Techstrong Gang – January 7, 2025

Hey, be careful what you say. AI may be using it to train their models. They may even be using this.

You are watching Text Drunk Gang. Hi everyone, happy Tuesday. Happy New Year to you.

Happy, happy. It's Alan Shimo for Techstrong and we are thrilled to be back for a new year of Textron Gang. We've got a lot of plans to shake things up a little this year.

Keep it relevant though, and keep you guys out there interested and make this worthwhile for you. Um, on that note, we've got a great bunch of things to talk about today and we have a great gang to talk about them. Let me introduce you to them.

First of all, joining us. He's got his guitars back. I'm glad to see.

I thought we were gonna lose the guitars for the beginning of the year. He's, uh, fu uh, VP analyst, Mitch Ashley. Hey Mitch.

Welcome. Happy New Year, man. Happy 2025.

Yeah, kicking the year off right with Techron Gang. Yeah, 2025, right? We're a quarter of a way through this century.

Most of us here, with the exception of you, Bonnie lived through much more than a quarter of the last century. That's quite a expansive time. And um, well, there's something to be said for getting older I guess.

But anyway, um, welcome Mitch. It's great to have you on joining us. Also, he's also back home.

I know he was wandering around a little bit during the holiday season, but he's home in Ohio. He's the, uh, founder, CEO of Tech Field Day, part of the Futurum Group. Our friend Steven Foskett.

Hey Steven, how are you? Um, you know what, I really miss Techron gang. I'm really glad to be back.

I love talking about this stuff with you guys and, uh, thanks for having me back. You know, look, if you wanna do more days here, you're more than welcome to, you know? Oh, I see.

Be careful what you wish for. Don't Miss it that much. Take it easy there.

How? Alright. The invites in your calendar, just throwing it out at you.

But Steven, it's good to have you on and happy New year. Happy New Year to you. All righty.

Joining us. He's home in Harrison, New York. Uh, but he's been with us all throughout our Chief Content officer and editorial driver at Textron Gang, Mike Ard.

Hey, Mike, how are you? I am well and here's a positive note for the deep freeze, but I think if I've got my calculations correct, it's less than 45 days to when pitchers and catches report for spring drink. Oh wow.

That's right. That's right. Exactly.

Down here in Florida too. Looking forward to that though. We still have football season.

Nope. Football season's been, let's not football. Mm-hmm.

Let me turn now to our sustainability analyst and editor joining us here live in our Boca Ratone Studios. Bonnie Schneider. Hey Bonnie, how are You?

Yeah, I'm great. Great to be back as well. It's good to have you here as always, Bonnie's usually on our Tuesday morning shows if you catch your or catch Tuesday morning.

com. com. That's right.

We have the domain back there too, so check that out. Alright, gang members, big story today, uh, we're gonna kick off on the A block is, uh, anthropic has been making a lot of noise lately about getting out in front of all these claims and there, and I do mean all these claims of of copyright IP infringement and, and bully philanthropic. But quite frankly, when, when is the rest of that industry gonna line up?

Mike, let's kick it over to you and we'll go from there. Yeah, it looks like a little progress is finally being made, and it may not be everything everybody wants just yet, but philanthropic has agreed through the a lawsuit court case that involved the music industry where they're gonna use their controls to limit the, a number of instances where the output might have lyrics in it that point or copyrighted. Um, the case is still proceeding on whether or not it is very used to use copyrighted content to train an AI model.

And that's still a hot debate, but it was interesting, uh, from what I see at least, that there was some movement towards some middle ground here that maybe folks can get around. Because if we can use the controls to limit the output, then we don't have to worry necessarily as much as the owners of copyrights being hurt by people who are using their content without compensating them. It's a theory, but there are flaws in the theory.

A couple of them come to mind immediately. One is, it's not clear the controls actually work. Um, there's been some studies reported that, um, anthropic itself has shown that the LLMs will do everything they can, they'll work their way around the controls.

And secondarily, um, well let's say that somebody does wind up using lyrics or some other copyrighted content in something else. Do I who calls them up and says, you know, pull that out and replace that. And, um, you know, the court says they'll enforce it, but how do I actually like get that repaired and, uh, 'cause I don't think philanthropic controls exactly who uses its output.

So I don't know, Al let's start with you, but what's your take on what's going on here? So I'm gonna put my Juris doctor hat mm-hmm. Juris doctorate hat on here and look at this from a legal perspective, really.

So you mentioned what happens when they, when they're guilty, what happens when they do it? Well, in, in legal terms, we talk remedies, right? And there's various remedies.

One remedy is, and we see this in a lot of legal cases, is, Hey, I'm entitled to com compensatory damages. Money, money makes the world go round, right? And so you use my stuff and now you gotta pay me, well, how much should I pay you?

We could probably come up with a scale to measure the pound of flesh there. Number two, what you are describing, Mike, sounds more like a specific performance type of remedy where I want you to remove cease and desist and remove that from your offerings. And I may or may not also want compensatory damages for what you've done so to date with my ip with my property.

So a little bit of both. That's gonna be, as you mentioned, that's going to be hard. Specific performance is always the hardest of, of the, of the remedies to, to do.

Um, or do we set up some sort of, I mean, much like the music industry's done with Spotify, right? And, and the other streamers going back to, uh, Mitch, what was the original music streaming one that broke everything with an n Napster. Napster.

Napster, the Napsters, or, I'm not Mitch, but I am No, I I know you're not Mitch Steven, I haven't gone like, you know, it's only been a couple weeks. I remember he has the beard. You don't, he has a ponytail and guitars and guitars, right?

You, you know, uh, but that being said, you know, do we set up some sort of governing? And I think that might be, it's gonna take some time, but that might be the solution that we do set up some sort of governing board here with, because I, Mike, I agree with you. I don't think you could take it out of the learning process.

I, I think that's artificial and it's gonna hurt the whole thing. But I think companies should be compensated and there should be a scale put in place. And I think that's the way to do it.

It's just gonna take time. You know, when I was in law school, um, one of our prof, one of my professors co taught Con Law, um, and he, he had come from Stanford where he taught William Requi. He was the con law professor for William Rehnquist, chief Justice Rehnquist and Sandra Day O'Connor, that's how old I am.

Um, he was much older by the time he got to me, he was on his last legs. I can tell you some, well, I'm not gonna tell you some funny stories, but anyway, but he always said, when it comes to technologies like this, it takes the courts and society three to five to seven years to catch up to technology. And so, and technology is constantly, doesn't stand still, it's moving forward.

So I wouldn't be surprised if it takes us three to five years to come to grips or even more with this whole, how, how are the AI or the large, let's call 'em the hyper LLMs, the Claudes, the chat GPTs, the Geminis, how are they going to compensate? Because in Inev, in inevitably they are using IP that doesn't belong to them. And they, and to think that we're gonna somehow cut that out and stop that, I think is you're kidding yourself.

It's, it's already baked in. Just what's the comp and, and, you know, how do you set up a recording Industry of America kind of scale thing that get compensates people for their I ai uh, for their IP being used? Well, we've talked about the troll topic before, right?

The, uh, patent trolls. Mm-hmm. And the copyright trolls, much of that, um, we're already seeing in the code space, companies like tab nine coming out with provenance tools where they will tell you, they'll analyze your code base and say, where did all this come from?

And did some of it come from this repository on GitHub? Is it somewhere else? So I, I expect we're gonna see a lot of those kinds of tools available on the market, which is gonna essentially putting kind of weapons in the hands of the trolls to come after for copyright violations.

So I'm not sure if that's the same, you know, if that has the same power behind it that patent violations do. But, uh, you would know better than I, Alan, but certainly we're gonna have the tools in hand very quickly to tell us, is this copyright material? I think we would sign up for a service that told us that our content was showing up somewhere else, and it got there through some sort of an AI engine.

I think that would be a useful capability. And, But that service already exists and all this stuff already exists and it's not doing anything. And I think that, that, I think that's the saddest thing.

This this, this story is sad. This whole situation is sad because essentially, as Alan said, um, the horses out of the barn, AI has been trained on legit material as well as copyrighted material. It's in there.

Um, the, this court case, if you look at the details of this, this specific case we're talking about with anthropic and recording industry, um, you know, they're not even saying that they're going to not produce things. What they're saying is, uh, they've got a filter in front of the AI that's gonna check for plagiarism and basically kick it back if, if it's plagiarized. This is some weak thought.

Now, I do think that Anthropic deserves a pat on the back for being ahead of this thing. I also think that the reason they went after Anthropic first is because they're in the EU and because they seemingly care more about copyright than the rest of these people. But the truth is that none of these AI systems give a darn about copyright.

They've all taken every copyrighted material. And, and now we're in a situation where people like us are sitting here on talking into cameras saying, the horse is outta the barn. There's nothing you can do about it.

We just gotta accept it. Well, that sinks. I hate that.

And you hate that too, because, you know, the truth is, um, you know, I I actually just looked at a a a a system that does this. Um, actually I was talking to a company called Copy Leaks. They were a plagiarism checker.

They now have an AI checker as well. Um, this stuff is incredibly widespread. I ran some Textron stuff through it and found, uh, not AI generated ripoffs, just blatant ripoffs across the internet all over the place.

com and Security Boulevard stuff from Gestalt it that I wrote, uh, being illegally used, improperly used all over the internet. We've done nothing about that. We have the ability to do nothing about that.

It just is completely rampant. And now that's gonna be happening in the AI space that stinks. Welcome to 2025, where people rip off your stuff and there's no penalty.

Well, I, Steve and I echo and agree with you, right? As a publisher and a creator of content, you know, it costs us, I don't have to tell you, it costs money to create content and salaries, time, everything. And I'd like to be compensated for that.

com, you know, to train their, their, their, uh, models on DevOps. And I don't even know how many articles that have been on Security Boulevard over the years on the security bloggers network and everything, and I'm looking for checks. I I, you know, it's, it, we paid for that, that IP for that material to be created.

I should be compensated for it. I've had that happen to me. I wrote two books and I've definitely seen passages of my books that people have used and they don't credit me for it.

You know, if you sent, they'll recognize it and no, they don't need to. And especially if it's another country that's happened to me. Yeah.

Oh yeah. Um, so I I, one of the models that seems to at least try to make an effort with that is perplexity. You go on there, they will give you footnotes from, you know, which sources, right?

And I think Gemini should do that and, and, and, and definitely chat GBT because they make up a lot of stuff. So I think I'd like to know their sources At at least citing a source and attributing attribution. But I'm a attribution's fine and dandy.

I want cold art cash. Yeah, you're right. I'll be honest with you.

I want money. Oh my goodness. I wanna be compensated.

So, So what is your assessment of the fair use argument that they're trying to make on content? It's a legal argument. There's an argument to be made.

I don't think it's a winning argument, right? Mm-hmm. Um, fair use has some very specific, usually use case scenarios and patterns that it'll apply to.

I don't think so. It, it's one thing if you're gonna tell me you took a song, here comes the sun, right? And you used that, but you didn't use any of the lyrics or melody or anything like that, but you used it to train my AI about, you know, how the sun can brighten your day or whatever, right?

It's another thing to to, to kind of, you see lyrics that are getting spit out that appear to have come from that song. The first could be considered fair use. I think the second is IP infringement.

The latter is IP infringement. And, um, but you know what, here's what I wanna avoid. It shouldn't take you hiring lawyers to do this stuff, right?

There's gotta be a system in place, and maybe it's through technology that says, Hey, this is clearly from that. Pay the man, pay the woman, pay the person, pay the entity. This is how much you should pay based upon that violation.

And that's what we need to get to, you know, attribution's fine, but it don't pay the bills. And, um, and I'm, and I'm speaking selfishly now, right? As, as a publisher, we, we do this too, Steven, we, we don't use a a program yet for AI stuff, but we try to track people who are reprinting our articles without permission and stuff.

And you know, some are good about it when you write 'em and some aren't. Um, but we'll see. I mean, but a as someone else said, I think it was Bonnie said, you know, kudos to philanthropic for, for jumping on this.

Also, wanna point out that in this instant case that we're talking about, they're only talking about go forward, not backward looking. Right? So they're saying, well, what we did is what we did, but going forward, we're gonna be better.

Yeah. Well, they're also saying that they're outta data anyway, so they took it all already and they don't, you know, they're complaining that they now have to rely on synthetic data to train their AI models. 'cause they can't get access to any more new data for free, Apparently.

Yeah, absolutely. They're not even using, uh, I mean, basically they, yeah, all the data that's that's been scraped has been scraped now. And, uh, you know, back to Alan's point about, you know, that's how it's right.

They've, they've already taken it. It's not like they can go back and, uh, you know, clean that up or get that outta the model or something. Now they're gonna be using synthetic data.

Actually the synthetic data angle is interesting though, because they could actually develop a clean AI using only synthetic data and it would be clean of any copyrighted material because it would be only trained on the output of other ais. And that would, that reminds me of, remember in the eighties, uh, the, uh, bios cloning for the IBM PC clones, um, you know, that clean room essentially, it's the same kind of thing. So you've got the dirty AI that's generating, um, fresh training data, and then you've got the clean AI that doesn't have any access to any copyrighted material from anyone or any scraped material from anyone.

And, um, that would be really cool. Um, and also pretty terrible, but cool and terrible. And, and we would still need to, uh, I think have it, uh, check to make sure that it's not, uh, you know, plagiarizing.

'cause these things are statistical models and statistically they're going to come up with plagiarized stuff. I mean, you know, I've got a, a William Shakespeare quote on my mug. I bet every AI is gonna be able to, uh, to generate this quote spontaneously simply because it's out there in the world so widely.

It's part of our consciousness and our civilization. And then to the fair use argument, I find that pretty interesting too, because if I create, well, first off, parody is protected by the US Constitution. Thank God the founders had a sense of humor.

Uh, they seem to have. And, um, you know, so if I create a parody song, it's completely protected. If I created derivative work that is substantially transforms the work, it's also protected.

And I could see somebody arguing that text generated from an AI based on, um, you know, for example, in the case, in this case, you know, specific musician's lyrics or style would be protected speech, um, under the First Amendment. I could see that being a legit argument. Uh, you know, Under, under parody.

I think it would be, Well, not even parody though, but just in the style of, because I mean, I can, I can write in the style of Mike Baard. Well, I, I honestly couldn't do a good job of it, but I could try and, and Mike wouldn't have anything to say about it because frankly, um, you know, that's just me expressing as long as I didn't copy 'em. Um, I'll give you an example on that.

You know, we have our Predict 2025 show, which by the way, we move from Thursday the ninth to Tuesday the 14th, because Thursday the ninth is a national day of morning year in the US for President Jimmy Carter. Um, but to the promo for that show, the can't be promo as we do every year. This year's theme was, uh, the beat goes on Sonny and Cher, and I actually asked the AI and AI to write me a script in the style of the Sonny and Cher Show featuring a guy in gal, you know, similar to Sonny and Cher talking about Predict 2025.

And if you catch the promo, it's on LinkedIn and all over it's Kim, our COO, uh, Kim Parker, and, and myself. I'm Sonny, if you couldn't tell, but, um, but if you catch it, it is, it's written in the style. It's the same silly jokes.

She makes fun of Sonny Sonny's the straight guy, you know, and, and it did a great job of, in the style of Sonny and Cher. Um, and I worried, is this too close? Right?

But it's parody and it's protected under parody anyway, but yeah, now I, Steven, I agree with you there a hundred percent. Some of it always comes down to how, what is the commercial use case behind the usage of the thing, right? In your case, you're not really driving, you know, a, a, a subscription service on your parody of Sunny and Cher, but a lot of the people who are using the output from Anthropic or Open AI or whatever, are you are incorporating that, that into a product or a service that they're selling.

And that's a much different issue. Yeah. And actually that's another point too, is that a lot of the cases that have been brought have actually been rejected because the, the plaintiffs failed to show any standing, Um, damage Well, that there wasn't any harm, Right?

Any damages. Mm-hmm. Yeah.

Yeah. Something to be said there too. Anyway, guys, we, we've exhausted our time limit on this one.

We're gonna take a break here on text on Gang. We're gonna come back and, and Bonnie's gonna give us a look at sustainability in 2025. Before we do, we should mention, you know, if you are watching this and you'd like your company sponsoring Text and Gang, we do have sponsorships available.

com and we'll have somewhere contact you. Alrighty, we'll be right back. Modernize your business to fuel innovation and elevate customer experiences with the builder community.

Hub AWS and its partner network provide essential tools for transforming applications and infrastructure to fully leverage the cloud. Discover free trials, in-depth demos and essential resources to empower DevOps engineers and developers to deliver value faster and more reliably. Visit the builder community hub to learn more.

Hi everyone. Welcome back to the Techstrong Gang. Well, it's a new year and we have new rules in effect for corporate sustainability reporting, particularly in Europe where there's mandates now being enforced.

The data was being gathered last year, but it's all due this year. So I took a closer look at what we are facing this year and some immediate deadlines that are coming up, um, in 2025. Hi everyone, I'm Bonnie Schneider with your Ecotech Analyst Insights.

It's January, 2025. And the European Union's corporate sustainability reporting directive CRSD is now in effect, and it's not just for those overseas. The rule also applies to international firms with major European operations.

Given this broad scope, many industries will be impacted, including the tech sector under scrutiny data centers, as they now consume an estimated three to 4% of global electricity tech companies like Microsoft, Google and Amazon must comply with these rules while managing their growing AI operations. This means carefully tracking power usage, water consumption, and heat management. Plus tech companies based in America face the additional pressure of complying with evolving US rules.

Here in the states. The adoption of new SEC requirements for sustainability moved forward last year, but they are currently on hold pending legal review. These rules would demand publicly traded companies to report their greenhouse gas emissions and climate related risks impacting their finances.

The momentum for sustainability reporting is growing for many large organizations. 2025 marks a new era of mandatory compliance. So as you can see, global tech companies will be faced with this challenge of mandatory sustainability reporting.

The biggest issue from the research that I've done is this Scope three aspect where you're responsible for reporting all of the emissions from the supply chain. And that is extensive. So I think there's gonna be a lot of trial and error going back and forth with what works and what doesn't.

But another emergence just over the past few years are these new tech tools that companies can use to effectively measure, um, emissions. And, and there's also lots of a touch and go with that as well to see what works. So it's an ongoing, evolving, uh, situation.

Absolutely. I I think it's gonna be interesting. You know, we, we had the election certified yesterday, new administration coming in and, and let's face it, these people are not big fans of government regulation.

And, you know, how is this going to now a lot of this regulation comes out of the eu mm-hmm. And, and the EU could say, Hey, you do what you want, but when you're over here or it impacts here, you're responsible for it. Uh, it's gonna be an interesting Yeah.

Kind of head banging here a bit as they, as we figure this out. Um, you know, the drill baby drill crowd versus sustainability. Agreed.

So, um, I think we're in for some turbulent times. Yeah. And even right now, just using the term ESG, um, has become con controversial for different and sustainable funds of things like that.

It, that, that what you mentioned that's happening now. Yeah. Bonnie, I'm curious, what's your assessment of the readiness of companies to do that reporting from?

It's Fun to ask Mitch, because I just was working on that, uh, over the holiday break, and I can tell you most of them are not ready. I, I, I know that's true because of that's scope three aspect of tracking emissions throughout the supply chain. Most of the people I talk to are, are by default are in sustainability.

So, you know, they're aware of it, but, um, I would say they're not. And, and that's one of the problems why there, there have been delays in this reporting. Alan mentioned, you know, the new administration that there's, there was approval for reporting out of the state of California, but that's faced legal challenges, so that's on hold as well.

Um, so the readiness and the challenges I think is, is gonna be an issue and delay it this year will be a telling year to see how different companies do their reporting, what is believed to be accurate reporting and, um, you know, and, and then get guidance from there. I would think that somebody's writing an AI agent to generate their report for this thing somewhere. So maybe it'll bit easier If it's right, if it's true.

We'll see, we'll see. It's gonna be interesting times. Anyway, great story on that.

com, excuse me. Um, and that is the specific domain here within kind of the tech strong jungle for the sustainability work that Bonnie does. And, you know, this story's on there, but there's a ton of great stuff on there.

And again, go, go check that out. com. And as I mentioned earlier at the break, Bonnie's always looking for new topics, working with potential sponsors who are concerned about sustainability and echo tech and, uh, should check that out there.

Let's take a break here on Tech Drunk tv. We're gonna come back and talk about a loss for not just the cyber industry, but for the whole tech industry this past week. You're watching Tech Drunk Inc.

Hey, everyone, we're back. You know, unfortunately part of life is dealing with loss and death and you know, as I've gotten older, I've come to realize that, and I think that's part of getting older is coming to terms with one's own mortality, but it still hurts. Nevertheless, when you lose good people and friends and people you respect, and especially when you lose people who go way before their time, way before their time.

Um, we lost one this week. Uh, a friend of mine, Amit Yuran, I first, uh, Amit, in case he didn't know am I say Amit, but you know, my Hebrew's a little off in Israel, they would pronounce it Amit. But Amit, I've known for, uh, 25 years maybe.

Um, he was the, uh, CEO chairman of Tenable most recently. He took a leave of absence a couple months ago as he was battling cancer, which we were all thought that this was a very treatable form of cancer. And unfortunately he lost his battle this, this past week and 54 years old, which is just way too young.

Um, let me just tell you a little bit about Amit though. Amit is one of three brothers. Um, I'm actually very good friends with his youngest brother, Dov, who I speak with pretty norm regularly on tax state conferences and so forth.

All three brothers, they Israeli born came to this country as young, young, young boys. Um, Amit went to West Point, right? And served in the Army.

Um, he then started a company called Rip Tech, which Mitch, I don't know if you remember Rip Tech, but in many ways Rip Tech was the first kind of real MSSP, right? They were doing managed securities. And I remember when I found out about, I was like, what a cool idea, because most, you know, later on it's still secure.

We tried to pivot to Bum SSB model and a lot of what we did there, I, I took from what Amit did at Rip Tech Semantic, I believe bought Rip Tech early on. And Amit, you know, when after fulfilling his thing went his way, Amit and his brother, I think, and this is the brother, I don't know, EAD was the CFO at Rip Tac. And um, Amit went to work, you know, with his West Point background and he went to work in the government for the Bush administration.

Uh, and this was an interesting time. We didn't, you know, there were three people that were key cybersecurity people that helped define the federal government's role in cybersecurity. There was a guy named Howard Schmidt who, if you don't know, you should.

And he passed away. Howard probably passed away at least five years ago, but man, he was a giant, a giant in this industry. Second guy's, a guy named Richard Clark.

Richard A. Clark Richard's written a ton of books. He's, thank God still with us.

And um, if you ever get a chance to see him speak it as he does speak at many security shows and everything. Yeah, oh, all the time there. Um, just again, a, a treasure.

And Amit, Amit started a lot of the cyber intelligence stuff for the, for the government under Bush. And um, just did great work there, left there and started a company called NetWitness, which again was kind of early. So Dove, his younger brothers started one of the first threat intelligence companies and NetWitness was kind of that, but more RSA itself bought net witness.

And then sort of in that reverse merger kinda role that happens in the world of tech and startups, a meet became CEO of RSA, he hand, we ran the whole thing because Cream rises to the top. He was that kind of person. He was an amazing human.

Like I, you know, I spoke to him a lot about cyber obviously, but just connecting with him at a black hat or an RSA conference or any place where you ran into a meet, he was a real person. He wasn't a stuffed shirt as much as he accomplished. He was just a regular person.

And especially if you hung out with him and Dove, you know, his brothers in there drinking and oh my God, we, there were good times. And, um, and then he, he left RSA and, and you know, Ron Gula friend Ron left, uh, tenable and they brought a meet in as his successor there. And he took Tenable to heights that frankly, Ron did it right, bigger and better.

Even he did, did an amazing job because he was just such a quality individual in, in every sense of the word. And, um, it, I I was personally shocked when I, when I saw the news, I didn't even write anything online. 'cause I didn't wanna say anything until I knew this was not some oaks.

I texted Dove and, you know, verify this. And, um, you know, my heart goes out to the, their whole family, 54 years old. You know, you wonder why I, you know, I've, we all wondered this, why does God do these things, right?

I, when I went to St. John's, um, university many, many, many years ago, we were lucky enough to have Eli Wezel. This was before Eli Wezel was quite as famous as he became a guest lecture in one of our theology classes.

And I remember someone asked him, you know, why does God do these things? Was God sleeping in Auschwitz? Why, why would God allow Auschwitz, right?

Or any of the concentration camps? How could there be a God? How could we respect a God who, who does those things?

And, and it's the same thing here. Why does God, if there is a God, why does God let someone 54 years old a good person? Why do these things happen?

And you know, as you get older, you can't blame God for everything is, is kind of the, the answer. But, you know, Eli Wise, Zel said God was there, he was watching and, and it's the same thing. So anyway, just a really, I mean, a giant in the cybersecurity industry for certain in the tech industry, but just a really great person gone way too soon on behalf of everyone here at Techstrong, you know, our hearts go out too am meets family to Dove.

And, and the rest, I mean, I, I saw a lot of people on writing, lying writing, you know, condolences to Tenable. I don't know if you give a corporation condolences, but I know the people at Tenable will miss a meet. 'cause he was, you know, for Steven, you've done this, Mitch, you've done it, Mike, you've done it, Bonnie, you're doing it now.

When you have your own company, when you have your, when you are running the show, you breathe life into that every day. It's, it's like it takes part of your life essence to, to run. And, and Amit did that with Tenable for many years now as well.

So they're in good hands. They'll be fine, I'm sure. But anyway, I, I just didn't want this show to go through without, you know, commenting on this and offering our condolences and good thoughts.

It will be missed. Ellen, you know, we, we say in, in the Jewish religion, may, may their memory be a blessing and we'll end it with that. Anyway, that's text on gang.

We've got a full text on TV schedule for you today. Stay tuned for that. And we'll be back tomorrow hopefully with better news and good, good things.

Until then, this is Alan Shemel. We're out.