Latest / Connecting the Dots / OpenAI's Courtroom Showdown, Jury Challenges, and Digital Scrutiny

Transcript

OpenAI's Courtroom Showdown, Jury Challenges, and Digital Scrutiny · Connecting the Dots

• 0:00
  Today's tech news moves fast, but understanding
• 0:03
  it shouldn't be hard. That's why Snarfl Solutions
• 0:06
  Group brings you Connecting the Dots, where we
• 0:09
  break down what's happening in tech and why it
• 0:11
  matters to you. Now, let's dive in with your
• 0:14
  hosts. Imagine handing over your literal biometric
• 0:20
  identity, like an irreversible scan of your eyeball.
• 0:23
  Right, just giving it away. Exactly. And in exchange,
• 0:27
  you get a digital lottery ticket that is mathematically
• 0:29
  designed to go to zero. It is wild. You are essentially
• 0:32
  trading a permanent piece of what makes you human
• 0:36
  for, well, a fleeting illusion of wealth. And
• 0:39
  today we are exploring how tech's biggest visionaries
• 0:42
  might quietly be building the architecture for
• 0:45
  widespread digital exploitation. All under the
• 0:47
  banner of social good, naturally. Right, always.
• 0:50
  It is a massive collision of technology, finance,
• 0:53
  and basic human rights playing out in real time.
• 0:56
  Welcome to Connecting the Dots, the daily radio
• 0:59
  style show where we break down the latest tech
• 1:00
  news and figure out exactly how it impacts your
• 1:03
  everyday life. We are coming to you straight
• 1:05
  from the Snarshal Solutions Group in Sacramento,
• 1:07
  California. I am Morgan. And I am Alex. It is
• 1:09
  Tuesday, April 28th, 2026. We are thrilled you're
• 1:13
  spending part of your day with us. Absolutely.
• 1:15
  But before we get into the heavy hitters of the
• 1:17
  tech world, let's get you caught up on what is
• 1:19
  happening outside your window and in your wallet.
• 1:21
  Good call. If you are local to us here in Sacramento,
• 1:24
  it is a gorgeous day. Sunny, 73 degrees Fahrenheit
• 1:28
  with just a light breeze at about three miles
• 1:31
  per hour. Found perfect. But for anyone tuning
• 1:33
  in from elsewhere in the country, do keep a close
• 1:35
  eye on the sky today. There are currently 392
• 1:39
  active U .S. weather alerts. Wow, that is a lot.
• 1:43
  Yeah, and 142 of those are active over land.
• 1:46
  It is a super busy weather day nationally, so
• 1:49
  Checking weather .gov for the specifics in your
• 1:52
  area is definitely a smart move. For sure. On
• 1:54
  the sports front, if you follow Northern California
• 1:56
  teams, Monday was essentially a mandatory rest
• 1:58
  day across the board. A rare quiet night. Yeah.
• 2:01
  The SF Giants, the Oakland Athletics, and the
• 2:03
  Sacramento Kings all had the day off yesterday,
• 2:05
  April 27th. Zero stress on the scoreboard for
• 2:08
  you. A moment of peace, which honestly stands
• 2:10
  in stark contrast to the financial markets. Oh,
• 2:12
  totally. Looking at yesterday's close, the traditional
• 2:15
  markets had a steady optimistic start to the
• 2:18
  week. The Dow Jones saw a slight bump. Up about
• 2:21
  55 points, right? Exactly. Closing up 55 .59
• 2:25
  points to end at 49 ,167 .79. Yeah. And the S
• 2:30
  &P 500 followed suit, taking up 21 .19 points
• 2:33
  to close at 7 ,173 .91. Crypto, however, kind
• 2:38
  of woke up on the wrong side of the bed this
• 2:39
  morning. Yeah, it did. As of today, Tuesday,
• 2:42
  Bitcoin took a hit, down 1 .6 % to trade at $76
• 2:46
  ,131 .80. I mean, a pullback like that in crypto
• 2:50
  is pretty standard Tuesday volatility. True.
• 2:52
  But the sheer volume of capital moving through
• 2:55
  those markets. really sets the stage for the
• 2:57
  massive corporate battles we're seeing unfold
• 2:59
  this week. Oh, the financial gravity of those
• 3:01
  market numbers is impossible to ignore. Let's
• 3:03
  explore this. We are opening up the Morning Star
• 3:05
  Tech article report, and those billions of dollars
• 3:07
  in market movement lead us perfectly into a literal
• 3:10
  trillion -dollar legal showdown. Right in our
• 3:12
  backyard, too, at a federal courthouse in Oakland.
• 3:15
  The Trial of the Century. Elon Musk versus Sam
• 3:17
  Altman and OpenAI. Today's episode is brought
• 3:20
  to you by Strong Coffee. The premium instant
• 3:22
  coffee that tastes like a traditional brew but
• 3:24
  is packed with 15 grams of protein, MCTs, and
• 3:27
  adaptogens like ashwagandha get clean, sustained
• 3:31
  energy without the jitters. Use promo code SNARFL
• 3:34
  for 20 % off at strongcoffeecompany .com. Said
• 3:38
  to lay the groundwork for you here, Elon Musk
• 3:40
  is suing for up to 134 billion dollars in damages.
• 3:45
  It is an astronomical number. It really is, but
• 3:47
  the fascinating twist here is the destination
• 3:49
  of those funds. He doesn't want a single cent
• 3:52
  of that money handed to him personally. Right,
• 3:55
  his demand is that the 134 billion be funneled
• 3:57
  straight back into OpenAI's non -profit arm.
• 4:00
  And we always like to remind you that we are
• 4:01
  completely impartial here. We are not taking
• 4:04
  sides on the legal claims or the individuals
• 4:05
  involved, just reporting the facts of the source.
• 4:08
  Exactly. But the foundation of Musk's argument
• 4:10
  is that Sam Altman, OpenAI president, Greg Brockman
• 4:13
  and Microsoft reneged on the company's original
• 4:16
  charitable mission. He is basically claiming
• 4:18
  he was manipulated into funding a non -profit
• 4:21
  meant to benefit humanity, which Altman and his
• 4:24
  team then flipped into a massive profit -driven
• 4:27
  juggernaut. Right. And the structure of this
• 4:29
  trial under Judge Ivan Gonzalez Rogers is highly
• 4:32
  calculated. It is split into two distinct phases.
• 4:35
  First, we have the liability phase. Which is
• 4:38
  expected to wrap up by May 21st, I believe. Yeah.
• 4:41
  And this phase focuses entirely on answering
• 4:43
  one single question. Did any legal wrongdoing
• 4:47
  actually occur? And if the court determines the
• 4:49
  answer is yes, only then do they move to a remedies
• 4:52
  phase to figure out the $134 billion question
• 4:55
  of damages. To put the sheer scale of this into
• 4:57
  perspective, you have to look at the broader
• 4:59
  board. You have Musk's combined XAI and SpaceX
• 5:02
  heading for an IPO. Huge moves. Right. And on
• 5:05
  the other side, you have OpenAI eyeing its own
• 5:07
  IPO later this year. We are talking about combined
• 5:10
  entities worth over two trillion dollars on the
• 5:13
  private market. Two trillion. That is roughly
• 5:15
  the entire gross domestic product of Italy or
• 5:18
  Canada sitting in a single courtroom in Oakland.
• 5:21
  The financial stakes are astronomical, but the
• 5:23
  legal strategy is where the mechanics get really
• 5:26
  interesting. Just last week, Musk's legal team
• 5:30
  made a pretty significant pivot. What did they
• 5:33
  do? They dropped their fraud claims to focus
• 5:36
  entirely on, quote, unjust enrichment, end quote,
• 5:40
  and breach of charitable trust. Let me try to
• 5:43
  break down why that matters, because this feels
• 5:45
  like a massive shift in strategy to me. It definitely
• 5:48
  is. Imagine you donate millions of dollars to
• 5:51
  build a beautiful, completely free public library
• 5:54
  for your city. You stock the shelves. You hire
• 5:56
  the brilliant librarians. It's a great civic
• 5:59
  deed. Right. And then a few years later, the
• 6:01
  founders change the locks on the doors and start
• 6:03
  charging everyone hefty subscription fees to
• 6:05
  read the books. That is essentially what Musk
• 6:07
  is alleging. It is a great analogy. So by dropping
• 6:10
  the fraud claim, it seems like Musk's lawyers
• 6:12
  realized that proving Altman intended to steal
• 6:15
  the library from day one is almost impossible.
• 6:18
  You can't easily prove what was inside someone's
• 6:20
  head seven years ago. No, you really can't. But
• 6:22
  unjust enrichment. That just means looking at
• 6:25
  the math today. If Musk dropped his fraud claims
• 6:28
  to just focus on unjust enrichment and breach
• 6:31
  of charitable trust, doesn't that suggest this
• 6:33
  is more about enforcing a contract than proving
• 6:36
  intentional villainy? You are touching on the
• 6:38
  exact legal mechanism at play here. Fraud carries
• 6:41
  a massive burden of proof regarding intent. Unjust
• 6:45
  enrichment simply asks, did one party financially
• 6:48
  benefit at the expense of another in a way the
• 6:51
  law considers unfair based on their initial agreements?
• 6:54
  So it strips away the drama? Exactly. It takes
• 6:57
  the case from a dramatic Shakespearean tale of
• 6:59
  betrayal and boils it down to brass tacks. Did
• 7:02
  you violate the terms of the 501c3 trust by creating
• 7:06
  a capped profit subsidiary that hoards the intellectual
• 7:08
  property? And for you listening, every time you
• 7:11
  use ChatGPT to draft an email or your kids use
• 7:14
  it to brainstorm a homework project, you are
• 7:16
  generating value and data for the system. You
• 7:19
  are part of it. You really are. This trial isn't
• 7:21
  just billionaires fighting over a corporate pie.
• 7:23
  It will dictate whether the future of artificial
• 7:26
  general intelligence Meaning systems that will
• 7:29
  eventually outsmart humans at most economically
• 7:31
  valuable tasks. Right. Whether that future is
• 7:34
  driven by profit maximizing tech giants or by
• 7:37
  entities legally bound to a public benefit mission,
• 7:41
  that directly impacts the tools we use at work
• 7:43
  and home. It is a battle for the underlying architecture
• 7:47
  of the next 50 years of human productivity. So
• 7:50
  let's unpack this by looking at the people burdened
• 7:52
  with actually making sense of this in the courtroom.
• 7:55
  The jury. On Monday, a nine -person jury was
• 7:58
  seated in Oakland. It is an incredibly diverse
• 8:01
  cross -section of the public. Yeah, we are talking
• 8:03
  about a painter, a psychiatrist, and a former
• 8:05
  Lockheed Martin employee, right? Yep. The challenge
• 8:08
  of finding an impartial group for two of the
• 8:10
  most famous polarizing men alive really cannot
• 8:13
  be overstated. Oh, I can imagine. During jury
• 8:16
  selection, multiple prospective jurors openly
• 8:19
  confessed to holding deeply negative views about
• 8:21
  Musk's political ideology. Some express profound
• 8:25
  anxiety about AI technology in general. Which
• 8:27
  is super common these days. Totally. The tension
• 8:30
  in the room was so thick that Judge Gonzalez
• 8:33
  Rogers bluntly stated on the record the reality
• 8:35
  is people don't like him. Wow. A federal judge
• 8:39
  saying people don't like him about one of the
• 8:40
  richest men on earth directly to the jury pool
• 8:43
  is a stunning piece of courtroom transparency.
• 8:46
  It really speaks to the impossibility of ignoring
• 8:49
  the elephant in the room. However, she followed
• 8:52
  that statement by expressing confidence in the
• 8:55
  American judicial process, asking if citizens
• 8:57
  can still maintain integrity even when they dislike
• 9:00
  the plaintiff. And did they agree? Yeah. The
• 9:03
  selected jurors assured the court they could
• 9:04
  set their personal feelings aside and focus purely
• 9:07
  on the facts. But there is a massive caveat to
• 9:10
  all of this. Okay. For this first liability phase,
• 9:13
  the jury's verdict is merely advisory. Wait,
• 9:16
  really? Advisory. Meaning they sit through weeks
• 9:18
  of dense technical and financial testimony, deliver
• 9:22
  a verdict, and it basically functions as a suggestion
• 9:24
  box. Basically, yes. Judge Gonzalez -Rodgers
• 9:27
  still makes the final unilateral decision. That
• 9:30
  is the legal reality of this specific phase.
• 9:34
  The judge holds the ultimate authority on the
• 9:37
  liability ruling. I have to push back on this
• 9:39
  entire process, then. Okay, let's hear it. If
• 9:41
  the jury is only advisory, and the judge holds
• 9:43
  all the cards anyway, why go through the rigorous,
• 9:46
  incredibly highly publicized drama of seeding
• 9:49
  jurors who openly admit they dislike the plaintiff?
• 9:52
  Why drag a painter and a psychiatrist away from
• 9:55
  their lives for a month? Is this just about setting
• 9:58
  the stage for the court of public opinion? It
• 10:00
  is entirely about the court of public opinion,
• 10:02
  and it illustrates exactly how modern corporate
• 10:05
  warfare is waged. Interesting. Trials of this
• 10:08
  magnitude are sought on two simultaneous fronts,
• 10:11
  the legal battlefield and the public relations
• 10:13
  battlefield. By seating an advisory jury, both
• 10:16
  legal teams get a real -time focus group. Ah,
• 10:19
  I see. They get to see which arguments resonate
• 10:21
  with a defense contractor versus an artist. More
• 10:23
  importantly, if the judge's final ruling aligns
• 10:26
  with the jury's advisory verdict, it lends impenetrable
• 10:29
  public legitimacy to the outcome. And if she
• 10:31
  rules against the jury? Then it opens the door
• 10:34
  for the losing side to claim the system is rigged.
• 10:37
  For everyone watching this unfold, it really
• 10:39
  highlights the intense polarization surrounding
• 10:41
  tech leaders today. We can no longer separate
• 10:44
  a CEO's public persona. Like their political
• 10:47
  actions, their social media presence. Right,
• 10:49
  from their actual business practices. It is a
• 10:52
  calculus every consumer performs now when deciding
• 10:54
  which electric vehicle to buy or which software
• 10:57
  ecosystem to lock their family into. The modern
• 11:00
  tech CEO is as much the product as the software
• 11:03
  they sell. Moving on to our next story, let's
• 11:06
  look at how that very public sentiment is being
• 11:09
  weaponized digitally. Because while the physical
• 11:11
  jury deliberates in Oakland, a massive parallel
• 11:14
  war is happening online. Yeah, while Sam Altman
• 11:17
  and Greg Brockman were physically sitting in
• 11:19
  the courtroom on Monday, Elon Musk, who was not
• 11:22
  present, was actively utilizing his platform
• 11:24
  X to sway public opinion. And he did this by
• 11:28
  shining a massive floodlight on Altman's other
• 11:31
  highly controversial business venture. Right.
• 11:34
  Musk amplified an ex -post by investigative journalist
• 11:37
  Ronan Farrow. Farrow's post promoted a massive
• 11:40
  15 ,000 -word New Yorker expose detailing Sam
• 11:44
  Altman's alleged history of deceptive business
• 11:46
  practices. And Musk didn't just share it. He
• 11:49
  endorsed a very specific nickname, posting, quote,
• 11:52
  Calling him Scam Altman is accurate. Scam Altman.
• 11:55
  The origin of that nickname is where the story
• 11:57
  gets incredibly dark. Yeah, it does. Scam Altman
• 11:59
  didn't start with the open AI lawsuit or the
• 12:02
  boardroom drama. It originated deep within the
• 12:05
  cryptocurrency community, specifically regarding
• 12:07
  a project Altman co -founded called WorldCoin,
• 12:10
  which recently rebranded to Just World. Sounds
• 12:17
  nice in theory. Sure. But to prove you are a
• 12:24
  unique human and claim your digital currency,
• 12:26
  the WLD token, you have to allow a silver bowling
• 12:30
  ball sized device called the Orb to scan your
• 12:32
  irises. The Orb. It takes a permanent biometric
• 12:36
  map of your eyeball to create a cryptographic
• 12:39
  world ID. And they raised over $250 million from
• 12:44
  massive venture capital firms to build this infrastructure.
• 12:47
  But the backlash was swift and severe. MIT Technology
• 12:50
  Review published a scathing investigation calling
• 12:53
  it a, quote, biometric database from the bodies
• 12:57
  of the poor. That is a heavy title. And the headline
• 13:00
  was entirely factual. The project aggressively
• 13:02
  targeted low -income countries for its initial
• 13:04
  rollout, places like Indonesia, Sudan, and Kenya.
• 13:08
  Wow. Local agents were paid commissions to sign
• 13:10
  people up. They were essentially trading small,
• 13:12
  volatile amounts of digital currency for the
• 13:15
  permanent biometric data of villagers who often
• 13:17
  lack the context to grasp the long -term privacy
• 13:20
  implications. This feels like a blatant form
• 13:22
  of digital colonialism. It is like offering a
• 13:25
  vulnerable person a lottery ticket in exchange
• 13:27
  for their permanent fingerprints, all while the
• 13:30
  people running the lottery are mathematically
• 13:31
  guaranteed to win the jackpot. Your lottery analogy
• 13:34
  maps perfectly onto the financial mechanics of
• 13:37
  WorldCoin. Which brings us to the tokenomics.
• 13:41
  Crypto investigators like Zach XBT have flagged
• 13:44
  the financial structure of the WLD token as highly
• 13:47
  predatory. Let's break down tokenomics because
• 13:49
  it often sounds like a Silicon Valley buzzword,
• 13:51
  but it is the actual mathematical engine dictating
• 13:54
  how people lose their savings. How did the insiders
• 13:57
  guarantee they won the jackpot? It all comes
• 13:59
  down to artificial scarcity. When the WLD token
• 14:03
  launched, it had a hard -coded total supply of
• 14:06
  10 billion tokens. OK, 10 billion. But the creators
• 14:09
  only released 1 .4 % of that total supply into
• 14:12
  the open market. Wait, if they have 10 billion
• 14:14
  tokens, but they only let the public trade 1
• 14:16
  .4 % of them, isn't that just a deliberate manipulation
• 14:19
  tactic? By restricting the supply that tightly,
• 14:22
  any retail demand will cause the price to instantly
• 14:24
  skyrocket. Exactly. It creates a massive financial
• 14:27
  illusion. Because the circulating supply was
• 14:29
  so tiny, the price shot up. giving the project
• 14:32
  a fully diluted valuation of $22 billion. And
• 14:35
  fully diluted valuation just means what the entire
• 14:38
  company would be worth if all 10 billion tokens
• 14:41
  were trading at that inflated price, right? Precisely.
• 14:45
  But here's the really predatory part. While everyday
• 14:48
  retail investors were buying in at the top, the
• 14:51
  insiders were quietly cashing out millions of
• 14:53
  dollars. But wait, how do they cash out if their
• 14:56
  tokens are technically locked up? Through what
• 14:58
  are called over the counter, or OTC. channels,
• 15:02
  insiders routed massive blocks of tokens privately
• 15:05
  to big institutional buyers and exchanges like
• 15:08
  Binance and Falcon X. So they didn't sell them
• 15:10
  on the public apps. Right. By selling over the
• 15:12
  counter, they completely bypassed the public
• 15:15
  market, meaning their massive sell -offs didn't
• 15:17
  immediately tank the price on the retail exchanges.
• 15:20
  Unbelievable. They secure their fortunes privately,
• 15:22
  and once the market caught up to the reality
• 15:24
  of the supply, the token price collapsed. The
• 15:27
  numbers on that collapse are just staggering.
• 15:29
  The token is down 97 .9 % from its high, currently
• 15:33
  trading around 26 cents. So, to put that plainly,
• 15:38
  the venture capitalists and founders who created
• 15:40
  the system secured millions in real -world dollars
• 15:42
  through private backdoors, while the vulnerable
• 15:46
  populations who lined up to scan their eyeballs
• 15:48
  hold a digital token that lost almost all its
• 15:51
  value. And the fallout extends beyond just financial
• 15:54
  loss. The system designed to mathematically prove
• 15:57
  human uniqueness actually spawned a sprawling
• 15:59
  black market for human identity. Oh no. In China,
• 16:03
  where crypto regulations are strict, you can
• 16:05
  go on e -commerce platforms like Taibo and buy
• 16:07
  verified world IDs. Brokers are sourcing these
• 16:10
  eyeball scans from people in places like Cambodia
• 16:12
  and Kenya and selling them online for anywhere
• 16:15
  from a buck forty to seventy dollars. When you
• 16:17
  look at the totality of it, the massive multi
• 16:20
  -billion dollar valuation, the charismatic founder,
• 16:23
  the lofty language of universal basic income
• 16:25
  acting as a shield for incredibly questionable
• 16:27
  financial engineering, it is impossible not to
• 16:30
  draw historical comparisons here. Oh, the crypto
• 16:32
  community is loudly drawing comparisons to the
• 16:35
  catastrophic collapse of FTX and Sam Bankman
• 16:38
  Fried. Both ventures share an eerie, almost identical
• 16:42
  playbook. So they both wrapped. highly predatory
• 16:46
  financial engineering in the utopian language
• 16:48
  of social good. Sam Bankman Fried used the philosophy
• 16:52
  of effective altruism, while Sam Altman's world
• 16:55
  coin uses the promise of universal basic income.
• 16:58
  Crucially, both projects relied heavily on launching
• 17:01
  operations in jurisdictions where government
• 17:03
  and regulatory oversight was the weakest. It
• 17:06
  is a clear pattern of exporting a dangerous financial
• 17:09
  experiment to vulnerable global populations wrapped
• 17:12
  in the comforting language of human dignity.
• 17:14
  Governments are finally waking up to the threat,
• 17:17
  though. Kenya's high court ordered WorldCoin
• 17:18
  to halt all biometric data collection and force
• 17:21
  them to delete the data they had already gathered.
• 17:23
  Which is a huge step. Yeah. And Spain temporarily
• 17:26
  banned the project entirely for severe GDPR privacy
• 17:28
  violations. Hong Kong police even re -did operator
• 17:31
  locations. And Singapore launched criminal investigations
• 17:34
  into the illegal trading of these biometric accounts.
• 17:37
  It serves as a profound warning for all of us.
• 17:40
  We are constantly offered extreme convenience.
• 17:43
  or in this case, quick cash, in exchange for
• 17:45
  our data. But trading your biometric privacy,
• 17:48
  your literal, unchangeable iris scan, for a volatile
• 17:52
  digital token illustrates how social good tech
• 17:55
  initiatives can sometimes mask incredibly dangerous,
• 17:59
  extractive financial systems. You really have
• 18:01
  to be careful. Absolutely. When a piece of technology
• 18:03
  asks for a piece of your physical identity, you
• 18:05
  have to ask who really holds the keys to that
• 18:07
  database and how they profit from it. Before
• 18:10
  we wrap up, a quick thanks to Old Glory, an iconic
• 18:13
  music and sports fan merch store. Perfect for
• 18:15
  the techie in your life. Use promo code SNARFL
• 18:18
  for 15 % off at oldglorer .com. Synthesizing
• 18:21
  these three Morningstar stories, we are really
• 18:24
  looking at an incredible defining moment in tech
• 18:26
  history today. We have a $134 billion courtroom
• 18:29
  battle over the fundamental soul and operating
• 18:31
  model of open AI, which will dictate who controls
• 18:34
  artificial general intelligence. We also have
• 18:36
  a jury selection process that exposes the absolute
• 18:39
  impossibility of escaping personal bias when
• 18:41
  tech leaders become polarizing political figures.
• 18:44
  Exactly. And we have the global exploitation
• 18:46
  concerns surrounding WorldCoin's biometric crypto
• 18:50
  experiments. None of these are isolated incidents.
• 18:52
  We are witnessing a massive inflection point
• 18:55
  for society. These tech titans, Musk, Altman,
• 18:58
  and their peers are no longer just building apps
• 19:02
  or consumer software products. No, they are way
• 19:04
  past that. They are actively restructuring global
• 19:06
  financial systems. They are defining what legally
• 19:09
  and cryptographically constitutes human uniqueness.
• 19:13
  They are quite literally shaping the future of
• 19:16
  human infrastructure. That reality leads to a
• 19:19
  lingering essential question we all really need
• 19:22
  to mull over today. Let's hear it. With so much
• 19:24
  unchecked power concentrated in the hands of
• 19:27
  a few tech billionaires, individuals who are
• 19:29
  actively building systems that require our biometric
• 19:32
  data to function, systems that influence our
• 19:35
  digital reality every single day. Yeah. Are we
• 19:38
  participating as citizens in the future of technology,
• 19:40
  or are we just becoming its raw material? We're
• 19:43
  here to help it snarfle, so reach out on our
• 19:45
  website if you have any more questions. That's
• 19:50
  a wrap on today's top stories. Remember, tech
• 19:53
  doesn't have to be complicated, and we're here
• 19:56
  to help connect the dots. If you've got questions
• 19:59
  or want to learn more, visit us at snarful .com.
• 20:02
  Thanks for listening, and we'll catch you next
• 20:04
  time.