“The bear case for companies like Anthropic … is that if the line is static, first of all below the revenue line, i.e., they're spending more on compute than they make in revenue. And if it's about static, then you're kind of screwed, right? You just buy more compute and then you're charging less money for it. What kind of business is that? And then what happened this year is that suddenly per dollar of compute, they're making $1.40 of revenue. And in Q2, they're making over $2 of revenue.”

Microsoft must be right the big customer, you think. Yeah, so I don't know, but it feels like we're missing some information there. One thing that they highlighted themselves and a lot of people jumped on is the incredible compute efficiency that they're getting. And the idea there is that you can compare the revenue growth versus how much they're spending on compute. And then you put it side by side and you make the argument that. If basically, the bare case for companies like Anthropic, Copenhagen, and others is that if the line is static, like it was in Q2 2025 until basically the whole of last year, the line was first of all below the revenue line, i.e., they're spending more on compute than they make in revenue. And if it's about static, then you're kind of screwed, right? You just buy more compute and then you're charging less money for it. What kind of business is that? And then what happened this year is that in Q1 2024, suddenly per dollar of compute, they're starting making $1.4 of revenue. And in Q2, they're making over $2 of revenue. And if the line carries on in roughly that kind of way, then you can see how much more leverage they get on their compute. And this is super important, right? I mean, you guys would know you're in the business as well. And yeah…