>> in silicon valley and beyond, this is bloomberg technology

with emily chang. >> i'm emily chang and this is bloomberg technology. elon musk suggests a path to peace for russia and ukraine and gets roasted on twitter including by president zelenskyy himself. plus, tesla down more than 8% at the close. the biggest one-day drop in four months after announcing disappointing delivery numbers. how musk's plan to localize production may help. kim kardashian gets fined by the fcc after selling a crypto token without disclosing she was paid for it. i want to take a look at the market stocks. kicking off the week with big gains after suffering there were

september in two decades. ed ludlow has been watching all day. take it away. >> welcome back. some green on the screen. that has been a rare sight of late. the s&p 500 with its best day since july. the nasdaq 100, best day since august. we have seen this callback in yields that have been surging so steadily, showing no signs of abating. bitcoin in this risk on mentality still cannot reach 20,000 dollars per token but in the s&p market, the worst quarterly run since 2002, it was a lot of green in the tech space this monday. look at the movers and shakers during the day. gains on the nasdaq 100 in the green. this is the mov function on the bloomberg terminal. a lot of tech names making gains.

one that really stands out is over my right shoulder. tesla down 8.6%. a really marked reaction to the production numbers that missed estimates. elon musk and company saying the number of cars left in transit, and peloton as well, really interesting gains pending a deal with hilton, going to use peloton hardware in their hotels. i know you have more on that later on. emily: elon musk drawing the wrath of ukrainians after a series of tweets urging a negotiated solution to the invasion by russia and seating crimea for good. david kirkpatrick is with us. walk us through the latest in

the back and forth. it started with a poll by elon musk. >> elon musk sent several tweets throughout monday. the two key points were that first he suggested a negotiated settlement between ukraine and russia, implying that crimea, which is an annexation of russia, should remain with russia for good. obviously these are strong words for elon musk we saying. -- for elon musk to be saying. he posted a a further poll later in the day saying citizens of those areas of ukrainian territory that russia is trying to annex, whether or not they should be given an opportunity, to vote on their own futures. there has been a sharp reaction from all corners of social media and diplomatically to what elon

musk has had to say. emily: including from president himself, responding with a twitter poll of his own. which elon musk do you like more, one who supports ukraine, or one who supports russia? david, what is your take on all this? david: it's fairly easy to have a take on, i must say. i think musk falls prey to a number of dangerous ideas. one is, if i'm so rich, i must be smart enough to solve anything. that is ludicrous. he also is an attention hog, and his stocks are off tremendously, it might be that he is in a bad mood because of that and he's trying to get attention to distract himself. it is all crazy stuff, he should not be involved in this issue. emily: ed, talk about the reaction we are seeing here.

obviously we have heard from president zelenskyy, from david kirkpatrick now and we heard from analysts who cover tesla , who cover elon musk's companies. what else are people saying? ed: we heard from ukraine's ambassador to germany. i will not show or say all he said in his two-week due to the coarse language he used. he implied that no ukrainian , i'm paraphrasing, no ukrainian would now buy a tesla product in the future, based on what elon musk had said. that was the ukrainian ambassador to germany. this is anecdotal but many well followed tesla fans, vehicle owners and shareholders who have a presence on twitter did come out and say this is not something elon musk should be doing. many labeled it as a mistake as

well. so it has caused broad and sharp reaction including and 10 -- those who are fans and supporters of tesla and elon musk personally. emily: this of course as the twitter takeover discovery process continues, kind of a difficult week for musk. i imagine, with that deluge of texts being made public. also today in san francisco the ceo of twitter was deposed in a closed-door session. we are not sure what happened inside that session. what do you make of all of this happening for elon musk and because of elon musk, really, at once? >> maybe i am a bad armchair psychologist, but even before this development today about ukraine, it occurred to me that it might be that all the smoke over twitter was a bid for attention.

it's hard to explain how why he would've tried so hard to buy twitter and then tried so hard to get out of it, without any real fundamental changes in his business plan strategy. m dog just hitting his bowl because he has to have attention, just like elon musk. emily: of course we are still waiting for headlines to come out of this deposition, but it should be said that elon musk's companies have had some involvement in the war on ukraine. especially star link. >> yes, spacex of which he is a founder and chief executive officer, has for some time been sending star link equipment to essentially keep the country . -- keep the country connected during a time of war.

there is fantastic reporting on the bloomberg terminal about the background and how that came about in coordination with the u.s., but they are providing that service and hardware and musk had tweeted earlier on in the war about spacex's effort to get that equipment into the country and how they have been involved in keeping the ukrainian people online essentially during this war. emily: certainly this one is still developing and we will need to watch the tweets. our own ed ludlow, thank you so much. david kirkpatrick, you are going to stick with us and talk about the next story as well. coming up come the supreme court will weigh in on social media companies and what they are and are not responsible for when it comes to real-world consequences of content on their platform. this is bloomberg. ♪

and it's easier than ever to■ get your projects done right. inside, outside, big or small, angi helps you find the right so for whatever you need done. with angi, you can connect with and see ratings and reviews.

just search or scroll to see upf on hundreds of projects. and when you book and pay throug you're covered by our happiness it's easy to make your home an a check out angi.com today. angi... and done.

emily: a big challenge for social media companies coming to court. the u.s. supreme court taking up two cases on whether social media companies can be sued for hosting and recommending terrorist content. it's a big test of an old law, section 230. to break it down with bloomberg's court reporter greg stohr and david kirkpatrick. talk to us about how you expect this to play out in court, and whether this is something that could divide the court on ideological lines.

>> there are certain reasons to think it could. this section 230 which is the big issue involves the google case, the law that generally provides social media companies broad immunity for things their users post. that has come under fire from conservatives including donald trump. on the supreme court, the ones who have said something about section 230, clarence thomas who is one of the most conservative justices. he has expressed the concern that it gives social media companies too much latitude. he has been calling on the supreme court to get involved for years. emily: section 230 is the communications decency act which for decades has protected and shielded these companies from responsibility for a lot of the content hosted on their platforms. david, what do you think is the most likely outcome here? david: i'm not a supreme court expert, so it is hard to know.

i think it is possible that the supreme court is taking these cases for ideological reasons. but the bottom line, long-term outcome, in my opinion, is we do need a different regulatory regime for social media and internet content. section 230, for whatever pluses and minuses it might add to the dialogue, is not doing what it ought to do. content that should not be up there is up there and companies are behaving irresponsibly and do not have an incentive to do the right thing. we need change, absolutely. emily: greg, give us a bigger picture on these two cases and how significant they are, how we might deal with social media in the future. greg: let me separate the two out. the twitter case that the court has is terrorism specific.

it has to do with the antiterrorism act. the question is whether the allegation that social media companies, not just twitter, but google and facebook, the allegation they did not do enough to take down -- identify and take down posts by isis. whether that is enough to go forward in court. the google case is the broader one that applies beyond terrorism. it has to do with claims that by making recommendations, this is a youtube case, that by making recommendations, youtube encouraged terrorism. the question is whether that is covered by the immunity conferred under section that 230. says you cannot be held liable as a publisher for just posting content. the question is what about the targeted recommendations made by algorithms. emily: david, if the supreme

court erodes section two 30 immunity, how dramatic would that be for companies like meta and twitter and youtube? david: it depends on how they were to do it. it's easy to imagine a scenario in which it could cause serious chaos in the marketplace. if i were the companies, i would be very concerned. they claim to want a rewrite of section 230, but it's not clear how this is going to play out in a good way for them. i would say quickly on this youtube case, i think there's a good argument that since section 230 was implemented in order to indemnify companies against excesses of speech by people they couldn't control, that is logical, but once they apply that algorithm to their content, i don't see section 230 being a very good defense for their

behavior. emily: in europe you've got social media companies being question with the british ruling that social media was to blame for the death of a teenage girl. what is your take on how that case could potentially impact these? >> the supreme court justices here tend to ignore what is happening overseas and look at u.s. law. particularly conservatives are very proud of not paying attention to what is happening with foreign law. so i would not expect a direct impact. that being said, these justices understand that social media is controversial, there are a lot of folks who blame it for a lot of society's ills. they may feel that way themselves and we will have to see when we get to hear

arguments probably early next year whether some of that sort of skepticism toward social media comes out from some of the conservative justices. emily: two cases we will certainly be following here. greg stohr who covers the supreme court, david kirkpatrick, thank you both. coming up we are going to hear from the pay equity startup indio talking about closing the gap across tech and business as a new law is about to shine a light on salaries across california. this is bloomberg. ♪

emily: ready or not, what your

job pays is about to get a lot less private. california has become the latest state to join a quickly growing salary transparency movement which means companies like alphabet, meta, and disney will have to comply and share pay expectations for open roles on demand by january 2023. we will break it down with the syndio ceo, maria. a new report shows most employers are not ready. let's start with this new transparency law. what exactly will this do, and what will companies have to do as a result? maria: great question. governor newsom signed the law last week and as we all know, california is the fifth largest economy in the world. so this will have tremendous impact, because if any company with 15 more employees, and even one employee in california, what -- that has a huge ramification

on tech. what it does is it requires companies to include pay ranges on job postings, starting in january 2023. and report median and mean pay gaps and contractor pay to the state, starting march 2023. emily: you are out with a new report that shows employers are not ready. how not ready are they? maria: we have a report today and it is fresh. what we found this two thirds of companies are saying they're completely unprepared to post salary ranges. i think a big part of that is because companies don't yet understand why they pay what they pay. if you do not know that that is obviously the first question an employee is going to come to you asking once they see those ranges posted. emily: why is it so tricky for companies to know why they pay what they pay, and even what they pay and where there are gaps?

maria: it's tricky because of the old way of doing equity analysis. the old way is to outsource it to a law firm. you get back report once a year that tells you your remediation or what you need to pay people to get out of the woods. you learn nothing about the underlying policies or programs that are driving pay. companies really need to start using analytics to figure out are there programs working as they intended, if they say they pay for performance, for example, when a lot of companies say that, but very few actually actually do. emily: let's take alphabet and meta, for example. what would this mean for companies like that which compete with each other for talent, historically are known for paying folks quite well, but like most companies, probably a pretty big pay gaps.

maria: the first thing they have to do is get on top of their pay gaps. if you have issues or at the company if you have a philosophy of start low, stay low, or pay top dollar for the best, that's -- the best negotiator, that is going to catch up with you from an equity and pay gap perspective. you will have disparities that you cannot rule out because of gender, race, or ethnicity. you need to make sure you are not doing pay equity analyses once a year but you're doing this constantly as you hire or if you have to lay people off, are you having adverse impacts? are you letting bias creep in, because bias requires discretion and oxygen. there is so much discretion in this decision and the only way to avoid that is to use data and analytics to make sure you are informing those decisions well. emily: do you think it will impact the labor market, and if so, how? especially given that we are

potentially heading into a recession. maria: the interesting thing will be to see how it impacts competitiveness in tech talent. so one of the -- maybe an unintended benefit is we will see a little bit of loosening as it relates to that fierce competition for engineers and tech. with pay transparency on top of that, now you will see that competitive nature of everyone trying to one up each other on salary and the packages, and maybe it will ebb a bit. because there will be transparency so folks will understand their opportunities and offers. it might make the talent race a little easier to manage. emily: last question, i curious am what you're seeing in the labor market right now. we've heard about the great resignation and we also heard that has been on pause,

employees are not necessarily moving around right now because there are not so many choices out there. how would you describe the state of play right now? >> we keep groping around for a term that gets at the essence of what is happening. whether it's the great resignation, quiet quitting, all of it to me is just a massive reflection that we're seeing a total fracturing of trust between employees and employers. the way to fix that is to take workplace equity and the title wave of pay transparency that is coming out employers through some of these laws and dive right into it. that is the way to really build -- rebuild the trust that has been broken between employers and employees. i think it's kind of a reflection of all these terms that we keep hearing. emily: maria colacurcio, thank you for shining a light on that for us here today. meantime, elizabeth holmes' prison sentencing has been delayed.

the judge overseeing the theory knows fraud case -- theranos fraud case is looking into whether a key government witness gave truthful testimony at trial after her lawyer said she had misgivings during a visit to her home. she was found guilty in january of conspiracy for the company -- her role as an the collapse of the blood testing started she founded that reached a peak valuation of $9 billion. coming up, tesla shares dropped after carmakers claimed -- blamed a disappointing delivery report on shipping issues. we break it down. this is bloomberg. ♪

as a business owner, your bottom line is always top of mind. so start saving by switching to the mobile service designed for small business: comcast business mobile. flexible data plans mean you can get unlimited data or pay by the gig. all on the most reliable 5g network. with no line activation fees or term contracts. saving you up to $500 a year. and it's only available to comcast business internet customers. so boost your bottom line by switching today. comcast business. powering possibilities. ™

emily: welcome back to "bloomberg technology."

i am emily chang in san francisco. let's get back to the markets now. shares of tesla falling the most since june after third-quarter deliveries came in below expectations. even so, it was another record-setting period for them. dan ives joins us now to discuss. how alarming is this delivery situation to you? darren: i think at first glance clearly the street is going to , be disappointed. we saw that in the stock. i believe it is more logistical. that is a review, especially coming out of china. a lot of balls in the air. but i don't believe this is demand-driven, ultimately. that will be the narrative now between the bulls and the bears. emily: the narrative from elon elon musk is this -- relieve stress on tesla team, aiming for

stadia deliveries intra-quarter. what is your expectation that that will happen? darren: that is a balancing act. they had a pretty significant couple of quarters. clearly they put up a line in the sand this quarter. ultimately the focus, we need to see this moved out. totally stressed, we don't believe it is demand driven. i do believe that is logistical rather than anything other. that will be guilty until proven and assent situation, until we hear the guidance in the call in a few weeks. emily: so, are investors going to be convinced by this narrative? you are seeing a pretty strong reaction here. at least today.

+ looking like a white knuckle market. tesla is held to a higher standard. especially with the higher multiple. it's not what investors want to see, you can sugarcoat it. now it's going to be in the penalty box until we go into q4. but as we have seen before, it's a back against the wall moment for musk and nothing more. emily: meantime, you've got elon with a lot of things going on, the big twitter takeover trial set to start it just a couple of weeks. how worried do you think investors are about all of these other potential distractions? + it has created a bit of a perfect storm. you have the soft delivery number, you have the twitter trial coming up october 17, and then the overall risk-off market. going into the twitter trial, there is a lot of questions.

is there a settlement before the trial begins? if there isn't, it starts to be a cascade where you could see musk still owning twitter at 54.20 dollars. once he steps into court, it is likely he will either own twitter or have to pay a $5 billion to $10 billion settlement, and that is another cloud over the tesla story. emily: i don't know if the perfect storm could get even more perfect or more stormy, but you have elon setting up an uproar with the series of tweets , suggesting negotiation between ukraine and russia. a lot of folks commenting on this. analysts commenting on this, all the way up to the president of ukraine himself, volodymyr zelenskyy clapping back with a poll of his own.

as somebody who follows tesla and elon musk so closely, what is your take on this and the potential impact it can have on real-world companies and real-world investors who put their money behind elon musk? dan: look, are black-eye moments for musk. he just adds more and more controversy. and obviously, twitter, as we have seen, it does have sort of a cascade effect. and ironically, he could own twitter as a platform, right? and that just creates more worries. it has just been a broader, what i would call in nightmarish nine months for musk, not necessarily for tesla. and for investors, patience is wearing thing. in this type of market, it speaks to the frustration you are seeing. i think today was a lot of

frustration selling. you do the ai day on friday, then a soft delivery sunday morning. not a good look. emily: and then you have frustration from some of his biggest supporters and tesla fans. of course, the next couple of weeks are going to be very interesting as we head into that twitter trial. dan ives of wedbush securities, always good to have you here. thank you. meantime, i want to talk about peloton and the deal with hilton to put its exercise bikes in 5400 hilton hotels. it will also offer a free trial to the app and $100 off a bike or treadmill purchase. bloomberg's mark gurman is here with more. how significant is this deal? mark: it's just one of a few at this point. palatine is pulling every lever they can, doing whatever they can to reverse the sales fall and the stock price decline. i remember when the stock was

north of $100 a year ago per share. we hit an all-time low for peloton i believe either today or friday, coming in at under seven dollars a share. this news wrought stock up a little bit. now it is still at $7.47. so not looking so hot for peloton, the stock price at its worst point ever. they are hoping more of these deals will hold turn it around. i am not certain this hilton deal on its own will do much for the company. we are talking 5400 hotels here, i believe it will be only two or three bikes per hotel. so we are talking about 20,000 units, maybe 25,000 at the very most, and that is really not going to move the needle for the company. but i think what barry mccarthy, electrons ceo has said about better prioritizing the subscription instead of the hardware, is where peloton is going to be long-term. the question is does peloton

have enough money, runway, investor and board of director patience to see that through? emily: you have reported on the voting -- rowing machines, and some of these other partnerships. we have seen some departures. the ceo just left. what is your understanding of the level of confidence under barry mccarthy from the rank-and-file at this point? mark: at this point, barry and the new leadership have implemented and they are executing this plan. they really changed how the company functions operationally. they are allowing the company to generate more margin and more profit. they plan to shut most of the retail outlets next year in 2023. so they are doing everything they possibly can. unfortunately for the stock price, for the company, that is not changing anything. and as we know, a lot of the employee pay at companies like peloton is very much tied to the stock. so it's very difficult at this

point for the morale to be skyhigh or anything positive when they see that they are trying everything they possibly can do -- they are moving quickly, they have revamped their operations in a matter of months and it is not doing anything for the stock price. in fact, the stock price is just going lower and lower and lower. so i don't think morale is very good at this point. emily: mark gurman, as always, thanks for your reporting. ok. coming up, as we head into fall, where is the crypto winter headed? we will talk about that and more, as the sec slaps kim kardashian with a $1.3 million fine for advertising crypto without disclosing she was paid to do it. we will discuss that next. this is bloomberg. ♪

emily: time now for our crypto report, and we have to talk about kim kardashian, who just got fined by the sec. she got fined $1.3 million. they say she broke u.s. rules by not disclosing she was paid for a promotion. we will talk about this and more with the coinshares chief strategy officer meltem demirors, and over crypto reporter, sonali basak. i got asked about kim k's situation, getting fined by the sec. it's kind of a big deal. meltem: it is. kim kardashian is one of the most influential people on the

internet, she has hundreds of millions of followers but there are two big issues here. number one, the sec does not oversee advertising, the sec does -- the fcc does, so it should be an advertising matter to begin with. the focus has to be security, and i'm not seen a statement or ruling come out yet to indicate that. well it is an attention grabbing headline, i think it is another example, again, of the sec pursuing rulemakings via litigation, which is disappointing. emily: interesting you say that. we just interviewed katie hahn last week, and she also leaves that gary gensler's approach is creating a lot of confusion. take a listen to what she had to say. katie: able just tell you what i hear from funders.

they told me they are very confused because they are told, come in and talk to us. but then you have one company who did the ultimate act of coming in and registering, coinbase. there is still a lot of saber-rattling going on, i think. emily: what do you think? is there a lot of confusion happening because of regulation, or is that sec trying to create a path to a little bit more certainty along the lines of, yes, there could be consequences if you do something we believe is wrong? meltem: i absolutely agree with katie's perspective. great respect for katie, she has been in the belly of the beast, on the hill. she has seen how these policies get made. i do think it is really confusing. one of the biggest costs for crypto companies and crypto projects today is compliance. these are early-stage financial technology startups, and they are spending millions of dollars not only on trying to untangle

current rulemaking and the alphabet soup of different regulators in the united states who they need to engage with, but also, given the precedent, they need to set aside a lot of capital for future litigation. it really hampers innovation. it hampers the ability for innovators to compete, and it definitely favors larger financial institutions who have relationships on the hill, who have lobbyists, and who have created relationships with these agencies, so, i would love to see clarity. i have not seen it yet, and i think it's a huge challenge going forward. sonali: what about other agencies? the sec is officially moving in a different direction than it has the last several years when it comes to crypto enforcement, in particular, but then you see something like the ftc recently suing that dow. despite the issue of is it a security or is it not a security with the sec, how complicated is

it to navigate the web here of agencies that are going after different types of investment vehicles in crypto? meltem: as i said before, it is alphabet soup. there are so many acronyms and different agencies. it started with the sec, now there are a number of different agencies involved. intelligence is involved, if you look at the recent tornado cash sanctions issues, if you look at what is happening on the russia side, concerned about money movement. there is a lot to navigate. there isn't a lot of clarity. now, the burden administration -- now, the biden administration would put out an executive order. but how long will it take for the research phase to move forward? how long for actual practical policy to be implemented? i had seen it yet. i have been doing this for eight years. i am hopeful, but i have not been impressed by what i have seen so far, and i think the

challenge is, the blockchain doesn't have physical jurisdiction. unlike the banking sector, there is no ceo you can call. so some of these issues are really nuanced and i think challenging to untangle without really understanding what it is this technology does. so. i am very impatient because this is a very expensive process. emily: speaking of impatience, you recently tweeted that vcs are going to start asking for refunds. what do you mean by that? meltem: [laughs] i think 2021 was the year of the crypto bc. we saw up money coming into the space. last q4 we had an all-time high, close to $7 billion of crypto deals done which comprised for the first time, close to 6% of the total venture. doesn't seem like a lot, but that is a lot for a fairly nascent sector. now,, reality is setting in.

people are realizing a lot of these businesses do not have a pathway to revenue. burn rate is really hard. over the next few quarters we will see consolidations, a lot less dealmaking, and fewer exits in the form of m&a's and ipo's and even spacs, which a lot of investors and their lp's were counted on to deliver those returns. something sonali: sonali: we were talking about during our crypto show was the idea of traditional finance versus de-fi, and how much does traditional finance still need to move. when you are still seeing crypto , the market value has gone down for these two cats but money being raised that way, through daos clearly created by ageneration looking to invest money differently. so how important is it for crypto currency, crypto markets, blockchain to be a new part of the financial system, even within existing companies?

meltem: here is what is really exciting. even though the cryptocurrency market cap may be down, what we see is the integration of crypto-currencies, digital assets, and blockchain technology into the financial system is continuing at a really rapid pace. we see firms like apollo, kkr, fidelity just to name some that are not only offering ways to offer crypto, they are actually looking at innovative ways they can use the underlying technology to deliver products and services that are better, faster, and cheaper, in a new way. i am really excited about this new trend. it's not necessarily cryptocurrency in the traditional sense, but a lot of institutions are looking at the speed in which money can move. some of the programmatic capabilities of de-fi, being able to actually program financial assets digitally on a global medium. and that is very exciting. so i think we are going to

continue to see that integration between traditional financial services the crypto sector. will it be digital assets in the sense that these are assets on a public ledger? absolutely. will it be crypto-currencies specifically? i think that is an open question. you can create anything and call it a cryptocurrency. i think institutional adoption is still limited to a very small set of proven crypto-currencies, but again, that integration is starting to happen, and that is an area we are excited about. emily: meltem demirors is chief strategy officer at coinshares. thank you so much for joining us. as well as our own sonali basak. we appreciate it. coming up, can it become the beyond meat of carbs? we talk about the new startup betterbrand and their new low-carb bagel, next. this is bloomberg. ♪

emily: a bagel with 90% fewer carbs, that's what a new celebrity-backed venture is promising. it's called betterbrand, and the startup has raised more than $5 million. we went to investigate it. i assume involved a taste test. they say every bagel contains the same sugar content of a stalk of celery, and the protein content of four eggs. does it actually taste good? >> you missed the taste-test we had in the office a couple of weeks ago. but the consensus among

bloomberg staffers it was that it doesn't quite taste like a bagel. most folks thought it was pretty far off from a grocery store bagel. emily: so what is the broader consensus here, not that our bloomberg team is not enough, but is this company having success? >> this company actually has just rolled out across various supermarkets. they had a big rollout in the frozen section of whole foods. they have a couple of different flavors, classic, cinnamon, they have a pumpkin spice labor for -- spice flavor for the holiday season. a chocolate chip flavor for those who love sweets. they seem to be expanding quickly. they are looking to rollout in europe and across latin america as well, and closing another round of funding, they said, pretty shortly.

emily: there is a bigger question here. can you call it a bagel if it is not full of carbs? you have alexis ohanian backing the start up, there's some celebrity folks involved. is there a real need that they are filling here? priya: the company says it wants to be the beyond meat of carbs and create a very low-carb bread line for folks who have bread issues and cannot eat as many carbs as there are in a standard loaf of bread for a standard bagel. this could be a substitute for folks who may be trying to change their diet in a very specific way, right? so while it doesn't necessarily taste exactly like a standard bagel, there may be folks out there who say, you know what, this evokes that memory for me in a subtle kind of way. and it is attracting investment from some earlywood celebrities as well.

so the company says it plans to expand into other bread products like pretzels, eventually have its own ready-made pizza option as well in the frozen aisle, and they're also talking to airlines about putting this in airport lounges. emily: well, i will need to do a taste-test. priya: next time you are in the office. emily: we will see if there are some leftovers. thank you. [laughter] bloomberg's priya anand, thank you for joining us. and that does it for this edition of "bloomberg technology." tomorrow, our conversation with cisco's's chief people officer, will be joining us. i am emily chang in san francisco. this is bloomberg. ♪