80% of School Is a Waste of Time - Will AI Change It?
Podcast Episode with Bryan Caplan, Author of "The Case Against Education"
In this episode, I discuss education and schools with Bryan Caplan! Listen on Spotify or Apple, or watch on YouTube:
Bryan Caplan argues that roughly 80% of schooling is wasted time, and that the primary value of a degree comes from signaling - demonstrating intelligence, conscientiousness, and conformity to employers rather than building useful skills. In this conversation, we discuss the evidence behind that claim, what “conformity” really means, why the system is so resistant to change, what Bryan would do if he was in charge, and whether AI will change the equilibrium.
Some questions we discuss:
How much does education actually increase abilities or intelligence?
The Flynn effect points to an increase in IQ scores over time. Do schools get any credit ?
Bryan has argued that a college degree is important for signaling conformity and skipping it demonstrates non-conformity. But if conformity just means “professionalism” - can you demonstrate it without a degree?
Classes are no longer entirely in-person, and tech will change education even more. Will people still need a four-year degree from a brick-and-mortar institution?
What happens to universities once AI can do most intellectual work?
Transcript
Below is a lightly edited transcript, courtesy of AI:
Ariel [intro]: Today’s guest is Bryan Caplan, economics professor at George Mason and the author of The Case Against Education. Bryan argues that much of school isn’t useful and the main benefits of a degree come from signaling. By getting through school, you show employers that you’re intelligent, conscientious, and conformist. We discuss what percentage of school is useful, whether conformity is important, why the educational system persists, whether AI and online learning will change it, and what Bryan would do if he was in charge. We also discuss the Flynn effect, gifted kids like the computer scientist Scott Aaronson, and what Bryan thinks of the AI singularity.
Ariel: Hi Bryan, thanks for joining.
Bryan: Glad you’re here, Ariel.
Ariel: What percentage of school do you think is a waste of time?
Bryan: 80%. Very specific number — I’m not married to it. I go through a lot of different lines of evidence in the book, but for me, probably the most convincing is just credential inflation and how much education has risen relative to how much you really need to actually do the job. So 80% is my preferred point estimate.
Ariel: And do you apply that across all of school or is that just for college?
Bryan: That’s a great question. If you were to break down by subject, you’d get a different number. But even at the level of kindergarten, it’s very easy to forget how much of what you do is not actually reading and writing, nor is it fun for most kids. For example, it’s very standard to have required dancing, and at least half the students — if you’re paying attention as a parent, I do — look totally miserable during this dancing. They don’t need to know it for real life. They don’t like it. That is a waste of time for them.
Ariel: And do you think, besides reading and math, all other subjects are basically a waste in elementary and high school?
Bryan: For the vast majority of people, yes. Some of these subjects just are not useful in the real world except to become a teacher of that very subject. And there are other subjects where they’re very useful if you can get to a really high level, but school is making almost no effort to get people to a high level. Take natural sciences — if you’re going to become an actual natural scientist, that’s useful stuff, but hardly anybody does. For all the others, it’s pretty useless. The only thing you could say is there’s option value. But we’ve got excellent predictions for most students saying they would never do it no matter what. Much of it comes down to: unless you are good enough in math, your odds of ever becoming an actual scientist are basically zero.
Ariel: There are many people who claim that even if people forget the facts they learn, they still pick up certain skills. And there’s some evidence that IQ scores increase after going through school. How do you address that?
Bryan: There’s been a lot of work on this. There is good evidence that education raises IQ under certain conditions. The main thing to understand is that a good chunk of it is teaching to the test. Obviously if you just gave people the answers to an IQ test and they memorized them, no one would think their intelligence had really gone up. A lot of what’s on IQ tests is standard material taught in school. Some classic IQ tests have facts on them — like “what’s the longest river in Africa” was on one standard test. So the idea that school is teaching general thinking skills is incorrect.
The main thing we know about improving IQ is that so much of teaching to the test doesn’t generalize to other tests, even ones that seem very similar. Then there’s a whole sub-literature on transfer of learning — do people actually take things they learn in school and apply them in real life? The answer is generally it’s really hard to detect any such effects. I’m not going to say it never happens, and I’m convinced that in a few cases it does, because there are people who apply knowledge very broadly. But in the data, those people are so rare that we don’t see them. To have a whole system revolving around trying to achieve something that only maybe one person out of a thousand actually gets is a pretty silly system.
Ariel: What about the Flynn effect? It seems part of the cause might be that schooling raised people’s IQ.
Bryan: Great question. I actually got to review one of Flynn’s later books for the Wall Street Journal, and he’s much more agnostic than most of his fans. Flynn will say that if you look closely by subtest, there are areas where we’re way worse than 100 years ago, like arithmetic. Modern Americans’ ability to do arithmetic is worse than it was 100 years ago. On the other hand, for tests that are highly g-loaded — like Raven’s Progressive Matrices — that’s where we’ve improved. Flynn has a reasonable story: we’ve gotten better at the things we practice more, and worse at the things we practice less. Interpreting this overall as a rise in intelligence is not the best way to think about it.
Within subtests, some correlate very strongly with overall IQ and others don’t. Memorizing random strings of numbers has very low g-loading. Reverse digit span — where I tell you numbers and you give them back in reverse — that’s more g-loaded. Then there are things like analogies or Raven’s Progressive Matrices that use a lot of general intelligence. If you compare individuals, these g-loadings are very predictive. But the changes over time don’t fit the general intelligence pattern at all — some high g-loaded things went up, some went down.
As you mentioned, there are probably multiple things going on with the Flynn effect. Most obviously, nutrition. I’ve got an interest in international adoption, and what you see is that international adoption at birth from very poor countries very reliably raises height, weight, head size, adult IQ, and school performance. So there we’re probably getting a real boost. But for populations that have had good nutrition for a hundred years, it’s not much and maybe nothing at all.
Another way I think about it: compare the 20 smartest people today and the 20 smartest people from 1500. When you read the very best from 1500, these people seem crazy smart — especially when you realize they didn’t have many giants’ shoulders to stand on, and their population was so much lower. Maybe we aren’t any smarter at all.
Ariel: Or maybe the top people had special circumstances, but the masses benefited more.
Bryan: We have people in special circumstances today too.
Ariel: Right, I’m saying if schooling gave a small boost, the top people, if anything, might be held back by schooling.
Bryan: Yeah, except in modern society, there are people who have all the stops pulled out for them in a way that would have been super hard in the past. And we’re much more likely to uncover hidden talent. In 1500, if you’re the son of a farmer with incredible mathematical talent, it’s quite likely that would never be noticed. Whereas today that person would probably get funneled into the elite echelons of mathematics — as long as they’re in the first world, at least.
Ariel: Turning to reading, writing, and math — what percentage of that do you think is useful? Could you just teach a kid when they’re five and six and then let them be on their own?
Bryan: That’s one where I’m more sympathetic to the status quo. We have a lot of evidence that people, to really get good at something, have to do what psychologists call over-learning — practicing to the point of automaticity. The general pattern is that whatever is your highest level of math, you don’t over-learn that. The only way almost anybody gets to over-learning of algebra is you have to go all the way to calculus. You need four more years where you’re using basic algebra as an input over and over again.
One of the sad things about how we run education today is that about a quarter to a third of American adults are functionally illiterate and innumerate. Not that they don’t know numbers or letters, but they’re not capable of doing even basic tasks. It would make so much more sense to give them four times the time on task and have them do nothing other than literacy and numeracy. It’s crazy that we have people who can’t read and write English properly doing foreign languages. And that is our system.
Ariel: Right, there are people who don’t know fractions and exponents and then we’re making them learn trigonometry. What a waste.
Bryan: Never mind fractions — how about percentages? A lot of people have problems with percentages. I remember talking to psychologist Gerd Gigerenzer, and he was saying that only about 10% of Americans can calculate 0.1% of a thousand. In Germany, 30% can do it — even that’s not so good. The basic thing of knowing thousand, million, billion, trillion — where each time you’re multiplying by a thousand — and being able to do that in your head and compare the population of Luxembourg to China by quickly multiplying by a bunch of tens, this is in fact a rare skill held by the elite, even though it’s not technically complicated. It would just require an unpleasant amount of drill.
Since I’m a homeschooling dad, I’ve dealt with how much drill is really necessary. The students I really care about — my own kids — it’s like, can’t we just move on and pretend that we’ve learned it? It’s not fun to do drill, but drill is the way normal people learn.
Ariel: Do you think that’s true about reading also? I learned to read pretty young and then in school there was a lot of read-aloud time that I found very boring.
Bryan: For math, I know what the research says about over-learning. For reading, I think there’s a tiny subset that’s hyperlexic — from an early age, fascinated by reading and loving books. Those people take to reading like a fish to water. But for normal people, it’s boring and tedious. And yeah, they probably do need a ton of drill to get any good. How do we know? From the amount of drill people are already getting and yet looking at tests of adult literacy — it’s shockingly poor. It’s the kind of thing where it’s hard to believe the numbers when you see the National Assessment of Adult Literacy. But in the end, it’s the difficulty of appreciating what life is like for someone very different from yourself.
Ariel: Now turning to signaling. You mentioned how a lot of school is about signaling intelligence and conscientiousness. I think those aren’t so controversial.
Bryan: And sheer conformity — never forget that one. It’s really important.
Ariel: That’s what I was about to discuss. Could you spell out what you mean by conformity? What are companies looking for?
Bryan: People that have embraced standard work culture. Show up on time, be polite, know what profanity not to use and who not to use it in front of, chain of command, following rules. There’s a trivial sense that sociologists and anthropologists point to where every subgroup is conformist — in the hippie group you’ve got to have long hair and you can’t have a job. The kind of conformity employers are looking for is conformity to the culture of work: sit down, shut up, show up on time, do what you’re told, respect the hierarchy. There’s no I in team.
Ariel: I saw a recent Substack post by Richard Ngo saying it seemed like when you said conformity, you just meant professionalism. Is that similar?
Bryan: I would flip it around and say professionalism is basically conformity to what’s expected on the job. You might add that professionalism also requires that you be good, which isn’t quite the same thing. But I’d still think of conformity as more general. It’s such a basic human trait — as a parent you can see it emerging in kids so early. “Other people aren’t doing that, I shouldn’t do that.” And obviously adults have it too — the heuristic of looking around and asking, “Is anyone else doing what I’m doing? No? I better stop.” I may be biased because I have a whole book on nonconformity, but I don’t want to have a fight over words. You say professionalism — all right, it’s in the right ballpark.
Ariel: If it more means professionalism, then there should be ways for people to not go to college without signaling that they’re unprofessional. Why hasn’t it become more common to skip college or do it online?
Bryan: A lot of what people need to do on the job is hard to articulate. It’s often embarrassing to spell out exactly what you’re supposed to be doing — like with a person of that level of status, you need this level of deference, but with a different level of status, a different level of deference. It depends on gender, age, so many variables. Part of being conformist is “I don’t have to be told — I just copy what other people are doing.”
In the book I go over ways you could be very smart and hardworking but still not conformist. Like, you wear a purple suit. You’re still smart, still hardworking, but not conformist. What exactly is unprofessional about wearing a purple suit other than it’s not done by other people? Some professionalism is specific to the occupation — put away your tools when you’re done. But “don’t wear a purple suit”? That’s not intrinsic to the task. It’s just that other people aren’t doing it.
Ariel: It’s interesting because it doesn’t seem like colleges really drill conformity in. People can still be somewhat rebellious.
Bryan: That’s a key point — school is only imperfectly preparing you for work. There are a lot of gaps between the school ethic and the work ethic. I think the biggest one is caring about fairness. The school ethic is so into fairness and the work ethic barely cares. When my kids were in elementary school, they didn’t have enough chairs for everybody. So what did the teacher decide? No one gets to sit. It wasn’t even that the people who need to sit most get to. It wouldn’t be fair if 28 out of 30 people got to sit and two didn’t. Couldn’t we share or rotate? No, still wouldn’t be fair. Whereas in an office, obviously you’d ration chairs based on status or what’s necessary for productivity.
In terms of conformity, schools still require some kinds — sit down, do the assignments on time. But there’s basically no standard of dress, for example. And there are other things, like knowing which exact phrase is acceptable. You have to say “enslaved persons,” not “slave” — “slave” is offensive and “enslaved persons” is sensitive. If you start asking why, you’ve already put your foot in your mouth. There’s going to be a lot of things like that in the world of work too.
Anytime you’re working with other people, you need some conformity. As a nonconformist, I don’t like that, but I understand what’s required for productivity. Most work is teamwork.
Ariel: Even if college is significantly about signaling, why is so much of it impractical? You could signal and still teach practical skills. Yet American universities have all these arbitrary requirements.
Bryan: I’m not that big of a functionalist in terms of saying the system has been expertly designed to serve its purpose. Really all I’ll say is it’s notably better than nothing, and it would be very hard to break the equilibrium in a way that would actually benefit the people breaking it. So what exists tends to continue.
I often mention this painting of a 12th-century college in France — it’s eerie how much it looks like a modern classroom. A lecturer on stage, students taking notes — not on paper, because they couldn’t afford it, but maybe on wax or whatever they used.
These are nonprofits, heavily subsidized by taxpayers and philanthropy. They’re not that constrained to do what’s most beneficial for customers. And the intellectually demanding subjects are probably too hard for most people, so you’ve got to dumb it down. Why couldn’t you dumb it down and make it more practical? If you were a school that tried that, you’d probably get community college–type students. It wouldn’t be a way of coming up with a high-status version.
About 15 years ago, Alex Tabarrok — you know Alex, right? He was starting to worry that MOOCs were going to put us out of business. I said, “So you’re going to let your son go to a MOOC instead of a real college?” And he just blurted out, “No son of mine.” Yeah, exactly. That’s why the system is really stable.
As long as high-status people think online is beneath them, that’s a self-sustaining equilibrium. If you’ve got piles of taxpayer money and philanthropy on the side of dysfunction, it’s even more stable. Just think about spelling in English — what a stupid system, and how it would take five minutes to come up with a better way. What’s your hope of getting people to flip to simplified spelling? Good luck!
Ariel: So 15 years ago wasn’t the time for online education in America. But do you think now it’s beginning to change? There was COVID, and now the technology is even more powerful. Is it starting to change?
Bryan: The main thing I’m seeing is that a lot of schools now have online education for in-person students. You go to a school, live in the dorms, and some of your classes you can Zoom from your dorm room instead of walking ten minutes across campus.
During COVID, we had something often fully remote. That fits with conformity signaling — if everybody’s doing it, it doesn’t make you look bad. But switching to a system where you don’t even physically exist on campus and schools save a pile of money by selling off superfluous workspace? I see very little movement in that direction.
There are some purely online master’s programs, but the main thing I’m hearing is that master’s programs in general are falling, and it’s not the online ones taking over. The master’s is decaying as people feel like they need to either do the PhD or just give up. For a long time there have been PhD programs where the only job you could get would be being a professor, but there are way more PhDs than jobs. People just kept going into something that was on average going to be really bad for them. You’ve got a lot of dreamers in English. It’s ad hoc, but I don’t see a better explanation than delusions of grandeur.
Ariel: I wonder if there was this fiction that you had to be in an in-person college and it’s breaking in a few different ways — people are using AI to learn, going to online classes. Is that trend going to continue? Will it eventually be accepted in America to do an online degree?
Bryan: My best guess is it’s going to continue but asymptote at a moderate level. You’ve grown up in this culture, you know what Americans are like. To be in a middle-class family and just say, “We’re giving up on residential college” — that’s almost like getting a visible tattoo on your neck. Not your forehead, which is more extreme, but your neck. The reaction your parents and peers would have: “What are you doing? People of our class do not do purely online degrees. You must go to the residential college, or you are not really one of us.”
In the American accent we’re not used to being that snobby, but we are. We’re similarly snobby to British aristocrats in our hearts — we just don’t have their accent, which is the perfect accent for expressing snobbiness.
Ariel: Another aspect of AI is it’ll let people cheat a lot. If universities are places where tests are the only real verification, could that weaken them? People could just do tests without the whole university.
Bryan: I think you’re being optimistic, because a lot of professors aren’t even changing their grading system in response to AI, which means people who previously couldn’t have gotten through will get through. The main thing to remember is that it’s already insanely easy to get a degree in something or other, and yet it’s still a minority accomplishment. Most people don’t accomplish this thing that seems super easy.
How could that be? It comes down to most people being so unagentic that they will not rouse themselves out of their ruts just to do something that would give them big gains, because it would require a little bit of effort. Among college students, I’d bet there’s at least ten times as much effort spent using AI for cheating as using AI for learning, because the level of curiosity is just so low. The majority of the human race is really incurious about anything other than food and sex and sports and violence. Even smart people find almost everything intellectual boring.
You can imagine it finally gets so ridiculous that the system breaks under its own weight, and I hope so. But we’re talking about a system that has been around almost untouched for 800 years. There’s this rule that whereas the older an individual gets, the more likely they are to die, the older a system has been around, the less likely it is to die.
Ariel: We are reaching a point where many people think AI will be able to do all intellectual work. What happens then? Will the university system still continue?
Bryan: No rich society ever needs to rethink anything. You can just keep going, wasting phenomenal amounts of resources, and you don’t die. You might say it’s just so ridiculous, people will rethink it. On some level, emotionally, I feel the same way. Higher education has felt hollow for decades, and after COVID and AI and Zoom school, it feels even more hollow. Yet the actual concrete evidence that it’s going to buckle seems almost none to me.
You might ask what it’s going to be like when English professors can turn out a thousand papers a day as good as the best ones getting published now. My answer: they’re going to ration status in English literature based on charisma and connections, which it already does to a very high extent. It’s not going to be hard to make it even more about charisma and connections.
In terms of AI taking over everything intellectual — don’t assume that just because AI is at incredible growth, it’ll asymptote at an unthinkably high level. It may asymptote at something really awesome and yet still be really bad at certain crucial tasks where humans remain superior. The very best humans may for a very long time remain better than the very best AIs at things like coming up with a totally new question, a totally new style. AI is so good if you say “write something in the style of Tolkien.” But I’ve never seen an AI just come up with a new voice that’s never existed, unlike any other voice, and have people love it.
Past performance not only does not guarantee future results, but we have a lot of evidence that everything asymptotes — and it doesn’t asymptote at the level the enthusiasts hope for. Sci-fi is not a good way to judge where you’ll asymptote. All talk of singularities is wishful thinking. It’s the nerd’s version of magic.
I will say I’m the kind of nerd that loves fantasy way more than sci-fi. And when I hear sci-fi nerds talking about the singularity, your stuff sounds a lot more like fantasy to me than real sci-fi. If you do the broader thing of “what if AI can do everything” — I’d go back to the long-run historical pattern that general-purpose technologies take decades to hit their stride. Electricity — you might think everyone will be using it within a year. It took many decades even to electrify the first world. Right now, plenty of parts of the world remain unelectrified.
Ariel: If you were somehow in charge of an education system — even though you think it’ll stay the same — how would you envision what schools should be?
Bryan: To make it non-trivial: what level am I at, and what can I get away with? When I was homeschooling, one of the main things I taught my kids — ripping off the Simpsons, season one — is: “Marge, weaseling is very important for kids to learn. It’s what separates us from the animals, except the weasel.” A lot of what I thought about as a homeschooling parent was: what stuff is stupid that you don’t really have to do? And there’s a lot.
You don’t really have to do a year of geometry. You just have to do the geometry that’s on the SAT, and that’s way less than a year. So I’d only teach SAT geometry. It’s not cumulative, doesn’t build on other things very much.
In terms of what I would do: first, get my bearings on what position I’m in. If I’m teaching high school, the stuff colleges don’t find out about, I’m going to cut. And save money — cut down on expensive sports people don’t like doing, especially ones that don’t bring in money. For college even more so. There are a bunch of majors with very small numbers of students — get rid of those and save a lot of money. Some, though not all, are also the most intellectually corrupt ones. Grievance studies generally doesn’t have a lot of students, so you can kill two birds with one stone.
For K-12 with a lot of underperforming students, I’d change the curriculum so students weak in literacy and numeracy get a lot more time on task. Cut all other requirements so they can actually be prepared for life. Those kids probably aren’t going to college anyway — who’s going to stop me?
Ariel: Besides cutting things and emphasizing basics, do you think by tailoring education to each kid and using technology more, you could find things kids are actually interested in?
Bryan: If “a little bit” is really little, then sure. But to actually get students excited to learn? I don’t think that’s doable by any method. You know Dead Poets Society, right? Fictional teacher, of course. That guy would be super boring to almost all students. Steven Pinker has, by his own account, about 50% attendance at Harvard. He wins prizes for best teacher at Harvard. These are supposedly the best students in the world and half don’t find it worth their time to listen.
Most people are just unbelievably incurious, and I think we should be totally honest about that. For the vast majority, we’re going to make this vocational — teach them what they need to know. If you happen to be curious about something else, it’s out there, but we’re giving up on ramming it down your throats. It’s cruel to you and frustrating for the teacher.
Then we allow for a very tiny sliver of students that feel differently. They can go to the University of Chicago, or St. John’s College, or UATX — places where the truly curious, motivated students go.
There’s also another group who just totally love STEM. My friend Scott Aaronson talks about teaching summer camp for highly gifted ten-year-old math geniuses. He gives them a CS assignment and they’re like a pack of piranhas going at a project. Those kids are out there too. Maybe there are five times as many of them as the humanities-lovers. There’s so much money in STEM that it naturally attracts them. But you should definitely find talent wherever it may be and foster it.
Ariel: I feel like many of those kids might be stuck in the current school system, but if they used AI to tailor things, they could accomplish so much more.
Bryan: By high school, at least, those kids are doing AP STEM, which for the very best of them is moderately challenging — definitely compared to everything else they’ve done. I’ve never met a person so smart that AP Calculus and AP Calculus-based physics was a breeze. But yeah, to let those kids graduate straight to Caltech or MIT — that would be a wonderful system.
Scott Aaronson — have you had him on this podcast? He was a tenured professor at MIT, now he’s at UT. He had done every STEM class you could possibly do in his high school by age 15. He applied to top schools and the best one that would take him was Cornell. Couldn’t get into MIT or Caltech at 15, but obviously he should have been. For him, regular school was ridiculously terrible. A system where people like him are treasured and moved up to the highest level they can handle would be great. Socialization be damned. Scott Aaronson is always going to have problems communicating with regular people. Put him in PhD classes at MIT when he’s 15 and let him work his magic. He’ll catch up socially later on, maybe. Love you, Scott, by the way, if you’re watching.
Ariel: One more thing. I know you’re libertarian overall. Do you view school as a violation of basic libertarian or liberal principles — forcing children to do things that don’t help them?
Bryan: Strictly speaking — by logic — no. But by what psychologists call “psycho-logic,” yes. Logically, you’re a kid, and unless you have some really strong view about kids’ rights, your parents are your guardians and they’re in charge of your life. As long as you’ve got private options, it’s the parents deciding, and parents are free to do any range of education. Your parents aren’t enslaving you — they’re being your guardians.
Psychologically, though, the way school operates feels a lot like North Korea. North Korea without the murder, without the slave labor camps, but still: we all believe a pile of stupid dogmas and everyone’s expected to repeat them. One of the main dogmas of American education is that everyone is free to have their own unique opinion. Say it back to me! But if you try saying your own unique opinion — no, it’s not actually wanted.
When I was in high school, they still taught Emerson’s essay on self-reliance — a wonderful nonconformist piece. And yet, if you tried implementing it — I actually tried writing an essay saying Ethan Frome is the worst book ever written. And my English teacher said, “You write it again, Bryan. You’re not allowed to write that about Ethan Frome. It’s a wonderful classic.”
So psychologically, there is something very oppressive about education. But strictly speaking, your parents went along with it and you’re a kid. In terms of being a good parent, sometimes you really have to pressure your kid to do something for their own good — don’t run into the street without looking. But how much of what you’re making them do is really like that? Part of being a guardian is using that position responsibly, really for the benefit of the ward. No one can make you do it other than you. So look in the mirror and try to have a good conscience about it.
Ariel: In practice, most parents might not be able to school separately from the public system, and they still have to pay taxes into it.
Bryan: There’s definitely something socialist about public school, especially if the money isn’t portable. I will say that when there is school choice, the schools don’t seem night-and-day different — except during COVID, when there was a night-and-day difference between public and private. Private schools almost all reopened in person, and public schools stayed as closed as their teachers could keep them. But in terms of content or discipline, there’s generally not a huge difference between public and private schools. At a flat level, it’s pretty responsive to what parents want.
Ariel: I think we covered the main things. Where can people find you online, and any books you want to give a shout-out for?
Bryan: You assumed a very high level of knowledge from your listeners, so they should feel honored. If you’re wondering where I’m coming from, I have a book called The Case Against Education, which goes into all these arguments in a lot of detail. I’ve got my Substack, which is “BetOnIt” — all one word. My general webpage is bcaplan.com. And I’ve got a YouTube channel with hundreds of videos. Not many as good as this one. Nice job, Ariel — really impressed.
Ariel: Thanks, I’ll try to link to all of those. Thanks a lot for coming on the podcast.
Bryan: Totally my pleasure. Keep in touch.