Rebuilding America's Industrial Backbone
32:34 Share

Manufacturing is just stepped by thousand paper cuts and is also just really.

really overlooks what amErica brushing at the Apollo era. We got to the moon quick. We can go back to the moon decades later at the same speed that we did when a computer was like the size of the room.

Everyone Operates like we are still the industrial superpower. We're making really poor of decisions because of IT.

There's another freeze when you've fedor are not angry. And I think this is why we don't do things fast enough in the us.

For career, fully went across taiwan and we add to ship a bunch of missile over there and fire them. Our entire inventory of every munition in the country would lost three dex. And then IT would take us three years to replace IT.

If we don't do IT now, we're going to do at thirty years later.

AmErica is a country of immense wealth, but are also a country that got news to wire harnesses on the back of airline ces that cost ten thousand dollars a peace, or as of twenty two, building one commercial ship compared to nearly eight hundred comparable ships in china, or going star liner that cost over a billion dollars, and the heavily reported on failure. You hear more about all three of those things in today's episode, but of course, it's not all dreaming in gloom. There are tons of companies working toward rebuilding our just ropes, including three founders youll hear from today from this recording .

and ali tech week, we Jordan black from center systems, Chris power from hAdrian and ryan Harris from kastle that .

was all of her sue partner on our american dynamic team to moderated this conversation with Jordan .

black o senor systems. We design a manufacturing wire harnesses, and probably everyone this room, as says, what hells a to think of us like an iphone charger, but really, really, really complex, very manual labor intensive thing to manufacturer. Twenty five years of your car, and almost every company hates building.

You might also recognize Chris, who was on the podcast in twenty twenty two, lying that upsot in the shows.

We build autonomists factories for our space defence, the product that you get easy to a factory or a bunch of hypertension components, but really were manufacturing master ating as a software company like fully vertically integrated.

And finally, bryant is building something entirely different at castle.

We are actually at developing hypersonic weapons systems. National power stemmed from central cores, whether it's economic, cultural, industrial as well as a military strength. None of us that could study an actually hope to use what we're building, but by the very fact that the U. S. Hazard actually access to the turn.

So what will you take to revive the industrial base and build the next generation of manufacturing? What role has regulation played here? And how can vertically integrate the companies turn the ship around listening in to find out.

As a reminder, the content here is for informational purposes only, should not be taken as legal, business tax or investment advice, or be used to evaluate any investment or security, and is not directed at any investors or potential industry in any asses gene fund. Please note that a six sense year and euphoria a may also maintain investments in the companies discussed in this test. For more details, including a link to arn investments, please see a excite outcome slash discovery.

Why do we start with the present? And I know all of you have a lot of thoughts about this. So expand on how you see the state affairs right now in your field.

In the one word answer is a complex. I think manufacturing is just death by a thousand paper cuts. And it's also just really, really overlooked.

I've been in manufacture on for a while and I was the kid does me fun of in college to work in the plans at forward and aren't you behind the computer? And now the amazing that we're making IT sexy again. But overall, the most complex thing, and it's from the only processes raw materials, the design of IT.

But I think it's the most exciting but also chAllenging problem ever because it's bits and Adams and you can make something so cheap or so fast asked, and you need the world's greatest minds working on IT. So you look a company, space, sex and takes a lot of money and a lot of time to devolve something that amazing. And so I think we are in a really an exciting pivotal point. But I think the one where the answer is complex.

I fly, agree that we are on up as far as the cultural change that needs to happen to make manufacturing more robust and ilia. But we're not out of the woods yet by any such of the imagine. So I love to understand, Chris, your thoughts on how we got to where we are and what you see as the brother to here.

Financial power is a bad proxy for military power, and military power is ultimately a bad proxy for industrial power. So basically the story is we kicked us in wallboard, two in the one thousand nine twenties, because we are really good at domestic manufacturing. We pivoted all of the industrial base.

We kick shit out everyone else, even though we had lost technology. We just built more of everything IT. We just out built everybody. And what is the happening of a multiple generations is it's like real estate traders forgetting that market crashes in the region by real state market crashes happen is because as a bunch of twenty seven year olds that don't know the anxiety of losing their shirt, and then everyone keeps click in the by a button, and that all falls apart. And that happens over multiple generations, right?

So what happened in the seventies, eighties and nine? We are so wealthy, that generation who ended up doing a lot of financial engineering. You can talk about this with baby books, with houses, or you can talk about this with coking.

New york was we stretched the ruby band, really fast test brand sheet and super far away from reality, and started using the big stick of financial warfare and weapons that became like a lot of america. The problem with that is it's like being mike ties in your fifties, but you've got some brain disease that you believe you're still twenty five. So what happens is everyone Operates like we are still the industrial superpower.

We're making really poor of decisions because of IT. But this happens to every great company nation would like IBM used to just make the best products, and happens to countries and people as well. And slightly, because you so successful, you get abstracted away from reality.

And you forget now the roads aren't getting paved. Like how did that happen? So the current state is bad for many reasons.

One is people in the government or people in power have not updated the mental models that we are super close to. Retiring age and still picking both fights for twenty two years old. It's a really, really bad idea. And then on the practical side, it's like trying to away the magic wand and saying, we have no sufferer engine in this country at all.

Someone's gona start open eye from a talent perspective, right? And you don't get really good I I researchers without having millions, millions, millions of suffer engineers to train each other and build on top of these abstraction layers in the home industry gets Better over a long period of time. That's where manufacturing that which is why nothings coming out of those intel plans for summer ductor for like a decade because you can't just waive imagine one and push yourself up to the top of the abstraction stack.

And I really all is a cultural problem. I mean, you can ask the question why we save behind on ship building one, the answers is no one cares. And as bad government centimos, other answer is like that leadership doesn't really know anything about building the workforce, kind of forgot to care because no one has been an important for such a long time.

But the rate of what we can produce things in this country for defense or space, or anything outside of very rare companies like space sex, he is several orders of magnet de worse than the public belief or the government. And our adversity know that, which is why they are just pushing and keep ball in the frog. Because here's an example, in most war games scenario for career fully went across taiwan and we had to ship a bunch of missiles over there and fire them.

Our entire inventory of every municipality, the country would lost three days, and then IT would take us three years to replace IT. That's how bad in is. There are many answers on how to solve this, but that's the main store here.

So there's this financialization piece that LED to a lot of abstraction with real world power. And then there's the culture piece, which is usually reinforcing.

We see a lot of headlines about things like the environmental hurdles that space acs gets putting from them, or the tweet that we saw about how wire harnesses in airplane teeth backs were constantly breaking in, in the cost ten thousand dollars a piece to replace because of nfa approval process. I'm curious, how does regulation play into the state affairs in making these things? And how does that affect cost timely, ines, things like that?

Yeah, I think I kind of look at history where we had build one or two or a lower quality of planes or missiles, and we had all these crazy requirements. And just no one is taking a stands at any of these big prime saying we really should stop doing that. It's like trying to do an extra test on every single burr that comes out of IT.

And now that's how I would put the analogy together. And those wide houses are probably some guy who comes to that shop and inspects IT for three hours. And the picture goes in a plane versus a shop like cars.

We have a lot of automation process to do that. And so you can provide a Better solution to these companies. And no one is actually saying OK.

We should probably the cost only time, the quality overall, I think these comes aren't giving the pressure. And so there's this new age of companies like and are coming in the space for now. I think there are space and defense crimes are are not going to low pressure, hopefully in five, ten years there will be cheaper wide harnesses. But that is a lude crist cost. And I think just no one's actually weigh in the finger yeah brand .

and wants to turn to you for a second because Chris Jordan, building companies that are expanding our manufacturing capabilities of things that exist today and that we are making just in a horribly inefficient and cost effective way. What your building is actually, in many ways, of a net new capability for the country. Do you see any differences in making something that is net new in that way verses making things that exist far Better?

So i'm gna actually build off of the previous question and get to the new one all over. So when you look at not only just regulation, but how do you do era space engineering? Why is IT that traditional companies, and especially boeing right now, really just eating IT hard?

Why is IT going so poorly for them? And why is the regulatory of aren't so harsh? My opinion is what's happened over time is with any process or experience, eventually something goes wrong.

Somebody makes a bad decision, and they replace that bad decision with process to basically accommodate the lowest common denominator. So if all your decisions making process so that you can do anything innovative, you can't move fast because there's a presumption that you might screw IT up, which is always true. When you do anything, you end up going incredibly slope.

And now you are the little economy omy. And that's what we have done to ourself as a country, both on the regulatory front, it's also what traditional aro space has done to themselves in terms of how they do their internal engineering culture. And so why is traditional space so awful at developing new capabilities with outside of certain exceptions, like space sex is mother neural companies.

It's because they have fifty years of process theyve layer on top of themselves that is literally killed their ability innovate and to move affordably and to build at scale. And this just happens with age unless you actively work to keep IT out. And so the most important thing where they're building a wiring harness or whether you doing something new is how do you not lay on process that basically turns everybody from an individual who has skills and the ability to make a mistake to just paper pushing.

You have to look at that at every level. And in regulator's is the same way. It's not unreasonable that the fa wants to keep people safe from something falling on their head, but IT is unreasonable to take one and eighty days that's holding the progress of the country. We have to do Better than that, but there's a process they put in place because some point somewhere somebody made a bad decision. It's like if you filled your company with lawyers.

nothing's going to a get done because everyone wants to keep their job. And now every report coming up to the C. E. O is like looking any legal compliance process. So one of the reasons why people are absolutely correct about government overspending is because if you have regulatory agencies with thousands of people, they get promoted by .

locking stuff yeah, it's where you get promoted because, hey, I did a good thing and I save money like especially with god, this is really, really bizarre with the government. If you don't spend all the money that you are given that year, they literally give you less as punishment next year. So what is set of structure is that we spend so much time thinking like how do we prevent becoming what we're complaining about.

And it's not easy because things creep in constantly. You have to look at everything with an unbiased opinion of like why are we making the decision? Why are we putting in place this processes and isn't more damaging than what it's supposedly fixing.

I think what people miss about space ex, and you can override me here, but I think people miss that a big chunk. The value of medical integration is just not dealing with a bunch of regulatory things with a gilan different subtitle suppliers or processes.

It's hundred person true. If you build a product and you put in place a thousand legal contracts with all your suppliers. That have been negotiated, got untold number of the engine and that someone building a determined later from an engineering perspective that hey, man, if I change this, this will just make everybody's lives easier, including your suppliers.

But then you have to go and negotiate every contract. You're just like to help will forget IT, we're gonna unopened. Now this is the boat we're on. Let's to do IT. And that's bad.

You hit on something there around vertical integration. And this is something I really want to spend a bit of time on because all three, two guys are building companies that can be characterized as once where the fact is the product right to take that familial acy on saying, what do you see as the reasons for doing this aside from that organizational culture piece, from a technology perspective, from a sales perspective, how do you think about that?

We think about vertical and integration is the control schedule. Because if you look back at what amErica was crushing Apollo r, we got to the moon quick. We can go back to the moon decades later, at the same speed that we did when a computer was like the size of the room and and sodding discrete components on the aboard.

How is that possible? But a large part of IT is because to do engineering of anything difficult or manufacturing at anything difficult, easy, completely. Una, reasonable request to have your engineers to sit down and design the perfect system through analysis.

The first time through the first design is complete crap, and you're gone to do IT again. And so the only thing that's important is optimizing for pace of learning. Vertical integration can allow you to go so much faster because everybody's and senate are narrowed till the speed that you want, especially in development.

And a lot of times, what happens in traditional spaces, your supply chain when you're not vertically integrate IT. I mean, how you'll get like a new red, it'll be a year or two years. How can you learn and how can you say all I made a mistake and i'd like to undo IT without a two year penalty.

You can't it's not like one traditional space program is behind schedule and over budget. They all are. It's not because the people are bad or stupid IT is because they work in a process that just fundamental, broken and vertical immigration, in my mind of control schedule is just what you have to do because in the power er, they would launch multiple rocket flights, a data test.

I think space sex is getting back to that, but I mean, we had that decades ago. So would you look at from an adversary perspective, china, north korea, iran, they can afford to do ero space the way the you airspace. What are the best things that could ever happen to them? Is they get wealthy enough like I ve got to do, like the americans, and they just destroy their abilities to go fast.

But right now, the approach has space the same way the U. S. did.

And in like the sixties and the kick in our blood, you're going much faster. And that's what we have to bring back to the U. S. My opinion.

one of the big faces is for our company is no one bothered to put software engineers in manufacturing for forty years. Big macro, s statement and by proxy, all the software is terrible. And one of the reasons I also suffered manufacturing as bad as a service vender is because the context you need from the customer is so deep that almost every SaaS company builds the wrong product.

So the counter example for that is, if I give anyone in this room a couple of self are engineers, and you interviewed ten H. R. Managers and said, building on boarding workfare, you've all be on board as employees. You'd atua get IT manufacturing being such a hidden problem for such a long time. The vertical integration for us IT just means, one is the only way to build the correct system in software because you're really feeling the right problem in pain.

And then the repetitious or one of our rules is automate as Operate, which is like you can't build sofa for the factory until you can on that part of the factor yourself, that was literally only way to build automation. The works in the real world of us is a cool industrial robot that people buy and put on the shelf. It's a context problem.

And you got to own your own pain. I love that for his own your own pain. That's a hundred percent true. That is what boeing is to do when they first invented autopilot for landings on the three lost test flights. They just made all the chief engineers who build the other cloud sofa going on the test flights. That's the best of bug fixing process in the world, and that's what you get with too many layers removed to just as the work .

process we need to be the fastest and higher quality contract manufacturer, we will look at what software, what solutions are out there. And we realize that the design of wire harnesses is also incredibly fucked up. And so when we get like excel spread sheet and powerpoint slides from some of the largest companies out there, enough to tell them this thing won't work yeah.

So you all touch IT on software there. Sometimes there is a misconception that companies like your guys are not software companies because you are primarily building physical products and running physical processes. I I love to have you guys comment on that.

I don't know this country and anymore, but selling as software heart tech companies is almost impossible because it's very, very difficultly always going to unique solution. I agree, that way center or makes money is because we set up a physical product. That's what the world needs more of versus some of these other other tools.

I in the second thing that might be more continue is like software are going to solve your problem, sometimes writing another first note and giving to the first, next, use the faster process, then having all the software overhead. I think the way software helps the manufacturing famous for us is to be scalable. I call IT the mcDonald approach, which is Donald.

Within an hour, you can start living burns and start building something. And that just costs from just being able like look at a screen and just Prices. All the many fashion companies have worked out from large companies like forward to smaller companies like is going to take you months in almost years to be just like a really skilled and a craft and action. Know what the how you're doing. And so I think that the all like plug and play and scalable model, that office is really, really important.

I couldn't say a Better the reason why we have five sofa companies is because these two big problems to solve in autonomous manufacturing. One is the top Claire, which is someone takes forty hours to do something, make IT two hours. And the second one is the coordination layer.

And we don't believe in for automation, what we do all across the company is take a forty hour a task down to two hours and then make the two hour task in software so that it's d skirled enough that we can train anyone in thirty days. And that's the only way to build fast enough. And you also get a really resilient workforce.

The other thing and probably why we're going to win this market is every single deep tech company in the history of chronic automate manufacturing has looked at four of ten big stages of really expensive labor or coordination across the factory system. Whatever product you're trying to build and said this is too aggressive, i'm going going to build one of these bits first and then invention captain my way and eventually are build five of them. IT does not work.

So one, I think we have the write culture. But secondly, you literally just have to build six product simultaneously at a ludicrous, aggressiv Epace. Otherwise you end up with the system where the front end is really, really efficient, but the backside is really inefficient or you haven't built by muscle.

And there are so many problems in manufacturing to have real cost, schedule and quality R R. Y. And by the way, when i'm talking about scars later, i'm talking like some of these roles. We hire twenty experts from manufacturing and not of talent, the entirety of this that scarce but the big thing for ossie, like phone stack as we literally have to build everything.

One thing you touched on there is the users of the software are you develop are often employees of pyro. And there's this dynamic then because you're doing everything vertically integrated, you have, in your case, machinists and software engineers and robotics sts and so on, all working in one organization. Can you talk a bit about bringing all those different disciplines together under one roof?

It's extremely complicated. And an example is that there are, I think, five distinctive lt. Res at Adrian. One is color. So valley suffer engineers, our technician base, which you're gonna the lodge of the most important part of our company over a long period time, kind of expert manufacturer like very technical experts in machining equality or whatever. And then everyone else.

And what you want to do was a leader of the company is say we're all running in the same direction, right? But often that has clashing incentive. So that comes out of the C.

E. O. mouth. Like your job is to automate everything. People in manufacturing have been burned for twenty years by really bad bosses, really bad leadership.

If you are going to lose your job, if I make you more efficient, i'm going to find you. So this is huge, thirty build up of, or really had everything about this. But we started from day one with culturally equal footing, and then an economic equal footing, to the extent that california allows me to.

Everyone is on a salary. And if you are one of those manufacturing people who are hoping Operate and developed software, you have the same equity like software engineer because we're growing so fast like you're never going to lose your job unless around the performing. But we really had to build the kind of level set economics and the culture from day one was.

And this is the biggest mistake private equity and silicon valley makes. The private equity version of this is you wear camera pants and I wear a suit, so screw you. I know what you're doing.

And the same value of that is I have A P. H. D. I know what i'm doing. And both completely disrespect the core of manufacturing, which is there's nothing new that needs to be invented here.

You just you got ta pick ten small people and get the knowledge out of their heads from thirty years of experience and get IT into suffer. And we knew that coming in. But IT is a constant fight in every communication.

Move you make has to continually reinforce that. And IT comes down to really little things. It's not just the executive of that Operating division like providing a quality is giving product feedback. There is at least two to three literally elderly Walkers or. Experts that have to use that software, yelling in a software engineer being like the product isn't good enough .

across the whole company. That does seem like a version of owner pain. I actually think that when you're putting in soft for any kind of automation, you can go too far, too fast and just create more process and work, especially if you're just taking something out of the box and into your business and then productivity is down and everybody's miserable.

One of the things that we're trying to do is actually look at from like a efficiency productivity aspect. You bring in automation where IT has the most impact and then you d find tune. So it's not painful.

This one says, if you wanted get something done, give IT to a lazy person. And so I think i'm very happy and a lazy person because I didn't get manufactured. You really have to do the lisa ono steps and lisa mana work to get something done or off.

So not a deterrent from the quality. I think the culture at senora is that our best technicians, the people actually building the stuff, they are not going to actually say what's a Better process and we want to in and out. And you see someone just they're cranking into those potatoes and putting in on the fire their whole goals to not get fire and the go fast as possible.

It's really on the manufacture engineering team when I and saying we need to get this build from one week to one day, water, all the inefficiencies because that of the day, people just want to put their head down from the labor foresaid. And even in space sex, the time study in while harding is a very labor intensive part, there's no machines or tools actually do IT about forty percent the process of just a technician. And we're just looking at a computer and firing out what the health H I do when reading specifications.

And if you took someone or not for a manufacturer Operate ea drem inside, you would say, or we should like buy this machine and have to do this. And that's how I think work really effectively chain. And you may, if action flow.

there's a word that come up a couple times now in this conversation and that scale. And I think intuitively, people understand that with the kinds of progress that you guys are building, like a lot of the gains are fully realized that scale, there's different models of the day you see around like scaling up first and scaling out more modular approach and so on so forth. But what do sana, hydra and castle look like as manufacturing Operations at scale leave us if .

we have never ending customer base? And IT always serves me of founder to say, know what to work because we don't be capacity. And I think you have to scale with machines, automation and a cheap labor force. Ultimately, in right now, people asked me, what's the best wire harness spectre in the world? And IT, honestly, is not a contact manufacture. It's like a space ex or a boeing or someone else vertical ally and integrated into their shop can pay people a bit more that goes into their own product and be able to and hold the whole process.

We're in a little bit different position because what scale looks like for us is how many guided muscles will the U. S. By in a year, it's actually a publish number, but it's not as many as you would think a large order would be like a thousand a year and compare to almost any other manufacturing industry.

That's a joke of a number. And so there are different choices that will make because you don't necessarily put in the expenditure to drive your manufacturing system to the utmost best efficiency because the capable cost of implementing that would be so high, you would actually raise your cost of good sold unicorn of a thousands. So we actually have to try to look at where that baLances.

And I think where traditional space does this horribly, as when they are developing something new, they make a bunch of decisions to actually say, well, i'm only building one or two or five prototypes during this development and they make ton of design and manufacturing choices. And then to the into that, and that works. And the government I OK are to, they're, wow, we can do fifty.

That's crazy. This is impossible. We all made this to build five and fundamental. They built the wrong product. And so we try to look at IT from the other example of always holding the quality of what we're going to build in mind as we're designing IT. I think it's absolutely critical, but it's also more thoughts than just saying I want to go for unlimited quantity and the health cost. So so an interesting baLance.

I would say everything that we build is built for scale, not on the sense of we building systems. It's just you gotta IT as close to order comes in and order goes out. And the only problem is market chair and growth.

And because there is so much complexity manufacturing, that is a little water. But this is why manufacturing is done scales, because everything is a humans, right, getting the job done. So that's how we think about IT. Is every single error or process hand over or whatever slows the growth cope down? Because I just causes a friction and all system.

actually, that's a great point. How do you scale your engineering talent? And how do you make sure your thousand employee is as a productive as you're like, fifty, which if you've noticed, generally IT starts to go down to you get to a certain company size and you could add infinite people and you'll probably get less work done. How do you actually scale that? That I think one of the toughest aspects of running a business .

we're coming up on, on the tailed end of our time here. And I want to bring you back to a very similar place where we started around the big picture of geopolitics and the future of the industrial base, and how those two things fit together. Bryan, you have on your website the phrase piece through deterrence, and we talked a little IT about how what is alien is building is an on nuclear deterrent. But I would love to get your thoughts on how our production capacity and how the manufacturing processes that you guys are building that as a part of our industrial base, how does that function as .

a yeah so the statue Chris said earlier about basically if we go to fight against china, we're going to have weapons for three days and they were out. Are you scared of that? So when you look at industrial capacity, it's not just a sound bite.

It's literally what keeps the country safe and keeps the ability for the country to do all these other things that have nothing to do with not only industrial power or military priority. And I think to take care of the democracy, you have to actually have military strength, economic strength, cultural strength, industrial strengths of of all of them. We're focused on actually of enabling through an industrial renaissance is what I think lot of the heart tech companies these days are actually trying to do.

But that fundamentally keeps everything else in the economy homing along. Because if you don't have that, like the U. S.

Is on top for a number of reasons, but not the least of which is that a lot of countries would be stupid to mass with us. But I think looking towards the future is completely fixed. We have everything we need to bring this back.

You just have to actually care and focus on IT and get back to the basics. And I think the good news is I feel like people have voted up to this is really a problem. And I actually willing to invest time and energy effort to do something about them.

cars. We spoke on the a sixty podcast about two years ago, and we discuss how fragile the eco system is, and especially the average age of the machinist is. Fifty five is probably tired now, I would imagine.

And those are the ones that supply most of the primes of their parts. Have there been any changes since then in the two years since? And I know two years is a very short amount of time in the areas were talking about. But have you kind of shift in the ecosystem.

the vibe shift in state? Dude, in congress a two years ago was talking about procuring cycles. And why can't the government buy products? At least over the last twelve months? Everyone is all crap, like we to buy all the products we want.

But there is no production capacity across shipbuilding, municipal hicks, whatever, which is very good because least now we're talking about what I think is the right problem on everything else. Honestly, not really. To give you a statistic, there is something like just in ship building, like just hunting to angles.

And by the way, china's building, I think twenty to thirty times more ships than us every year. And give you a personal story as an australia and who moved to five years ago, if the U. S.

Pacific fleet cannot defend australia trade lines, the country runs out of food in twenty seven days and runs out of oil and gas and sixty days. To your point around resiliency, it's like how riches this country and how much do all of us in the room not have to deal with the problems of bad guise of geopolitics? The answer we have to china and boning is the most ridiculous safety abstraction of welfare hardesty.

What do you want to call IT? But anyway, the macroeconomic picture gets worse every day because people get older in the replacement, right is when you are catching up. The good news is I think of the last twelve months has been a real vibe ship to hold shit.

It's not just about buying products, it's about capability, capacity. And the analogy I could using as well twelve months ago, we are talking about we need more netflix es. And however and talking like h, we don't have a new data and capacity like but you know I think there's more people attacking the problem, which is a really good thing. But I don't think it's going anywhere here fast enough.

There's another phrases when you're fedor, not angry. And I think this is why we don't do things fast enough in the us. Like why score stocking marine built? Take the first fire jet in one hundred forty three days, which is insane.

And I know anyone in this country can do that as fast enough, but I think this can be a wake of call in the next few years, is especially when the labor shorters actually becomes more and more serious. And we might sound like the crazy people of here that's like the sky is falling down, but we tapped out the most skilled why on the technicians in the area area and is really, really difficult to start killing that. But I think if we don't do IT now.

who's going to do at thirty years later? All right, that is over today if you didn't make IT as far, first of all, thank you. We put a lot of thought into each of these episode.

Des, with. The calendar tourist ecs, with our amazing out of your toni until the music is just right. So if you like what we put together, consider dropping is a line at great this podcast 点 com splash exciting。 And let us know what your favorite epa is. Don't make my day, and i'm sure thom's too will catch you on the outside.