprises. Best of all, agents in action is free to attend. It's happening on March 4th, and you can learn more in [email protected]/agents-in-action. Today's episode is brought to you by robots and pencils. A company that is growing fast. Their work as a high-growth AWS and Databricks partner means that they're looking for elite talent ready to create real impact at velocity. Their teams are made up of AI native engineers, strategists, and designers who love solving hard problems and pushing how AI shows up in real products. They move quickly using robot works, their agentic acceleration platform, so teams can deliver meaningful outcomes in weeks, not months. They don't build big teams, they build high-impact nimble ones. The people there are wicked smart with patents, published research, and work that's helped shaped entire categories. They work in velocity pods and studios that stay focused and move with intent. If you're ready for career-defining work with peers who challenge you and have your back, robots and pencils is the place. Explore open roles at robotsandpensals.com/careers. That's robotsandpensals.com/careers. Want to accelerate enterprise software development velocity by 5x? You need Blitzy, the only autonomous software development platform built for enterprise codbases. Your engineers define the project, a new feature, refactor, or greenfield build. Blitzy agents first ingest and map your entire codebase, then the platform generates a bespoke agent action plan for your team to review and approve. Once approved, Blitzy gets to work autonomously generating hundreds of thousands of lines of validated end-to-end tested code. More than 80% of the work completed in a single run. Blitzy is not generating code, it's developing software at the speed of compute. Your engineers review, refine, and ship. This is how Fortune 500 companies are compressing multi-month projects into a single sprint, accelerating engineering velocity by 5x. Experience Blitzy first hand at Blitzy.com, that's B-L-I-T-Z-Y.com. Today's episode is brought to you by my company, Superintelligent. In 2026, one of the key themes in enterprise AI, if not the key theme, is going to be how good is the infrastructure into which you are putting AI in agents. Superintelligence agent readiness audits are specifically designed to help you figure out one, where and how AI in agents can maximize business impact for you, and two, what you need to do to set up your organization to be best able to leverage those new gains. If you want to truly take advantage of how AI in agents can not only enhance productivity, but actually fundamentally change outcomes in measurable ways in your business this year, go to bsuper.ai. Welcome back to the AI Daily Brief. One of the things that happens pretty frequently on this show is that I will start clocking a theme that I think is having some amount of narrative resonance, either in conversations on Twitter/X or starting to break into the mainstream media, but which I don't think demands a full deep dive yet. Sometimes those themes dissipate, but sometimes they lurk and grow until they can no longer be ignored. That is absolutely what has happened with today's theme, where concerns about AI disruption have turned into a full on market panic as software sells off. Now, the basis for this won't surprise any listeners of this show. We have been tracking ever since coming back from the holidays, the extent to which people are embracing that a fundamental inflection point on the capability set of AI around coding has shifted the world that we live in. What's important to note is that this belief set has not been constrained to AI early adopters. It has started to find its way into other circles, particularly business and financial circles. A couple of weeks ago, the narrative really started to find its way into Wall Street. Some companies in particular began sliding, and things have now reached a full on fever pitch with Bloomberg and the Wall Street Journal publishing dozens of articles so far this week. To give a sense of what's happening, Salesforce is down 21% on the year, Snowflake is down 23%, HubSpot is down 36%, and Applovin is down 37%. In each case, the fearsome sell-off happened over the past few days, giving a sense that this narrative is only accelerating. Jeffrey Favuza, who works at the Equity Trading Desk at Jeffrey, said, "We call it the SaaS Pockelips, an apocalypse for software as a service stocks." He added that the trading flow he's seeing across his desk is very much "get me out" style selling. What's important to note is that it appears at least at first glance that many of those racing for the exits have a genuine belief that something meaningfully changed over the past month. Michael Rorck, the chief market strategist at Jones Trading, said, "I don't think it's an overreaction. For two years, we've been talking about how AI is going to change the world, and that it is a multi-generational technology. In the past few weeks, we've seen signs of it in practice. It's also important to note that this isn't a broad-based tech sell-off. Apple, for example, is up 2% so far this year and 12% from a local low two weeks ago. The iPhone's stock seems blissfully unaware of the disruption going on around it, even as Apple fails to put forward a meaningful AI strategy. At the same time, it is notable that we've had a dozen AI-related sell-offs since the release of Chad's GPT in late 2022. They basically ping-pong between a narrative that the technology is overhyped, or that it's wildly disruptive in some portion of Big Tech is failing to keep up in the AI race. This is the first time we've seen the market try to price in broad-based disruption that could kill off an entire sector. And while the focus has mostly been on SaaS, another example showed the market's concerns about AI disruption last week. We've of course talked about the new test model of Google's Genie 3, where you can generate entire interactive worlds. Genie stocks plunge on that news, with Game Engine creator Unity seeing 35% wiped off their stock price since Genie 3 came out last Thursday. Grand Theft Auto Maker Take 2 Interactive saw a 39% drop, which was severe enough for CEO Strauss-Zelnik to issue a statement, basically that Genie is exciting, but there's way more that goes into game development than just world creation. He might be right, but that hasn't made investors any less scared. Private markets are also taking an absolute pounding, according to Apollo Global Management co-president John Zito. Bloomberg reported for the first time on comments that Zito made during the fall. He argued that tariffs, inflation, and high interest rates are all minor concerns. Commenting, the real risk is, is software dead. Apollo already made their move last year, slashing exposure to software and their private credit funds from 20% to 10% and actively shorting some names. The broader question is whether the entire business model of software still makes sense in the AI era. Isaac Kim, a partner at VC firm LightSpeed who previously worked in tech private equity commented, "Technology private equity in its current form is dead." He added that buying software firms has a clear formula. The burn rate starts high, but margins increase and leverage increases as the business boatures. This model, Kim continued, "assumes the underlying product remains relevant long enough for financial engineering to work. AI has changed that assumption." Casey Smith on X called this the "great sass meltdown." Software stock woes he argues are deepening and the old playbook is broken. When he says high growth low profitability is dead, the market is stopped rewarding growth at all costs. If your sass isn't printing cash or showing a clear path to profit by 2026, investors are out. 2. The AI question mark. AI is a double edged sword for software. On growth durability, can these companies stay relevant or will AI agents replace their core functions? On profitability, inference costs are massive and traditional high margins are getting squeezed. Finally, there's the seat crisis. Why pay for 100 seats when AI lets 10 people do the same work? The per user pricing model is facing an existential crisis. The bottom line he writes, "The era of easy sass gains is over. Durability and efficiency are the new kings." And this is where we were heading into a couple of days ago, when the final domino fell in a way that tipped this conversation into overdrive and made this particular show inevitable. Believe it or not, the catalyst for the latest market meltdown was a "clawed co-work legal plugin." The Wall Street Journal wrote data provider stocks tumble on AI competition fears. Some players Andy Berman wrote, "There are hundreds of verticals like these, and plugins will disrupt each of them one by one. Secure access to tools like co-work is going to change how every company operates." Oh, and RIP billable hours. And so this is where things are. Basically markets are freaked as the sand in which they stand upon shifts under their feet once again. We have come a long way, from Mark Andreessen's essay about why software is eating the world that was published all the way back in 2011. This Andreessen wrote that post, "Software and SaaS in particular has been one of the easiest long-term bets on Wall Street. You just park your money there, and inevitably over time it goes up. But it's pretty undeniable that AI is changing the nature of how software gets built. Tons of people are experiencing this. CNBC Anchor Deirdre Bosa tweeted yesterday, "Woke up this morning and said, 'For fun, let's try to recreate Monday.com with Clawed Co-work. It won't work or anything, but we can just show our audience that it's plausible." And now or later I literally have my own Monday.com that's plugged into my calendar in Gmail and service to kids birthday that was not anywhere on my radar and I need to get a gift for. Can imagine that next step being order gift and have it delivered by Sunday. Now she adds to be clear, me being able to vibe code a personal tool is not going to disrupt the software trade, but someone who does know what they're doing very well might. The thing is, I'm not so sure people are convinced of that. It may be in fact that Deirdre being able to vibe code a personal tool is exactly what disrupts the software trade. YC Founder Chris Pissarski writes, "I don't think people are taking this seriously enough. One of our AEs just got off a demo with a prospect who's building internal sales and go-to-market workflows with Replic to replace a sass tool they're currently paying for. The Replic agent told him to use our API so he reached out. He showed us a demo of one of the apps he built, pull a list of everyone who attended a specific event, enrich each person, run web search on people with only a username and to priority. He was non-technical, seeing this trend more and more over the last two months. And certainly if you listen to this show, you hear a lot of stories like this. Hell, my head of sales got annoyed a couple of weeks ago that our website still had information from previous iterations, and instead of asking our engineering team if you could go work with our previous designer and web flow specialists to change things, homie just quad-coded an entire replacement, and frankly it kicks the slats out of our old website. So does this mean software is dead?" One of the key counterpoints is kicked up by Prompt Watch's class. He writes sass is dead, says someone who's never stepped foot in a company with more than seven people. The point being, of course, that many of these stories of disruption are from the absolute most enfranchised, nimble, highly technically literate, and fast-moving types of companies. And that the dynamics inside bigger companies are very, very different. James Blunt expanded the thought. He writes large enterprises don't run on apps. They run on decades of layered systems, ERP, mainframes, customer services, data warehouses, compliance controls, and fragile integrations nobody dares touch without a 12 month change plan. AI agents don't just plug in and replace that. He cautions that there's a difference between markets and the actual lived reality of enterprises. Stocks, he says, can move on expectations. Enterprise architecture moves on risk tolerance. Those timelines are very different. In an interview a couple of days ago, Nvidia CEO Jensen Huang spoke about this, saying that the market is just plain wrong. The notion he said that AI is somehow going to replace software companies is the most illogical thing in the world and time will prove it. Let's give ourselves that the ultimate thought experiment. Suppose we are the ultimate AI, artificial, general robotics, the ultimate AI, the physical version of us. You could of course solve any problem because you know, you're humanoid. You could do things. If you were a human or robot, would you use a screwdriver or invent a new screwdriver? I would just use one. Would you use a hammer or invent a new hammer? Would you use a chainsaw or invent a new chainsaw? HubSpot Founder Darmesh wrote, I'm biased, but I wish I could give this 100 likes. The idea that really hit home for me, if we had the ultimate AI, would it go and reinvent service now or SAP or other software tools? Or would it just use the proven tools out there because that's the most efficient way for it to achieve its goals? It would use the proven tools. And every's agrees, writing, nobody and I mean absolutely nobody wants to code and support every piece of software they use. This is a total and complete waste of time. If the market already built what you want and it's good, you're wasting time and money rebuilding it for nothing. And nobody wants to do every job either. You don't want to vibe code the AI accounting software and then support it and verify its output. You want the accountants using the AI accounting software. People are really losing their minds in the distortion field right now. The reality is we've also seen some of these experiments. Sebastian Semyotkowski, the CEO of Klarna, is probably the most prominent example of an executive who explicitly shut down and tried to replace SaaS services like Salesforce. But a year into the experiment he wrote, "I don't think it's the end of Salesforce. It might be the opposite." He explained exactly why Klarna was doing it and why it was more than just a grudge against Salesforce. But said that the specific considerations that they had and the efficiencies that they were looking for are likely not going to be worth it for most companies. He wrote, "Will all companies do what Klarna does? I doubt it." On the contrary, much more likely is that we will see fewer SaaS consolidate the market and they will do what we do and offer it to others. On top of that, there's also the fact that a lot of the folks who are running these companies are quite excited about what AI can do for them. Going back to the gaming example, for example, Epic Games founder Tim Sweeney wrote, "Gene 3 is amazing. I prompted it to remake Jill of the Jungle in 3D and it did a reasonable job." He continued, "World models have huge advantages and vast knowledge of the world and ability to mash up varied content and styles. Games have huge advantages in a stable representation of the world, reproducible simulation and GPU and power efficient rendering." And that was on someone saying that he didn't think that Genie 3 was supposed to be generating Fortnite gameplay, effectively bringing up IP issues. Tim didn't take the chance to sue Google. He said AI Darth Vader and Fortnite last year and now Gemini's pure world model shows how fast AI is evolving. So one of the takeaways here is that anytime you hear anyone talk in extremes, obvious hyperbole, like Ease X dead, the default answer should always be, of course not. Of course there is more nuance to this. However, I also think that in this particular case, the answer, the version that Jensen gave of Nah, no one's going to bother, they'll just use what exists, is not sufficient either. So is there in fact a more nuanced take that recognizes that we are in the midst of a dramatic shift without assuming that shift means the end of an entire category of business? Some folks like the Wall Street Journal's Dan Gallagher are focused on the fact that when it comes to markets, long-term reality doesn't matter, it's short-term expectations. He wrote a piece called AI Won't Kill the Software Business Just Its Growth Story. He says software vendors are now in the challenging position of having to disprove a negative, showing acceleration and revenue growth would help counter fears of AI disruption, but that'll be difficult in a time of tightening corporate spending in large scale workforce reductions. Layoffs can affect the number of seats that underpin many cloud software contracts. The big customers that software companies sell to are also investing in their own internal AI projects that may not be designed to replace the software platforms they use but can still consume IT budget dollars in management attention. At the least, he writes that could give customers additional leverage and contract renewal negotiations. So basically, among other impacts, even if it doesn't kill SaaS, it could pretty dramatically change how it's priced. Ben Thompson agrees with this. He wrote, "In the shorter term, the real risk I see for software companies is the fact that while they can write infinite software thanks to AI, so can every other software company." The problem now is that while businesses may not want to give up on software, they don't necessarily want to buy more. If anything, they need to cut their spending so they have more money for their own tokens. That means the growth story for all these companies is in serious questions. And the industry-wide re-rating seems completely justified to me. It is also the case that we don't need an entire category to die for specific companies to be wildly disrupted. My intuition is that AI makes strong software companies stronger and weak software companies weaker. This is because the mode of strong software companies was never software, but rather distribution, proprietary data, workflow integration, enterprise lock-in, network effects, trust and compliance, etc. Whereas the mode of weak software companies was just software. Pavel Asparaho puts it simpler, SaaS's dead is probably oversold and sleepy companies get wrecked in technology shifts is probably undersold. Some of the people like Steven Sinovsky who are writing thought pieces about how software isn't going to die are still adding caveats like this one. It is absolutely true he writes that some companies will not make it. It is even true that in some very long time, longer than a career regeneration, every company will be completely different or their product line and organization will have dramatically changed. And indeed to me that's the more interesting question. Is not is software dead, but how is it going to change who loses from that and who benefits? An obvious area is the companies that already have the relationships are in a good position to bring the next generation of software into market. Why commentator president Gary Tan writes software is not dead, SaaS without agents may suffer but agent SaaS is alive well and winning. Tyler Hogwrights, the public SaaS turnaround in three steps. One dramatically cut stock based compensation, two aggressively deploy AI agents internally, three aggressively transition your product from old school SaaS to agent revenue, hard but necessary. John Lober is optimistic, he writes maybe we will finally have good software. He writes many people are writing about the death of B2B SaaS but somehow everyone leaves out, those SaaS products were never good. Most software is hideously broken, terrible UX bugs and obvious functionality that's missing. People are upset about S&P and Salesforce tanking but what does this really mean? Today these companies are about extracting value from their market position more so than really creating new software. The bar for quality is and how it has been on the floor. Now that we have AI tooling, perhaps what will happen is that these companies will finally begin to compete on quality. The average software company can absorb an almost arbitrary amount of AI investment to finally make their product good, not bad. We may wind up with a similarly structured SaaS market but the software may finally hopefully be good and pleasant to use. So my base case is that we are in for an enormous amount of disruption. I think what's very hard to tell is exactly what categories it's going to be in and how. To take another example, OpenClaw creator Peter Steinberg recently argued on a podcast that AI is going to replace 80% of the apps that you have on your phone. Frankly, that strikes me as more plausible than a 50,000 person industrial giant all of a sudden deciding that they're going to vibe code their own work day. There's also a lot of unknowns. Investor Gokal Rajaram commented on Jensen's point, which was again, is an AGI just going to choose the screwdriver that exists. Gokal writes the challenge with this framing for software companies is that AI chooses the tool to use. And AI will select the optimal tool based on several criteria which change over time. This doesn't bode well for a specific piece of software having a long term relationship with a customer. If AI can switch them off in favor of a competitive tool, it is the very definition of commoditization. TLDR, delegating tool choice and tool use to AI agents is likely worse for software companies not better. Kaviyat, its mitigated if humans choose the tool based on prior vendor relationships and AI simply uses the tool, but I see this as a slippery slope and humans will ultimately delegate the choice of tool to AI. Now ultimately, when it comes to this particular market sell-off, it's clear that there's a lot more going on than just questions about AI and SAS. It's our nervous about everything right now, they have no solid footing and they haven't since they started getting skeptical of the AI build out at the end of last summer. It is very possible in fact likely that in a few weeks everything is resolved and we see this blip similar to the deep seek moment in January 2025. In other words, a thing around AI that was a real phenomenon but which was wildly overblown as markets try to grapple with an unknowable future. And so the takeaway of that should be some amount of calm when it comes to just how fast the change is going to be. At the same time, I do think it would be a mistake to plively write off just how significant the structural change we are part of is. While I and David Ricardo agree that the theory of comparative advantage suggests that every company is not going to become an everything company, I think that there are going to be massive implications for the way that software is priced, the leverage that companies have or not when it comes to their contracts, the way that procurement happens. I think that it is almost for sure that in a decade we're using ten times as much software as we use now. But I do not know what that means for any individual company that is selling software. I think the landscape could look dramatically different. And so once again, I'm left to actually feeling that the market is accidentally behaving in a healthy manner, not that it should be reacting so strongly right now, but that this process of re-rating SaaS might be ultimately healthy. Whatever the case, I'm sure this is not a debate that we are going to stop having, so I will pause for now. Appreciate you guys listening or watching, as always, and until next time, peace.