Agentic AI Coding Tools, Meta Ruling, and Orbital AI Take Center Stage

Hello everyone, and happy Monday to you. It's Alan Shimel for Techstrong gang. It's good to be back in the studio here on the gang.

Of course, I spent last week, Mitch was with me, out in the, would you call it desert heat, Mitch? 113 degrees? I think it's a blast furnace, is what I'd call it.

A blast furnace? I got to tell you the truth, the wind at night feels like you're standing in front of a blow dryer. Yeah.

Or a truck passing you at 80 miles an hour. It's so crazy. It's so hot.

It's inhuman. Whose idea was it to do Black Hat and DEF CON and all these things in the first week of August every year? It's nuts.

The rates were really good back in 2000. Well, they still were. Well, not at the Mandalay Bay or anything around there, because Informa takes all of that over, and you got to pay Louie the Loan Shark to get anything done over there.

There is- It's a little crazy ... there's a social media movement. They're trying to convince them to move that show to September because it's like next level.

Well, wake me up when September comes. Anyway, let me move off Black Hat here and into our gang for today. We're happy to have some of our Monday people, the one and only Stephen Foskett, the aforesaid Mitch Ashley, and of course, Mike Vizard, back from his Adirondack getaway.

Did the Feds stop looking for you up there, or what, Mike? Apparently that BOLO notice was dropped, so I'm home. Okay, good to hear.

Good to hear you're no longer on the lam. But Mike, nevertheless, it was a busy weekend and a busy week. What do we got on deck for today?

Well, we've been talking about this issue around algorithms and social media and how they get used for purposes that are suboptimal sometimes, or at least not transparent. And well, a judge in New Mexico says that Meta has indeed been doing that, and they put a penalty together of about $567 million. I'm not sure if Meta's going to blink over that, and I'm sure there'll be continuing appeals, but I guess what I'm going to put this to you, Alan, to lead off with is, are we finally maybe about to have a very public conversation about these algorithms and how they work and the impact that they're having on folks in a way that the average person will better understand?

So even if we don't sue these people and get a billion dollars out of them, I feel like the social good will be better for the conversation. Isn't that conversation long overdue? To this, to me, right?

Mm-hmm. So, the $560 million was in addition to the damages of 400 and something million. So a total of, as you say, near a billion.

From a legal point of view, I don't think this holds water. Because I think there are some legitimate freedom of speech issues here. " Well, the Constitution doesn't make freedom of speech contingent upon someone's age.

And so I think you got a problem there with that. Secondly, he put in a framework of you're not allowed to do it at certain times, and other certain times. The road to hell is paved with the best of intentions, and I think this judge had very good intentions.

I just don't think legally this is enforceable. Now, if you want to fight in the court of public opinion, which is maybe what you're talking about, Mike, I think it is high time. I think the more legal issue, and we've seen cases like this, though, is Meta, and those like it, kind of with a sinister intent, targeting people under 13 to try to some sort of influence behavior to do something wrong.

Is there some sort of conspiracy to do that? And that might be something that's legally more enforceable. Otherwise, look, okay, it'll contribute to the public discussion.

I'm not for censorship. I think a 13-year-old, if a parent wants their child to have access, that's a parent's decision. You know me, I'm all for parents' rights.

Mm-hmm. Well, it assumes that the children actually got their parents' permission to get an account. But in a lot of these instances, kids are just logging in and getting Facebook accounts, and nobody's none the wiser as far as the parents know.

And a lot of them wake up in the morning and are just as surprised as anybody else to find out that little Johnny's been on social media for the last year and a half. Well, so if you're going to have a legal requirement that you must be 13 or older or have your parent's permission to have an account, that has to be enforced a little better. There are jurisdictions that have this.

But then what happens, and this has been going on since my kids were that age, is they go in, and they basically say their date of birth is 1998 or whatever it is, the special year. And so they evade that age verification with that. We need to do better if that's going to be the goal of what we want here.

Yeah. " There has to be some harm that's occurring, and if it's child abduction or pornography or something like that where there is real evidence of that happening, then I think you have more of a criminal case. Here, it just seems a very loose, somebody's judgment call about, "This is harmful.

We just don't like it," or, "This is harmful. " It's sort of like the NC-13 rating. Are you going to let your 11-year-old kid go to the NC-13 movie?

Probably nobody pays attention to it. It seems to me this is more that like that. I don't disagree.

At the same time, though, we are seeing this worldwide movement to ban more social media from kids who are underage in other countries, and they're taking it seriously. So, there is a concern, and it does appear to have some traction, and you are hearing other communities starting to talk more about this inside the United States. So, I don't know.

Steven, will we get more serious about maybe who has access to social media because it's not just happening in New Mexico? Yeah, and exactly, there's some interesting angles here. One of the things that I found particularly interesting about this was that the ruling only applies to social media that has a ranking aspect.

In other words, algorithmic social media as opposed to WhatsApp, which was specifically carved out by the judge because it doesn't have any kind of ranking or recommendation algorithm. So, what the judge is saying is not that young people shouldn't be able to communicate and express themselves. It's that companies shouldn't have the ability to force or rank or pressure or put their thumb on the scale in terms of what those people are seeing.

I felt like that was a really interesting angle here. Obviously, there are some other states that are planning on coming in as well, and so of course, we've got to watch out for that. Another thing, by the way, that's buried in here that I think we should all be aware of is there's an AI chatbot provision in here, which says that Meta has to block romantic or sexualized chatbot interactions as well.

Now, I think you could make a case that this is a very backward-looking case. This is based on stuff that happened 10 years ago in terms of, oh, they're getting a view on Instagram that's unrealistic or pressuring people. But this chatbot thing is forward-looking.

So, I would put that to the group. What do you think of blocking the actions of a chatbot, and what do you think about carving out access to private communications as opposed to public? I think we've seen the Europeans kind of go down that same path, right?

Where they're making this case with Google as well, and all these things have one thing in common. I think the minute you put your finger on the weight and you add an algorithm that you are trying to optimize, you are no longer just being a passive provider of social media content, and you're becoming a publisher. And when you do that, you assume certain liabilities and responsibilities, and I think that's kind of where this whole conversation winds up being.

And if that includes some sort of chatbot that you've optimized for an algorithm to have an interaction with somebody and then they go and do something, well, you are assuming some responsibility for that. And it's not just this day and age where I can, back 20 years ago, where Facebook was saying, "Who, us? Publisher?

" I think that that's crap, and that whole argument is starting to fall apart. And whether this case is the one that holds it together or not, probably not to Alan's point, but that's the conversation. But as a publisher, so there's publishers and there's publishers, Mike.

Mm-hmm. You, and let me just say this real loud for the people in the back. Mike is responsible for what we publish on Techstrong, okay?

Oh, I see. Including Techstrong Game. It's you, Mike.

So, if anybody has a problem there, that's who to look at. But seriously, as a publisher of content that way, we do here at Techstrong know everything we're publishing. We don't have sort of an open mic, right, where people can just say what they want.

When you're a social media publisher, à la Facebook or any of these, X, et cetera, you really don't-- You could put in an algorithm that looks for keywords or phrases or something, but what is it? Is it 320 or 520 is the exception where they can't be held responsible for those things? The 230, right?

230, excuse me. Yeah, I used to have a hard time with the 520 stuff, too. But anyway, but you know what I mean?

It's a different level of control over the content that's flowing across your pipes. And I get why a Meta or an X or someone would feel that way. But let me just give it another monkey wrench in the works here.

So now you got the New Mexico carve-out. Then you're going to have the Minnesota, then the Ohio, then the Colorado. Then you've got a carve-out for the UK, then you got another carve-out for the EU.

And Russia and China, they have their own thing, and Well, how is Meta supposed to operate in such a Tower of Babel? Right? You need some sort of standard across the board.

It's a really good point with all the diversification of regulation, and it could even go farther, more granular than that. Right? This county and this state- Yeah ...

et cetera. So it's practically- It's kind of like package stores, right? And stuff like that in the south Yeah.

It's tough. I think you just have to look at it at a macro level. Like, is Meta producing content that is acceptable for kids?

And either they are or there aren't, or there's enough that isn't acceptable, and you have to figure out what's the remedy. Is there a correction or is there, "This shouldn't be available to below a certain age," like alcohol or something like that? But then what's the burden on Meta?

Because they don't create the content, Mitch, right? Users do. Yeah, exactly.

That's what I was going to say. I think Meta would say, "We're not producing content at all. " Except when Meta or X now creates summaries of content and news stories that they are publishing under their own name and saying, "Hey-" I think that's clearly a distinguishable case.

Mm-hmm. Right. Yes.

Yeah, and I'd love to see where that case goes because a lot of those summaries are incredibly misleading. Yeah. So, but whose responsibility ultimately, to your point, if we can't have 50 states, and this is not an unusual situation in history, but is this something Congress is going to legislate?

Is this something the executive branch is going to come up with some sort of policy through some sort of agency that the Supreme Court will then say, "You don't have the authority to do anyway"? Where is this going to land? And what about other countries?

Yeah. So let me give you an analogy maybe that may be of some help. There was a time when we all had three to six or seven TV channels in our house, on our TV, and you would put your hand on the antenna and do all kinds of things to get better pictures.

But we had the FCC, and they did a pretty good job of enforcing what they considered morals. Seven words you couldn't say on TV? Is that what you're talking about?

Excuse me, Mitch? The seven words you can't say on TV. The seven words of George Carlin, right?

Mm-hmm. The seven words you... But not only that, they really did.

They really did do a good job of policing a lot. And not just TV, radio for that matter, too. So, we do have a precedent for this kind of thing.

Do we need an FCC for social media? Well, I think we let people off the hook. Reaching back to an old analogy, there was a day where you put an ad in the classified ads in the newspaper.

Just thinking about as simple of an example I can think of. You couldn't say just anything you wanted in that newspaper. The newspaper had editorial control over what went into their paper.

I could then just- And there were cases over that with First Amendment freedom. Absolutely. Is it freedom of speech to say anything I want?

No, there's some standards that there are- You could say what you want, just not in my paper ... just not in my... Go find your own paper, right?

Mm-hmm. I think it's this letting them off the hook because it's free speech, so anything goes. We don't let everybody do anything they want on public roads.

There's rules, there's laws, there's things- You can't go firing a femur. That's already been legislated from the Supreme Court. Yeah.

Me and my public speeches, I want to go 150 miles an hour. That's my speech. " I think that's a cop-out, and we let social media platforms get away with it.

But that's already pretty well established. I'm not saying... That doesn't make it right.

I can tilt at windmills all I want. Okay, Don Quixote. Oh, I would just point out that as this becomes more of an issue, and we're already seeing it overseas, it becomes a political issue, and you're seeing countries around the world passing laws because citizens in those countries gave a crap.

And when this becomes part of somebody's political campaign, don't be surprised when it suddenly turns out that we don't really care what Meta's sensitivities are because the people are going to say, "Hey, you know what? " I'd welcome it, to tell you the truth. I do think we need more regulation.

Mm-hmm. Imagine that. " He put in real specific things- Yep ...

in the injunction in terms of deleting accounts that are under 13 years of age, private by default under 18, limiting friends to other minors, things like that, and I think that if people- They were good common sense ... looked a little bit in depth, they could see some value in some of these suggestions that are actually real people, real-world suggestions, not just, "Oh, this is bad, this is good," which is how we devolve everything into, it seems. Agreed.

Agreed, Steven. All right, but Mike, we got to move. We're running late here.

What's up next today on this beautiful Monday? So there's some subtle changes in the way that we are using AI that I wanted to get your all opinions about because it is a fundamental bit of a tweak in my mind, and it comes across in three different things. AWS is talking about, well, essentially, they put their own AI agent into their tool.

But one of the things that they were calling out is that the models themselves are getting smarter, and so all those things that we're calling AI skills are now being embedded inside the model itself. And And oddly enough, Anthropic started talking about the same thing and said, "You know what? The default now is you're not going to be able to really see how this whole query of yours is being parsed because, well, the model's going to take care of that.

" And as we keep going on, there was also a report saying that folks are using less prompt engineering because they're just expressing their intent, and the model understands that and converts all that. So my question is, as we go forward here, Mitch, it doesn't seem like we need to know a whole lot about prompt engineering, or context engineering, or any of these things going forward because, well, it's all getting baked into the model. That's certainly the trend, Mike, and you can even see it.

You mentioned Anthropic. Their CTO came out and said, "Here's a tool/doctor that will go through and clean out your CloudMD file," and also do that with memory files, things like that, of things you no longer need. You don't have to keep all those instructions, all of those rules.

I think it's because it's moving from treating AI as an assistant and telling it what to do, and treating AI as maybe an assistant of what you want done, and it determines how it gets done. And that's why you don't need all the detailed skills. The model will determine that.

Because you'll get into this battle of sending it skills when the model's going to say, "Well, I have a better way of doing that," and now you've got the model trying to resolve it. The disadvantage of all this, and this came up during Black Hat last week, is the idea of intent constraints or intent guardrails, meaning backing all the way up to the very beginning of what was the intent that that agent or that AI model was being asked to do, and did it fulfill that? Are there certain guardrails that needed to be applied to it at that point?

You can say, "Here's your goal," but that may not be a goal that you should be able to ask it in a business setting or an application setting, et cetera. So the point being is the models are moving us to less specifics and more what we want done, not how it's done. And is that a good thing?

Because on the other end of it, it's like, well, I may not understand how I came to this conclusion or understand how it all came together because it's kind of like, to go back five decades ago, it's like nobody knows how their television works anymore because nobody goes and plugs in a tube anywhere. It's all solid state, right? So Steven- I no longer work on my car, right?

Because it's all chips inside gears and chips. I think it's one thing to have that for a machine, a car, a television, but I'm not sure that we want that for a thought process or something that we're passing through to somebody as something we're saying is a fact or something that is reliable. Steven, are we obligated as humans to know more about what the AI is kicking out?

Well, I think that's a pretty interesting angle here, Mike, because essentially what we've done is we've created the blackest of black boxes here. Instead of a black box that mysteriously outputs text or images or video, we've created a black box that mysteriously does the whole process. That's the weird thing here is that if you combine these three stories, what we've got is we've got a magical machine that takes the human out of the execution loop, the approval loop, and even the instruction loop, and ends up with a machine that's essentially programming itself.

I think there's sort of a bit of a fox guarding the henhouse aspect of this, too, because, of course, we're living in this world of tokenomics. Do you really want the AI model deciding how hard it's going to work on each step in this process? Because I could see a very convincing situation where an AI company might put its thumb on the scale on the effort side in order to increase its revenue in the name of helping the consumer.

And they could stand there with a perfectly straight face saying, "No, no, no. " But the mechanism for that is we used 100 times more tokens. Because I'll tell you what, I've been using the latest AI models lately, and whoa, am I using more tokens.

I probably am using 100 times more tokens than I used to simply because I'm starting to work in this same kind of milieu where I talk to the AI, and then it does all this stuff in the background. " But no, I got to burn some more tokens before I do that. So that's an interesting angle.

But there's a flip side angle here, too, that I want to get at, too, which is in terms of whether the AI or the person is really doing a better job of reviewing. But first, I guess, Alan, do you have something to say about the token economics there? No, no, Steven, I was enjoying listening to you.

What was the other angle you wanted to say? Well, the other angle is this whole idea of approval fatigue, and I have found that, too. This whole story that the more your computer says "Approve or deny, approve or deny," the more likely you are to just be like, "Fricking approve already.

" Well, it's desensitizing you. Exactly. And so this study that we're reporting here, they found that auto mode actually would block 800 commands that a human would approve, whereas humans, they would've just said, "Forget it.

" Honestly, that's an exciting finding for use of AI, isn't it? But I want to call attention to one more thing. In that same study- Now you're sounding like AI.

Humans- Just one more thing. Humans, yeah, this is my Steve Jobs block moment. So in that same study, I went and read the Digital Applied Team study.

Humans blocked six commands that AI would have allowed, and I think that that's actually-- Yes, six versus 800. Yeah, okay. But what were those six?

And what would AI have allowed, and what would that have resulted in? I think that maybe we need to start thinking, ooh, maybe there is a reason to have humans in the loop, even if AI is much more careful and less susceptible to AI fatigue or alert fatigue. Sorry, not AI fatigue.

That's a completely different thing. Yeah. " They don't really have a good answer.

What they have is they point back to the document, and then, if you have the time, you've got to go back and take the document apart and understand how it was constructed. And then you're like, "Hey, you know what? " And so, but it's hard to understand that.

And you have to go through a significant amount of cognitive reasoning to go do that, and a lot of people won't, or they'll just get tired of doing it, and they'll just shrug. Well, I think this is the Rubicon we've been talking about, is at some point, humans in the loop can't examine everything, right? There's so much happening.

You realistically couldn't review all 800 commands as frequently as they're happening. And so we're trading off being engaged and knowing the detail with the outcome that we're trying to reach. That's the pinnacle that we're crossing or the Rubicon we're crossing here.

We've talked about humans engineering the loop or leading the loop different ways, which essentially is prompting what we want through goal-driven intent. What's lacking is the governance to go with it is, okay, if we're not watching it, we're now relying on AI to watch it. Okay, if that's what we need to do to be able to operate that speed, okay.

But then there has to be some governance where you can go back and find out what happened. Why did it decide what it's decided to do? Why did it choose to use those tools?

Why did it keep using Fable all the time when it could have used something much less expensive, et cetera? So those things have to be exposed programmatically so we have compliance and governance that we have to conform with. " I just published this morning, I'm begging you to use AI to write.

Okay. So, the argument on his side of it was basically, you just didn't understand enough about how the whole thing was reasoned out. No, Mike, that guy was a go play in front of your own lawn.

" I think his point was you just didn't understand enough about what you were constructing to put together a thought because writing is thinking, is what he was trying to say. No, he was saying that if you don't think when you write, your muscle, your brain atrophies. They said the same- And to be honest, I'm on that team.

I'll just say right now. And I get it. Writing is thinking for me.

That's how I think through. I get it, but here's the thing. They said the same thing about Google Search replacing the Dewey Decimal System.

They did it with calculators. They did it with calculators in math. We've heard this story before.

" Good luck. Right? We got 800 decisions made, and it writes the essay.

And so I held my tongue through this whole thing, but let me speak up. Here's the deal. We are at a gangly, awkward teenage stage of how to use AI.

Right? And so the first generation of people prided themselves on being prompt engineers. I don't think there's going to be such a thing as a prompt engineer.

Why do I need someone to tell the AI what I want to tell it? I could tell it myself. And I've made a habit of studying, at least here in Techstrong and through my friends, how they use AI.

How did they fashion their prompts? And I will tell you that if you have good writing skills, good verbal and written communication skills, you write a much better prompt than someone who doesn't. And maybe that holds-- I don't write a lot of computer code, Mitch.

You do more than me, but that probably holds true for that as well. But we're going to quickly come to the point where you don't have to be a professor of literature to write a good prompt. You don't have to be a New York Times columnist to write a good prompt.

You don't have to write a prompt. I think a lot of the young people I know now, they talk their prompts. They speak to their computer.

And it goes to the fundamental way you work with AI. It's not just giving AI the instruction to go write something, make something, code something, do something. No, there's a creative process.

There's a give and take. There's a back and forth. There's a meeting of the minds, so to speak.

Before the AI goes out and does its work product. If you're just letting your AI do its work product before you've had that process, then yes, you are dumbing yourself down. But if you are engaging with the AI, you're making yourself smarter and you're going to have better work product.

I think 80% of the world out there, and I'm being generous, is going to be on the lazy side of that equation, and they're just- And I live for that, right? Because I think the other 20% will make hay. Mm-hmm.

There's always going to be that in the world. Mm-hmm. It's when the A players forget how to maximize.

But I think the problem is, is this isn't just something that shows up as work product. It's something that finds itself into a process. It's something that people may take actions on, and then the consequences are a little more broad than the fact that somebody wrote a crappy article.

You're right, but it has to evolve to the point where how good that output is shouldn't be dependent on how well you write or speak. Right? I think AI has to evolve, and we have to evolve in terms of how we're doing it.

To your point, it's a skill, Alan. It's a skill that people develop, right? Well, there are folks out there- You get better ...

the sign of intelligence is not how much you know, it's your ability to ask the question in the first place, right? Yeah. Someone said that once.

But Mike, someone also said we're running late, we got to move ahead. All right, we're moving on with Cat. All right, so shifting a gear here.

As we think about where the future is going, there's been a lot of talk about space and computing and putting some stuff up there, putting stuff in orbit, and I think there's been multiple projects there. The latest one involves NVIDIA and- Space AI ... Elon Musk Inc.?

I don't know what they call it any more. No, it's Space AI. Space AI.

But these guys are investing in that. Now, Steven, I know you've talked about this subject in the past, that there wasn't some opportunity here to do computing because it might be a little bit difficult in space, but yet all this money keeps pouring in here. So how do we reconcile these things of what we think we know versus where all this money's going?

Well, it's important to recognize that all this money is make-believe money, and it's all being poured in make-believe by the make-believe people who run the make-believe rockets that are going to make-believe launch this make-believe AI data center in space. No, well, first I want to point out that we actually did a whole episode of the "Tech Field Day" podcast, which is another Futurum podcast, focused on AI data centers, where I was the devil's advocate against two of the Tech Field Day delegates on this. That one's going to be publishing next week, I think, on Tuesday or Wednesday.

Anyway, keep an eye on the Tech Field Day feed. I'll throw that on my social media, too. But what I point out there is that again, I'm not anti-space by any means.

In fact, I am vehemently pro-space. I love space. What I'm anti is bad math and poor engineering and mindless PR.

This is crazy talk. So let's just talk about that aspect of this. So what's not being reported here, and I think that what's being overlooked in a lot of the coverage here, is that this is not a one million satellite cluster.

This is one million satellites per year cluster. Okay? Yeah, so- How do you launch one million satellites- That was my point ...

per year? I was trying to do the math. I took my socks off my shoes.

How do you do a million satellites a year? Well, I'll tell you how you do it. You do it by launching more than 16,000 Starship missions per year.

That's more than 45 per day. Okay, get that through your thick skull. How are we going to launch-- That's assuming that everything else works, that all the technical aspects work, that they absolutely can get Starship to be incredibly reliable, that they have the kind of methane resources that they need to power those.

Can you imagine 50 Starship launches per day to get this thing up in the-- And okay, if you can imagine that, when does that happen? Does that happen next year? It just boggles the mind.

And I got another thing. There's moments that we're missing out on something. At a million a year, in five years, I'm talking about controlling five million satellites in space.

I just don't even know what to say. They might as well just be making stuff up-- Well, they probably are. " And that's going to happen.

Yeah. Oh, a kajillion. That's it.

And we'd be using the technology we haven't invented yet, which is the space elevator. Once we have the space elevator, we can just ship it up there. You read too much sci-fi.

You know, you're right. Let's pitch that to the VCs who are funding this stuff, and maybe we'll get a kajillion dollars, too. It's just all made up numbers.

" But you're right. These numbers are crazy numbers. I believe there's a four-letter word that begins with F that gets attached to cluster frequently, so...

Yeah, but not only that, let me point a few other things out. Well, five million satellites would indeed be a cluster- Of satellites ... to manage.

But that's just Space AI satellites. You think Jeff Bezos is going to let it go? " Where's mine?

And so, let's be realistic here. And I get we need to do something about data centers and AI, right? And the other part of this is, well, they're also going to beam direct to your phone.

And you could say I'm planting my flag in the ground right here. Mark this. What's today?

August 10th? Mark this. The future of AI is not in data centers or external places that we have to...

There it is. It's your phone, it's your device. Your AI's going to live with you, and $8 trillion in build-out is going to be another indispensability trap.

Yep. 100%. Alan, I could hug you right now.

You are- Thank you ... exactly, precisely correct. I'm not that kind of show.

The only way that all this makes sense is if we can distill this stuff down, if we can get better edge devices, better devices in people's hands, and then it becomes genuinely useful, and it becomes genuinely- And ubiquitous ... a tool for people rather than a bizarre- Right ... money-raising, marketing stunt- The whole- ...

for billionaires ... tokenomics of it goes away. The whole build-out goes away.

The fanciful little green men operating data centers on Mars go away. Maybe Elon goes away. Yeah, and if you look at that- And take Zuck with you.

I'm sorry, go ahead. Yeah, if you look at that from that perspective, then suddenly this all becomes clear. Why would you want to pitch this idea that somehow you're going to launch a million satellites with AI?

Well, there's one real good reason, and that is that if you're the CEO of a public company trying to prop up the value of your stock and justify the insanely inflated numbers that you used to go public. Yep. You know what's the most telling thing about all this in my mind?

" And maybe they know something- But they're building data sp- ... about building devices. They're building data centers in the ocean, though.

That's true. But again, I think it's just a way station in this gangly, awkward phase of AI. Eventually, think about it, that little phone Steven held up has many times more computing power than what took us to the moon.

Yep. And even more prosaically, this phone has four times the computing power of the laptop that I'm using to stream this, which was only five years older. Right.

That's the kind of advances we're making, and it just doesn't take a lot in my mind to see that that's the future. I agree. Steven, I could hug you right now.

Oh, free hugs, baby. Free hugs right here. It's a hugging kind of day.

I don't know. I take the position- We're going to launch satellites using trebuchets. That'll be great.

And then, you know. The trebuchets are a lot like hugs. I take the position if they can figure out a way to get Jason Momoa back into doing "III" by resurrecting Mensa Gola, we can figure out how to do data centers in space.

I'm optimistic. Okay. All right.

I'll go with it. Guys- Science fiction, baby. Why not?

What a Monday. I'm so happy to be home from Vegas, though. I got off that plane.

" Only Floridians would think that. Well, coming from 115 and medium well, but anyway. Well, hey, let me tell you, I was in Colorado all last week, and Denver was 100 degrees, and- It's no joke ...

so I just went up in the mountains. And we did hiking, we did mountain biking. It was incredible.

It was cool. It was clear. It was beautiful.

I recommend Denver. There you go. I spent a summer in Boulder.

What Mitchell and I did, it's still secure. Yeah, Boulder was my base of operation. You don't need towels at the pool.

Yep. You come out of the pool, and you're instantly dry. It's 90 degrees here in the city.

I'm thinking about turning the car around and going back up to the mountains. Yeah, me too. I just want to fly back there.

We have no mountains, but well. I took one for you, Steven. I was in Vegas at 115, so...

Yep. Well, I was up in Colorado, so. I took one for the team.

All right. Hey, we got to wrap this up. I hope you've enjoyed our show today.

We'll be back, of course. We are here every Monday to Friday, noon Eastern Time, live. tv, Techstrong TV YouTube channel, Techstrong OTT channel on Android and Apple and Roku and Apple TV and Amazon and any other screen you like to watch your videos on.

Of course, you can follow along on any of the Techstrong sites, on any of the aforementioned Tech Field Day channels, including Tech Field Day YouTube, Tech Field Day podcast, and the Futurum podcast. You can follow along on there. On that note, I also wanted to mention, Six Five Media is yet another Futurum brand, Media, and they have their Six Five Summit virtual event coming up.

I believe it's August 26th it starts. It might be two days. I'm not sure.

But it's August 26th, and you can follow that on Six Five Media. I think you got to spell out the word six and five to get to that. And Steven, we've got some Tech Field Day stuff finally, right?

I know you guys are on the summer, a little hiatus, but we've got some stuff kicking, right? Yep. Whenever anybody says hiatus, I think paellas, and I'm okay with that.

But yeah, we're coming back. September, we got Cloud Field Day. October, we've got Networking Field Day.

And by the way, the Networking Field Day is just off the hook in terms of the number of companies. And then, of course, I'll be back with AI Field Day, and I'm really excited to be coming to Supercomputing, AWS re:Invent, all sorts of events coming up. KubeCon.

KubeCon, yep, that's right. Commvault Shift, I'll be in Nashville. That'll be fun.

So yeah, we got a lot of great stuff. com. All right.

If we don't have anything else, thank you for watching. We appreciate it. Stay cool wherever you are, and we'll be back tomorrow with more Field Day, with more Techstrong gang.

More hugs. And Field Day, and hugs. I'm Alan Shimel.

We're out.