Joe: "How many podcasts have you done?" Aravind: "I don't know the count, but maybe tens." Joe: "When we were talking in the lobby, you were talking to me about something that sounds like a nuclear bomb." Aravind: "The brahmastra. It's part of the Mahabharat."
The brahmastra is the equivalent of the hydrogen bomb. Described as a weapon of mass destruction going to annihilate the human population. Not accessible to most warriors β probably like two warriors in that era were allowed to use it. It has to be passed through special access, like a teacher passes on the secret to you. Think of it as the equivalent of a nuclear code.
Aravind: "There's one weapon called the Dastra where you can specifically target any particular person or group and it would just automatically direct itself. Almost like a semi-autonomous weapon. Lord Krishna had this weapon called the Sudarshan Chakra β a discus, you release it, it goes and identifies somebody and comes back to you. It self-directs."
Joe: "If we think of history as this linear progression from caveman to us, and we hear about autonomous weapons written in the Mahabharat 2,000 plus years ago, we go β well, mythology. But if there's been some rise and fall of civilization, if there's been catastrophic asteroid impacts, shifting of the poles β you can imagine these people are remembering a time where there was some sort of very advanced civilization. And this is what they're describing."
Aravind: "Vedic math β a branch of mathematics. It has a line in the Vedas that says 'one from the last digit, two from the first digit'... so many ways of multiplying two numbers like 97 times 96. You wonder β the Rigveda is so old, it's the oldest sacred text out there. How is it describing computation?"
Jamie (producer, via Perplexity): "Scholars usually date the composition of the Rigveda to about 1500 to 1200 BCE. So its oldest layer is roughly 3,200 to 3,700 years old today."
Joe: "Every ancient culture has a story of a flood. Everyone. They all have an apocalyptic story." Aravind: "The Mahabharat had the same thing β the collapse of Lord Krishna's kingdom Dwaraka after the war. Even those who survived got wiped out by a calamity."
How about these temples they find in India carved entirely out of one piece of stone? How did you do that? There's no evidence of tools that were capable of doing this kind of work back then. And they're huge and beautiful and perfect. They have acoustic properties and the geometry is fantastic. It's nuts, man.
Aravind: "All these temples β the locations were specifically picked out so you get the right seismic vibrations, the gravitational waves from the sun and the moon. Imagine the undertaking of carving that temple out of the side of a giant piece of rock. You screw up one thing and it's over. There's no simulations. You just have to build it."
Jamie: "It says they used chisels and hammers." Joe: "I don't think that's possible. People trying to do that β this is how much work someone could do in like 12 hours with a hammer and they get nowhere, let alone perfect and looking good."
Joe: "You have the stuff in Peru like SacsayhuamΓ‘n β you look at these stones and it looks like they're melted into place and they're 900 tons. How did you get it up there? How'd you align it perfectly? Built in only 18 years. How do they know that?" Aravind: "It's attributed to one king β King Krishna the 1st, 756 to 773 CE." Joe: "How do you know though? Archaeologists calculated it would take 100 years to do it."
Joe: "This is a 3D print of an actual vase they found in tombs of the old kingdom. Made with diorite, so incredibly hard stone, made to like a thousandth of a human hair. And it wasn't turned on a lathe because it has handles. You can't carve the β and those are perfect too. How did they cut that out? There's also these core marks in stones they've analyzed β the revolutions per minute you'd have to go through to leave those lines defies explanation."
Joe: "I had the scientist that's involved in it β an Italian guy, Filippo Biondi. They're looking under the pyramid and it seems there's structures under it. This same technology is showing there's these columns underneath the pyramid in various places that are 20 meters wide with coils around them. The whole structure goes almost a kilometer into the ground β 1.2 kilometers. Half a mile into the mountain. This immense 2,300,000 stone structure that almost perfectly aligns to true north, south, east, west. Don't tell me chisels. Don't tell me copper tools."
Aravind: "Both in ancient Sumerian texts and ancient Egyptian texts, there's depictions before the flood of people who reigned for thousands of years as kings. It's referenced multiple times in different scripts from different parts of what was Sumeria." Joe: "But it's all in the same text as people that reigned for 6,000 years. One just wipes out the whole thing."
The most effective people, the most successful people have always been the most curious people β the ones who have been good at asking the best questions. Long-term, people who continuously ask questions tend to do better. They make more money. They have a higher quality of life. They're happy. They have more compounding relationships. Their intrinsic curiosity doesn't stop once they succeed. They just channelize it even more. That's why it keeps compounding.
Aravind: "In the Rigveda, you're explicitly encouraged to seek wisdom more than wealth. And it's not just an idea specific to Hinduism. That specific idea exists in the Bible, in the Quran, in the Torah. It's not that seeking wealth is admonished β it's that it's more important to seek wisdom. It feels like that one universal human quality that's existed since ancient times. Being curious."
Joe: "Genuine curiosity is stimulating to other people. When someone is genuinely curious about something, I become curious about it. I think it's contagious. And it's an authentic quality. If you're curious, generally you're going to ask more questions about something so you have a deeper understanding of it. It's one of the most important human qualities. And to me, one of the most attractive."
Joe: "When I meet curious people, I'm always interested. I'm always like β tell me what you're curious about, and I'll tell you what I'm curious about, let's talk. And this podcast started out genuinely because of that. One of my very first guests, actual guests, was Graham Hancock. It's just because I was curious. I had read Fingerprints of the Gods."
Aravind: "It's not just about being curious leads to success. It's more that people around you want you to be successful if you're curious β because you'll have more compounding and fulfilling relationships. It applies to your personal relationships too. You'll have a more fulfilling life with your wife or your kids if you're a more curious person. You ask them more questions."
All curiosity leads to truth or some form of it. Anything of impact in the world has only been done by curious people. In hindsight, we label those people as successful, as smart, or rich, but the common trait across all of them has been curious.
Joe: "People that aren't curious are not fun." Aravind: "They're not interesting. Because of that, they don't attract other smart, interesting people. Therefore they won't be able to do something very meaningful in the world."
Joe: "It's one of the more important qualities of human beings. It's led to everything that we have today. Architecture, math β everything. Art, everything." Aravind: "The transistor β like you know the story of the transistor. Bell Labs was employing as many telephone engineers back then, history-adjusted, as software engineers today. But only three people cared enough to question whether you should use these really hot giant vacuum tubes."
Aravind: "There are two paths to curiosity. One that can kill it and one that can supercharge it. The one that kills curiosity is algorithmic feeds β the brain rot you're fed every day with continuous doom scrolling. And the one that can supercharge it is AI. Now you can just ask whatever you want. That's amazing."
Aravind: "Status is not going to come from whether you're working at a particular famous bank or a tech company. It'll be driven by how interesting you are. Are you interesting to talk to? When I can talk to an AI, despite that, are you still interesting to talk to? Can we have a compounding relationship together? It goes back to being curious about things."
Joe: "So my question is where does this all go? You obviously work in AI. When you extrapolate β what is a possible scenario 250 years from now?" Aravind: "It's very hard to know. I'll be very honest. I think it's very hard to know even 5 years from now how it's going to look like."
Five years ago, whoever was at the most frontier level of decision-making in AI β I don't think they predicted the exact state we are in today. If they did, they would have already procured all the compute, manufactured all the chips, bought out all the fabs. Everyone's bottlenecked by not having enough compute, not enough chips, not enough power. If you ask anybody in AI what is the bottleneck today, everybody would say power.
Aravind: "If the price of cognition is the price of compute, managing an AI is also pretty much doable by the AI itself. The value of society will automatically shift to what is scarce. Fundamentally, what has been scarce is asking high-quality questions about things."
Aravind: "There's not going to be anybody working just because they were told to. If money is no longer an issue, you can fund passion projects yourself. What if you just wanted to build a mini cave yourself? There's a lot of land in America β way more than we know what to do with. Surely we can build a lot of interesting things there."
Joe: "What do you think happens to people if a large percentage of jobs get replaced by AI?" Aravind: "I think they'll find new things. We've always gravitated towards things that are scarce because that's where the value lies. But if you give people the ability to be lazy, a large percentage will take that." Joe: "Human nature is undeniable."
Aravind on Gulf States: "When I first went to Dubai like 20 years ago, they told me people don't pay taxes here, nobody pays for electricity, education is super cheap. Because the government provides you all these things, it becomes a rentier state. Citizens there expect the state to find them jobs, to take care of job displacement. It made them a little more lazy. That's not a good future to have."
The only way you can fight the centralization of power is you have something you own yourself. With the rise of open-source models and progress in local hardware β Apple, NVIDIA, Intel are all doing amazing work β you could potentially change the future and give people more power. What if someday the data center gets taken off? Iran was bombing data centers. What if the government decides that model is no longer available? You want some control over what models you can run.
Aravind: "Eventually you'll be able to do that on a box that you own. You can still use the front end, the UI of the app, but you can control the compute that runs on a piece of hardware. And that's where I believe the individual gets more sovereignty against big tech. That's how we fight surveillance or centralization of power."
Joe: "When you think about AGI in particular, you think about something that could potentially make better versions of itself." Aravind: "Some people in Silicon Valley have started calling that ASI. So when you see the word ASI being thrown around, people kind of think of ASI as an AGI that can recursively self-improve itself. There's going to be no limits to how smart it can get."
Aravind: "I used to think ASI is bottlenecked by power, because you need a ton of compute for this model to keep training itself. But you could imagine that once the algorithm is correct, the ASI could be tasked with just making itself more efficient. Improvement doesn't just mean capability improvement β it could also mean power efficiency. Think of it almost as the last project in AI is basically cracking recursive self-improvement. Once you crack that, you don't have anything else to work on."
Aravind: "In practice, it's going to be hard to point even a recursively self-improving AI at some metric and say 'go reduce inflation by 5%.' If the task is to improve health care β good luck. Most hospitals are still using legacy software because the software provider has lobbied the government."
Aravind: "My prediction is 2028 election debates are going to be largely about AI. AI, energy crisis, power β people are going to care about all these things. AI is no longer a thing that is new. It's part of all our lives."
Microsoft built this concept of a knowledge worker because they wanted to sell more office software. Like, this whole idea of putting a PC on every desk and making you glued to the PC was Bill Gates's vision. It was not about making computing beautiful the way Steve Jobs envisioned it. It was just about selling more software. That's essentially the reason we all got trained to use software.
Aravind: "If that part is going to be done by an AI, it's not necessarily a bad thing, because this is not actually the way you feel real purpose and fulfillment in your own life. If you were never exposed to that β whatever you had as the intrinsic curiosity in you β that's probably what you should be doing."
Aravind: "As long as we keep rewarding people for having answers instead of asking interesting questions, it's going to be a difficult change. In schools, you're always rewarded for being smart based on whether you have answers to 20 different questions. Like β who cares? All those 20 questions can be answered by AIs. Have you ever flipped the script where you say 'the smartest person in the room is the one who asks the most interesting questions'?"
Aravind on the MIT experiment: "We did this experiment with one instructor at MIT who taught the introduction to biology class. He came and told us he's going to give Perplexity to all the students, and they would use it as part of the lectures. So instead of fighting AI, you just give AI to everybody and let them ask whatever questions they want. And they can actually use it in the exams too."
Aravind: "How do you even design questions for an exam in such a world? Maybe you just encourage people to pose a question that AI can't answer right now, and that becomes your research project. You turn everybody into a scientist."
There's this belief that scientists have to go through a rigorous PhD. But anyone who's curious can be a scientist. The only thing that's required to be a good scientist is intellectual humility β to understand that you could be wrong about things. When you're presented with new evidence and new data, you're willing to change your mind. You're willing to operate with ambiguity and uncertainty about the world. That's basically all the qualities you need.
Joe: "The intellectual humility is so important. One of the things that was really weird about the whole COVID pandemic was that we weren't supposed to question science. When Fauci said if you question Anthony Fauci, you are questioning science." Aravind: "That's because they try to assign credibility through their degrees, through their affiliations β appeal to β but not through the scientific method."
Joe: "The scientific method alone is one of the most important things we can use to try to figure out what's real and what's not. And as soon as someone says don't use it β well, science demands questioning. It's what it is."
Aravind: "It's the reason you're successful now β the exact thing that people told you to shut up about in the past. Don't stop bothering my lecture, asking all these unrelated questions. It's mainly a frustration of the teacher that they don't have the answers to you. And now that bottleneck is gone."
Joe: "How valuable are degrees when essentially AI is going to be able to do the majority of whatever work you need done?" Aravind: "I still think institutions will preserve their brand value, because there is a certain aspect of education that's outside of learning β having access to other curious and intelligent people. Brands attract good communities, peer groups. But the actual process of learning itself has to change. What you're rewarded for has to change."
Aravind: "Fundamentally, everything flows downstream of the incentive. If the incentive is to score the highest on the exam based on answers, you're not really changing much. If you need to change that process, you need to change what you reward a student for. What is A+ or A? That's where we need to start."
Aravind: "My opinion is that it's not good for the kids." Joe: "It's terrible for them." Aravind: "But I think they should have some exposure to it because it's good to know that it's a thing. The anxiety levels of kids are much higher than ever before. Suicidal ideation is higher. Self-harm."
When you're just fed a feed and the algorithm of the social media company decides what you're going to see next, it curbs your curiosity. I don't think things that curb human curiosity should be encouraged. That's not necessarily good. It literally starts with something, you start doom scrolling, and then it starts showing you what you just scrolled β and you end up in an echo chamber.
Joe: "You can get trapped. I'm in a trap of schizophrenics lately on Instagram β mostly schizophrenics, like people that tell they're the rightful president of the United States. If you have a phone, you can create an account and start uploading nonsense. And for whatever reason, I've watched a couple of them. So now they just keep showing them to me."
Aravind: "It's full of AI slop right now. It's not even clear β it's not labeled clearly whether it's been made with AI or not. Essentially, it's leading to a complete loss in trust. When I see something, I don't even know if it's real anymore." Joe: "It's going to get worse." Aravind: "Your default is going to be that this is AI, and then you're going to have to go through multiple layers to finally verify if it was real."
Aravind: "Searching for information and answering questions, getting AIs to do things for you, help you learn new things faster β we need more of that. Because it supercharges our curiosity. Whereas brain rot feeds with AI slop don't supercharge our curiosity. It actually curbs our curiosity. If we believe in the curiosity premium idea, we need to encourage things that supercharge our curiosity and discourage things that curb it."
Aravind: "You can still customize on most of these social apps. But it'll be deeply buried somewhere in the settings. The reason it's buried is because once you consume the content you really want, you would go back to your work. But that doesn't help them sell more ads. The incentives are not aligned."
Elon has this really good metric he talks about β the total amount of unregretted minutes spent on the app should go up. It's hard to measure, but in spirit, that's the right metric. This metric is also why it's hard to make money on ads if you care about it β which is why X doesn't really make a lot of money on ads compared to Instagram or YouTube. Because you're optimizing for interestingness.
Aravind: "X is a place for discourse. It's a text-based app more than a video-based app. Naturally people tend to engage in discussions and debates. But apps that are purely based on video or images β largely video these days β that's just trying to get your eyeballs and time."
Joe: "I always say that if there was a drug that existed that made people stare at their hand for six hours a day, everybody would be like, 'Get that out of here.' But that's essentially what we're doing. Most of what people are looking at most of the time, they don't even remember."
Aravind: "Long-form content is what the human mind should be trained to consume more of. Whether it's books, whether it's 30 minute videos explaining something. You need to train your mind to actually complete it. That's actually the biggest problem with the younger generation β the more they're in the Reels experience, short-form video, they're unable to complete long videos anymore."
Joe on the AI companion trend: "Did you see that AI companion at CES this year? It's like a hot Asian lady that talks to you through AI. Right now it's just a crude sort of robot. But you can see where it's going." Aravind: "Ex Machina." Joe: "It's going right there. That was one of my top 10 favorite movies of all time."
Aravind: "It's an indistinguishable facsimile to a real person. They communicate like a real person, right? So you really think you have a relationship with this. It truly screws with your mind. It's hard to decouple. The business model incentives are not well aligned to humanity."
Joe: "What did the American dream β what was it to you when you weren't in America? How is it discussed over there?"
To me, America is the only country where you can come here and have an idea and people listen to you and encourage you to go pursue it. The risk-seeking culture is just incredible here. Everywhere else you kind of are either explicitly or implicitly forced to defer to authority. Okay, like go ask the permission of this person, go get their approval, get their insight. But if you have a thought that challenges what they believe, this country still encourages you to go pursue it.
Aravind: "Google was the number one company that everybody wanted to work in. But it's also the same country that allows you as a new person to start a new idea that challenges one of the biggest companies in this own country β and actually wants it. People actually want new ideas. That spirit of questioning is encouraged a lot here."
Aravind: "In academic research too β a lot of ideas when I had it and I would share with people, they actually give you very honest feedback about things, but they don't stop you from working on anything. That's fantastic. That's very fresh. It's very liberating. It's not anywhere else. It's not in India. It's a simplification to say it's not anywhere else, but it's not as encouraged."
Where else would you be able to go raise a few million dollars for an idea that has a 5 to 10% chance of working β and then fail at it and still go and raise another few million for your next idea? Nowhere else. People who get rich here actually want to encourage and be part of somebody else's crazy journey.
Joe: "It's crazy to me that if the American dream is so compelling and so many people come here for it, why doesn't the rest of the world sort of adopt those values?" Aravind: "It's hard. A lot of it is cultural. America was made from a piece of land essentially. A lot of ideas we built here, a lot of industries β were all created here from nothing. That required you to take bold risks."
Aravind: "So it's an ecosystem. And once something becomes an ecosystem, there's network effects. So it's very hard to copy that elsewhere. Your value is measured in your curiosity and your willingness to work on whatever your pursuit is. And then eventually adjusting and learning and catching fire with one of them."
Aravind on hard work: "I'm a big believer in intense hard work. Nothing great can be accomplished by being soft. So all this recent push for having a lot of work-life balance β sure, if that's what you want, there are certain jobs that would give you that. But when you're trying to do something from scratch, when you're trying to create something from nothing, it's not meant to be easy."
Aravind: "There are some sacrifices that have to be made. You're signing up to be part of that experience β that surreal joy from doing something that felt almost impossible to achieve. You're not staying up late or waking up early because you're getting paid more. Maybe you might not get paid anything. Maybe this whole thing goes to nothing. But that experience you're getting of being part of something that feels very hard to achieve is what you're signing up for."
Joe: "And if you're not, find something else." Aravind: "Nothing wrong with that. The country has enough jobs to provide for all kinds of needs. Everybody goes through different phases in their life. What I like about this country is that there's a lot of curious people here. So many different people finding meaning in so many interesting things."
Aravind on the transistor: "Bell Labs was basically employing, history-adjusted, as many telephone engineers back then as the number of software engineers today. But only three people cared enough to question whether you should use these really hot giant vacuum tubes for amplifying telephone signals. Vacuum tubes were very big, power hungry, and hot. So three people questioned the need for that and came up with the idea of the transistor."
Do you know what the tinfoil hat conspiracy theory about transistors is? That they are back-engineered from the Roswell crash along with fiber optics. There's this one scientist that said they weren't even remotely exceptional guys and they gave them the credit for this so they didn't have to reveal the true nature of where this technology came from. Again β tinfoil hat securely on our heads. This is not something I believe. It's just something that's fun.
Joe: "The Roswell crash is a real weird one. The cover of the Roswell Daily Record said the government has a crashed disc that landed in the desert. Bunch of witnesses. People also saw physical bodies of these creatures. Truman went to the site. Two separate planes were flown to Wright Patterson Air Force base. The idea was this material was so important they didn't want to risk one plane crashing. This stuff has always been known to be stored at Wright Patterson. And then a lot of it was moved to Bell Labs."
Aravind: "It definitely feels very disconnected. Okay, like you were using all these vacuum tubes, and then suddenly, okay, what if we just use semiconductors? There's definitely a pretty far drift from what you're doing currently to what you're supposed to do. And the first transistor and what ended up being used in chips β the junction transistor β are quite different too. So there are big leaps."
Joe: "David Grusch has, on oath, said that there are back-engineering programs and he was read into these. This is the assertion of that movie The Age of Disclosure β the real problem is they have misappropriated funds and lied to Congress. So they come out and tell you 'okay we do have this program' β well guess what, everybody goes to jail because you guys are a bunch of liars. That's why their assertion is the only thing needed is widespread amnesty for all these people that were involved."
Joe: "My problem with that is that's what I would say too. If I had been stealing money for decades, I'd be like β we need amnesty and I'll tell you where all this stuff is. Like β how do we know what this stuff is? Whether or not these are just top secret military programs with advanced propulsion technology unavailable to the public, and they're going to say that is aliens and they back-engineered this."
Aravind: "Whatever is extremely high stakes will still not be widely diffused. There'll be enough structures in place to keep it secret. Not forever, but for a while. Building frontier AI models is similar to that. Of course, as more models are getting open source, the knowledge is diffusing. But the true amount of details you need to actually train a really amazing frontier reasoning capability model is still not widely diffused."
So the pilots that were downed in Iran β they said they have this technology that allows them, up to 70 miles, to detect a very unique heart rate. Like your heart rate is different than my heart rate. They could know it's you. You could be hiding in the mountains and they could find you from 70 miles away with this technology. Quantum magnetometry.
Jamie (via Perplexity): "Physicists point out that the heart's magnetic field is a million times weaker than the Earth's. Detecting it at a range of miles rather than centimeters defies currently published peer-reviewed physics. Alternative explanations suspect that while quantum sensors were likely on board, they were probably tracking the radio waves of a survival beacon, the metal in the pilot's equipment, or using traditional thermal, infrared, and radar capabilities rather than detecting a raw heartbeat via magnetic fields."
Aravind: "There's a lot of skepticism on it. They claim to use AI for that, but nothing is really described on how they use it. If they're not describing how they use it, why are they even telling us they have it?" Joe: "The ghost murmur thing is awesome fun. And if that is real, boy β you can imagine a world 100 years from now where that is real."
Joe: "What do you think about this idea that universal basic income is going to be required?"
Some form of it is good. I almost think of it as a dividend. Most companies today spend a lot on payroll β paying a knowledge worker to transform information into an artifact. Let's assume that's being done by AIs. Obviously companies will start spending more on compute instead of payroll. It's just a reallocation, similar to what happened in advertising β most budgets went to TV and billboards, and then it started going to Google and Instagram and YouTube.
Aravind: "When that happens, AI companies are going to make a lot of money. And people who helped be part of creating it, either directly or indirectly, would want to have some role to play in that ecosystem. A good way to involve them is through giving them some ownership in the company. So as shareholders, if you get dividends from the profits generated by the AIs β it's not a bad thing. But that shouldn't be the only thing."
Joe: "So this is similar to people that live in Alaska β they get a check." Aravind: "Correct. Alaska does this, and it's not a bad thing as long as they are doing some other things alongside. It could lessen the burden."
Aravind on new projects: "There are going to be a lot of new projects. Like β what if we want to reimagine the government itself, where the government runs largely on AI? Then we need people for that. This is a legacy industry. It's not about the capabilities not being there. It's about working through the legacy and bureaucracy to actually deploy this inside the largest institutions in the country."
Honestly, more than AI, the government is running a lot of legacy software stack because a lot of these legacy enterprise companies have created multi-decade contracts that are hard to get out of. Most hospitals are still using legacy software because that software provider has lobbied the government. So a lot of the bottlenecks in AI just taking over β our hospitals, legal systems, government systems β is bottlenecked by compliance and regulation. That's why human beings are still necessary to effect the change.
Aravind: "That was what Elon tried to do with Doge, right? The bottleneck there was just discovering how slow it is to do things. He's not used to running that slow. And how much resistance because there was so much grift. If you just wanted to move everybody from Windows machines to Mac machines β good luck with that. It's going to take a lot of time. That's the state of the system."
Aravind: "So to do things in such messy systems, you still need people. You still need people to navigate all these changes. It's not about the capability of technology. It's more about how the system is structured. Maybe some good leader actually wants to change the system and is willing to be patient about it. If you take 10 years to actually run majority of the government processes on AIs, it may seem slow to you today, but in the grand scheme of things it's actually good for the country."
Aravind: "Our jobs will probably be more steered towards problem solving at a different level of abstraction. Maybe more need for EQ, more need for actually understanding differences of opinion, and still leadership quality β ability to understand people and ability to convince people. These are the skills that will be even more important in a world where actual work can be done by AIs, but affecting the change in our society still needs human beings because the systems are messy."
Joe: "It's a weird world we're in right now." Aravind: "Yeah." Joe: "It's never been weirder."
Aravind (closing): "It's very fulfilling because we want the app to be used by curious people. We want to lift the ceiling of what our population can be. Not everyone is fully curious all the time, but we're all born with it. At some point in time, the system curbs it from us. So there should be more apps that get us back to what we're naturally good at."
Joe: "It's a fascinating tool for curiosity, because it's seamless the way we use it on the show. There's always a question β throw it in Perplexity. Let's find out what's up." Aravind: "It's always been great for us. So thank you."