Governor Hochul Advocates for a More Ethical Approach to AI

Today, I’m diving into a fast-paced conversation with New York Governor Kathy Hochul. With an election year in full swing and significant tech policy on the line, Governor Hochul has taken a firm stance on nearly every major tech issue.

For instance, Meta recently settled with multiple states, including New York, to impose specific restrictions on how teens can use platforms like Instagram. Governor Hochul is a strong advocate for these limitations, but they come with implications—widespread age verification means adults will also need to show ID to access the internet, effectively erasing online anonymity.

I asked her whether these new restrictions indicate that Meta is conceding to potential First Amendment challenges if similar regulations were to be enacted as law. I also inquired about New York’s laws on ghost guns, which prevent 3D printers from producing gun parts. This law is already facing challenges, not in court, but from activists like Cody Wilson, who runs a database of 3D-printable gun files and is modifying those files in a process he calls “Hochulization” to demonstrate the law’s limitations. The governor had some strong responses to that.

We also discussed surveillance, Flock cameras, and the politics surrounding AI and data centers during this election year. In July, Governor Hochul signed a one-year moratorium on data center construction, and I wanted to know what she hopes to achieve when that period ends to make data centers viable.

We touched on Mayor Zohran Mamdani in New York City and her organizational structure for state government. This conversation is packed with insights, and I think you’ll find it engaging.

Now, let’s jump into the interview with Governor Kathy Hochul.

Governor Hochul, welcome to the show!

Thank you! I’m glad to be here.

We have a lot to cover, so let’s get right into it. Are you ready to move quickly?

Absolutely.

Great! I want to kick things off with what I call the Decoder questions, lightning round style. The workings of your office and state government can seem opaque to many, so I ask everyone this: How is the governor’s office structured? What decisions did you make regarding its organization?

I’m at the top, followed by a senior leadership team. The secretary to the governor is my top advisor. While it may sound like just someone taking notes, this role is actually the most powerful non-elected position in the state. When I became governor five years ago, I aimed to surround myself with the smartest and most capable individuals, many of whom I didn’t know personally but came highly recommended for their business, government, or tech expertise. I said, “Bring me the best.”

There’s a senior team overseeing all 45 state agencies, from transportation to environmental issues to housing development. It’s a large bureaucracy, but I’m the decision-maker, taking input from various levels of government before finalizing anything. I’m known for making quick decisions; just show me the facts, and I can decide on the spot.

You took over from your predecessor in a complex situation and then won reelection. Did you create an organizational chart for your office?

Yes, I did.

How long did that take?

I inherited one, but early on, I lacked many tools. In fact, I faced a hurricane in my first week and didn’t even know how to declare a disaster because I hadn’t hired the head of emergency services yet. We managed, but I realized I needed to do more.

I’m always on the lookout for talent and smart people, rotating individuals in and sometimes starting commissions like the Future Works Commission to bring in experts from across the country. We focus on job displacement due to AI, identifying who’s most vulnerable and how we can train people to adapt or embrace AI as a career. I’m constantly seeking ways to enhance my team with industry-specific experts.

This might sound silly, but I’ve asked many people a variation of this question. Did you actually sit down and create a new org chart for the governor’s office? Was it on a whiteboard, PowerPoint, or just you with a laptop?

I’m a bit embarrassed to admit it, but I did it on a legal pad.

Old school!

Yes, pen and paper. I laid out what I needed and the team I wanted. That was five years ago, and I’ve improved since then. I’d probably consult Claude or ChatGPT for recommendations now.

We’ll get to that later. You started to answer this, but how do you make decisions? What’s your framework?

I gather all the information quickly, pressure-test it, and then trust my gut.

One unique aspect of New York government is the relationship between the state and the city. We’re here in New York City, where Mayor Zohran Mamdani has taken a strong stance against billionaires and tech companies, recently targeting Amazon for its labor practices. Do you think this approach has been effective?

It’s crucial that New York City and the state remain supportive of innovation and job creation. Technology is at the forefront, and I’m proud that we’ve become the number one job creator for tech jobs in the country, surpassing California. This reflects our ecosystem, and I want to nurture it. I want to empower individuals with ideas to use technology to create something unique and market it successfully.

While the mayor has his approach, we both want New York City to thrive. Success means creating more job opportunities, as five people in an office can lead to 500 jobs in a few years. These opportunities can help lift people out of challenging circumstances.

There’s a WeWork just above us. We should go find those five people!

I’m specifically asking about the mayor’s aggressive tactics. He’s been quite assertive, and the data shows that billionaires and tech companies are not fleeing; they’re actually investing and hiring at rates that surpass San Francisco. Does that encourage you to adopt a tougher regulatory stance toward tech companies?

I don’t take a regulatory approach just for the sake of it. I don’t raise taxes without reason. I act smartly when necessary. For instance, we have regulations on tech companies regarding social media for users under 18. My priority is to protect young people, who are facing significant mental health challenges—exacerbated by the pandemic, yes, but many still struggle with anxiety and a sense of doom.

I see my role as regulating tech companies in this area. Before the Meta settlement, we had already developed about three years’ worth of reforms to compel companies to take actions they should be taking voluntarily. For example, we implemented a rule that prohibits notifications to users under 18 between midnight and 6 AM. These kids need their sleep.

We’re also addressing addictive algorithms that bombard young people, ensuring automatic privacy controls are in place. Parents shouldn’t have to navigate every platform their kids use. Age verification is crucial.

We’re limiting access to AI chatbots for young users and ensuring disclaimers clarify that these are not real people. This is where I believe regulation is necessary. The situation has spiraled out of control, and the government must step in to protect our most vulnerable residents. I don’t regulate to stifle growth; I want companies to thrive. It’s a strategic, surgical approach to regulation.

I’m glad you mentioned the Meta settlement, which is the big news this week. Meta settled with 47 states, including New York. My initial reaction to the settlement and the controls Meta agreed to was that they resemble speech restrictions that might not hold up under First Amendment scrutiny if enacted as law. They effectively limit young people’s ability to use these platforms at certain times.

There may be arguments that could justify these restrictions as narrowly tailored to address teen health risks, but that hasn’t been tested in court. Meta essentially provided these concessions. Do you think you secured agreements from Meta that you wouldn’t have achieved through legislation?

Actually, we have laws in New York that are more restrictive than what Meta has agreed to.

Are you concerned about the First Amendment implications of some of those laws?

Not at all. Here’s why: we have the opportunity and responsibility to protect our residents. The First Amendment pertains to government-imposed limitations on speech. Preventing a 13-year-old from receiving notifications that keep them awake at night isn’t a restriction on their First Amendment rights. There’s a distinction.

Sometimes the First Amendment is invoked inappropriately against any form of government regulation. I’m an attorney, and I scrutinize these matters closely. I don’t engage in actions that violate amendments or laws. We’re careful in how we structure regulations to protect both First Amendment rights and young people from having their mental health exploited by profit-driven companies. It’s akin to cigarette smoking; the earlier you hook them, the longer they’ll stay addicted.

Young people shouldn’t be overwhelmed by addictive algorithms or subjected to bullying. It’s alarming when someone searching for “suicide” is presented with methods to commit suicide. Parents are understandably terrified. They appreciate having a voice in government. Perhaps being the first mom governor in New York gives me a unique perspective; I’ve raised kids and understand the pressures they face.

Additionally, I’m proud that we’ve implemented a full ban on cell phones in schools, making New York the largest state to do so. Some might argue it violates First Amendment rights, but I see it as protecting kids from a lifetime of addiction to devices that hinder human relationships.

You asked about my decision-making process. Sometimes I rely on my instincts, but I also seek real-world confirmation by engaging with people in schools and cafeterias. During roundtables across New York, students expressed anxiety about missing notifications. They shared stories of exclusion and bullying, which paralyzed them. One sixth grader told me, “You’ve got to save us from ourselves. We can’t put these down; we’ll be ostracized.” That resonated with me, and I committed to protecting them.

We implemented this policy in September, and recent survey results show that 75% to 80% of schools have responded positively. Students who initially resisted are now making friends in person, developing interpersonal skills, and engaging in activities like playing cards and chess during lunch. They’re rediscovering childhood, and they’ll have plenty of time to engage with social media later in life.

I have kids in New York public schools, and I’m generally supportive of the bans. I’m not thrilled about my daughter ever getting a phone. However, if you were to pursue this through legislation, particularly the restrictions Meta agreed to, you’d need to build a record and conduct a balance of harms analysis.

With Meta’s age verification requirement, adults must disclose their age, likely by showing ID. This is a significant burden for adults unrelated to child safety.

That seems like it might not withstand judicial scrutiny if Meta were to argue that it’s too burdensome. How do you address that? The concern is that this agreement effectively de-anonymizes the internet.

The fact that Meta agreed to this in a settlement speaks volumes.

Meta is motivated by its corporate interests, while I’m focused on my responsibilities as a citizen.

Meta’s goal is to engage more users like you to increase profits. They want you to interact with their platform. The fact that they’re willing to concede—

Right. They don’t care if I have to de-anonymize myself to view Instagram ads for unnecessary products. I value my online anonymity, and if we implement age verification across the board, it means I’ll have to constantly identify myself to prove my age.

I’m sure there’s a way to implement this without requiring constant verification. I’m not aware that you’d need to do it every single time you visit a site. Let me investigate that further. It’s an interesting point, but my focus is on the data we’ve gathered about the current state of our youth. I can’t rely solely on parents to manage this issue; many are reaching out to me for help because they feel helpless.

One mother shared that her husband leaves work every day at three to ensure their son, who’s being bullied and visiting dark sites, doesn’t commit suicide when he gets home. That’s a heavy burden to bear, and it wasn’t the case when I was a kid or when my children were growing up.

The world has changed, and this isn’t about rejecting progress or innovation. I have numerous examples of actively inviting tech companies to New York. For instance, Micron is making the largest private-sector investment in American history, creating 50,000 jobs in Syracuse because I pursued them aggressively. They’ll be operational in two years, producing memory chips essential for AI in New York. My track record in fostering innovation is solid, but when it comes to protecting individuals, I will step in. I feel confident in this decision, and I believe many parents support it. Young people will eventually appreciate that they were spared from these pressures, and those who adapt will understand this is the new normal.

Much of the tech regulation over the past decade has faced First Amendment challenges. My perspective is that we’ve avoided the First Amendment debate by discussing Section 230 and other distractions, which prevent us from addressing the reality that many of these regulations resemble speech and expression control. A pertinent example is the restriction on ghost guns in New York, which prohibits 3D printing of gun parts.

We recently reported on Cody Wilson, who created the first 3D-printed gun. He’s developed a tool to circumvent the law, which he calls “Hochulization,” allowing him to modify 3D-printed gun files to evade detection. This creates a cat-and-mouse dynamic—a technological arms race.

You can tell Cody I’ll be one step ahead of him. I can’t always be at the forefront when someone is intentionally undermining a law. It is illegal to create 3D-printed guns in New York. If you believe it’s acceptable for someone with severe mental health issues to manufacture a ghost gun in their kitchen, then challenge me on that. You’re crossing a line.

I understand the desire to prevent 3D printing of guns, and I know many people would prefer that it doesn’t happen.

Exactly. It’s wrong.

But implementing that means the printer itself must recognize that it’s producing a gun and refuse to do so.

That’s correct.

That raises questions about regulation on expression. We have a case involving an open-source e-reader that resembles a gun, created to test whether it would trigger the software detector. Even though it’s not a gun, it looks like one, and there’s a complex line for government regulation to navigate. How do you envision that? Should printers identify objects that resemble guns, or should it be more technical, like a database or registry?

I want to ensure we achieve the objective I’m aiming for, and I’ll figure it out. I assemble the smartest people to help me make decisions, especially in technology, where typical government employees may lack proficiency. I’ll leverage my foundation and consult experts to ensure no one can undermine my goals. If we miss the mark initially, I’ll keep trying until we succeed. I refuse to allow this to happen. Yes, there are other restrictions, and I understand that.

It’s not ideal, but I also don’t think it’s wise for individuals to manufacture weapons of mass destruction in their kitchens. I’ll be the one to say no. I prefer regulations that protect and prevent such actions. 3D printers can be used for many positive purposes; it’s just the illegal use that we’re addressing. You can’t have a gun in New York without undergoing background checks and registration. We have numerous rules in place, which is why we’re one of the safest states in America, with the lowest gun homicide rates. The regulations are effective. Not everyone loves rules, but this isn’t the Wild West; this is New York, and we’re going to do it right.

If there’s a recurring theme in this conversation, it’s the extent to which the government can monitor what happens on our computers and dictate our actions. This is a conversation that’s been ongoing for decades, but it’s increasingly relevant. We’re discussing restrictions on how teenagers can use their phones and what can be printed on 3D printers. The backlash against surveillance is bipartisan, and the opposition to Flock cameras transcends party lines.

You’ve allocated budgets for police departments to modernize and install Flock cameras. How do you perceive the backlash against surveillance?

I completely understand the anxiety surrounding this issue.

But you see the connection, right?

I don’t have complete control over someone’s computer usage; that’s an exaggeration. We have a specific government objective to protect young people because companies have gone too far. If they had implemented these controls themselves when data indicated harm to kids, we wouldn’t be in this position. They’ve restricted their own children from using these platforms while allowing others to be exposed to the risks. That’s when government intervention becomes necessary. We don’t act as a first resort.

My approach is generally hands-off. Innovate, create good products, and thrive—that’s capitalism in America. 3D printers are fantastic until I discover they’re being used to create guns that can harm people. Perhaps it’s a legal Glock registered to someone, but with a small plastic piece, it can become a weapon of mass destruction.

The government must monitor to some extent, watching for excesses without stifling personal use, innovation, or companies. When they overstep or fail to self-regulate, ignoring internal data, that’s where we find ourselves today.

I’m connecting the dots between wanting to use my printer and the government’s role in saying yes or no, and how people feel about technology like Flock—“I want to drive my car fast, but an automated license plate reader will track me and send a ticket.” Or “cops might misuse this technology, and there’s not enough regulation.” Many people across party lines express their desire to avoid these cameras altogether.

To the extent that they’re being misused, that must stop.

The CEO of Flock recently admitted he was wrong to assume that the regulatory process would safeguard civil liberties. He believed state and local governments would implement controls to prevent abuses, like police overreach in database searches. This is a significant indictment, as the state is deploying cameras to monitor people without adequate protections, and even the company providing the cameras acknowledges this.

The state isn’t rolling these out. I allocate funds for various technologies, but localities decide how to spend that money. I don’t have a contract with Flock; that’s a mischaracterization.

But the funding doesn’t come with controls?

I primarily use the funds for police overtime and equipping police vehicles with computers. License plate readers differ from Flock cameras, which automatically transmit information without human intervention—something I oppose.

If a police officer identifies a suspect wanted for murder, you’d likely support that action. However, this shouldn’t involve AI or machines making automatic referrals to other agencies, whether it’s ICE or anyone else. That’s not our intention in New York. If I need to tighten regulations in this area, I will.

Can you connect that to the funding you’re providing for this technology and stipulate how it should be used?

Yes, we can examine that. That’s a valid observation. I’m learning that we should impose restrictions on how it’s utilized.

What would you ask the CEO of Flock to facilitate that?

I’d advise him to ensure that information is only collected in specific ways, requiring human review before forwarding it to other law enforcement agencies, like the FBI or wanted lists. That’s the purpose we want to achieve.

I don’t want a Big Brother scenario. I oppose unfettered surveillance that causes anxiety among citizens. This country shouldn’t be about the government monitoring every action. However, to combat crime and stay ahead of criminals, I must take proactive measures; otherwise, we risk a lawless society where people are harmed, and it becomes a government failure.

We’ll discuss data centers shortly, but I believe they’re part of this broader realignment. These issues aren’t strictly right- or left-leaning; they’re reshaping traditional party affiliations that have existed for nearly a decade. Surveillance and data centers are prime examples. Do you see this realignment happening?

I welcome it.

I’ve long awaited a time when Americans can unite behind common interests. During my roundtables across the state, I often can’t tell if I’m speaking to Democrats or Republicans. What matters is that they’re concerned about the impact of hyperscale data centers on their communities—noise, disruption, and rising utility bills. They’re anxious about these issues.

This is a crucial moment in our history to recognize shared interests. It’s a breakthrough if elected officials can remind constituents that they agree with their neighbors, regardless of party affiliation.

Greg Abbott, the governor of Texas, followed our lead on the moratorium for hyperscale data centers—not the smaller ones for universities or healthcare. We’re specific about the large-scale data centers. For Texas to adopt our approach speaks volumes; it indicates that Americans are saying enough is enough.

The blunt version of this question is: Doesn’t this just reflect that it’s an election year?

No.

You don’t think so?

No. This issue has only recently emerged in New York. We were inundated with 30 applications, which prompted me to realize that if we approved all of them, how much power would be left for everyone else in the state? For example, in St. Lawrence County, five data center applications are pending. I asked, “How much power would they consume?” It’s equivalent to what one nuclear reactor would generate.

I’m working to build more nuclear power to ensure we have enough energy and avoid shortages. The effort to secure one nuclear reactor would be consumed by five data centers in just one of my 62 counties. It’s my responsibility to say, “Wait a minute.”

If this had come to me five years ago, I would have acted then. This isn’t about electoral politics. My opponent supports data centers, and the President does too. They’re on the wrong side of history here. If they were wise, they’d acknowledge that I’m right and stand with me on this issue.

This is what I mean by realignment. The President supports data centers, calling them “money printing machines,” which is amusing. It’s unclear if he understands what actually happens in a data center. Meanwhile, in Texas, there’s a similar moratorium.

We recently reported on Republican voters in Florida, including hardcore MAGA supporters, who stated they wouldn’t vote for Byron Donalds if he won the primary. He’s running on data centers, and we’ll see if he adjusts his stance. This is a realignment, and I wonder if, when your moratorium expires in a year, we’ll return to construction, or if you’re looking for specific solutions to bring it back online.

In a year, communities in New York that want to host hyperscale data centers will have more tools at their disposal than they do now. I’m working on a community investments framework to ensure local officials can negotiate effectively with tech giants. I’ve studied the benefits data centers have brought to communities across America. For instance, South Bend, Indiana, received $143 million in benefits. Other areas have seen bonuses for teachers and improvements to roads and infrastructure.

I want residents to know their local officials are securing the best deals possible. Right now, small-town mayors and economic development staff are negotiating against tech giants, which isn’t going well. Why should data centers receive tax breaks when they have ample resources? They’re not coming to New York City; they’re targeting rural areas, often Republican regions, which is intriguing. We also need to consider their water consumption and noise levels. Are they using hyperloop technology? Do they need to be this large? I’ve raised these questions.

I’ve challenged data companies: “You’re creating a powerful force that’s changing civilization. Why not ask AI how to generate power using less energy and space? Can you go vertical to minimize farmland usage?” They’re trying to go vertical, aiming for space efficiency.

We’re discussing a data center that’s seven miles large. I can’t even fathom that. I’ve seen some massive data centers on the East Coast. What happens when technology evolves, and they can build smaller, underwater, or even in space? We need to consider the long-term impact on communities left with these enormous structures.

I told the AI labs I’d be speaking with you and asked what they wanted to know. They all believe AI is a net positive for humanity. However, some in our audience disagree. Speaking for the AI advocates, they see AI as inevitable progress. What do you think the hyperscalers should provide to facilitate that development?

I’ll reiterate my challenge.

I understand the need for power. I’ve harnessed AI in New York state government like no other governor. I’ve used AI to review every rule, regulation, policy, board, and commission.

Has that been effective? Is it just you and Claude, or how does that work?

I don’t do it myself. I have smarter people handling that.

Fair enough.

I asked, “What would it take to evaluate every rule? Are they effective? Are they outdated? Are they too costly or burdensome?” I’m always looking to rethink processes. I believe state government can be leaner, smarter, and more efficient. Within a month, I had thousands of recommendations that would have taken years for humans to compile. I’ve already announced the first 50, saving over a million and a half hours for New Yorkers in terms of redundant forms.

For example, there was a $25 fee to take your dog hunting, and a $25,000 bond required to move a mobile home on a highway. Why? That’s unnecessary. A woman needed special permission to work after midnight while pregnant. We were still sending information via telegraph. I used AI to rethink state government.

I’m not opposed to AI, but I’m telling them, “You already know what a next-generation data center looks like. It doesn’t have to be this big or consume this much power. Figure it out now before public sentiment turns against you. Your PR is terrible; people don’t understand your intentions, and you come off as bullies, thinking you can dominate small communities.”

They’re starting to improve by offering more community benefits, but they need to do better.

Let me ask you this: as a politician in a campaign year, I hear from AI labs that they have a marketing problem. If they could better communicate their benefits, they’d win more support. Personally, I disagree. People are aware of AI’s capabilities; a billion people have used ChatGPT. Perhaps there are advanced features that could unlock even more.

I don’t think they have a marketing issue; they have an attitude problem. To some extent, they have a product problem. If their products can’t support their requests, they’re likely to lose the battle for public support. How would you advise them to present their case to ensure productive collaboration?

It’s not about marketing; people recognize the benefits. If your child gets a bite, you’ll take a picture and ask Claude, “Is this a tick or mosquito bite? Should I be concerned?” Medicine has integrated AI into daily life, and it’s being used positively.

Data centers have become the physical embodiment of public anxiety about the future. I’ve spent years encouraging young people to pursue STEM careers, emphasizing that they’ll always have jobs. But now, those are the jobs being displaced. People are anxious about their place in this evolving landscape. Government must address that anxiety. When people see data centers, they think, “That could be my job disappearing.”

AI labs need to better address public concerns. They shouldn’t make headlines for laying off thousands of employees and attributing it to AI. I’ve met with displaced individuals who were told their jobs were eliminated due to AI. That’s a harsh reality for many lives.

They need to clarify what the AI future looks like. What skills are necessary? What should we teach in schools? What should the state education department prioritize? We have many individuals already vulnerable to displacement, and we need to prepare the next generation for the workforce.

I’ve witnessed this firsthand. I’m from Buffalo and a Bills fan, so I’ll put that out there.

We haven’t discussed the stadium yet, but we can get to that.

We’ll get to the stadium. I fought hard to keep the Bills in Buffalo.

There you go.

They are the Buffalo Bills, and they weren’t going to leave. But not far from there, my parents lived near a steel mill where everyone worked. My dad, grandpa, and uncles all had jobs there. In 1982, the company left town, leaving 20,000 workers without livelihoods.

I experienced that firsthand, and I refuse to let it happen again. That’s what people are anxious about—losing their jobs.

I want to connect two dots before we wrap up. You mentioned that data centers are a physical manifestation of anxiety. This is a common theme in the tech industry. Data centers are large and noisy, and people can see them and say “stop.” But we started by discussing the restrictions on computer usage and the government’s role in regulating that. We’ve spent a decade trying to establish privacy laws in this country, and we still lack them due to First Amendment concerns.

You can halt a data center; the power of NIMBYism is strong in America, and the tools exist to stop it. Is it misguided to focus on land use and NIMBYism instead of directly regulating labor, employment, and the future of young people?

There are two distinct dynamics at play here. One involves the application of AI and its utilization.

I’m asking about the mechanism. I understand the goals, but I’m focused on the mechanism.

The mechanism of data centers and the power they generate?

Yes, we might want to regulate AI to ensure better job security or protect women in the workplace. The approach we’re taking is to halt data centers until they make better commitments.

I don’t see it as an either-or situation. Both are happening simultaneously. Stopping data centers isn’t my goal; I want to ensure they operate responsibly for the communities that want them. There’s a significant difference. Companies may negotiate differently or realize they don’t need as much space or can reduce noise levels. Everyone references Loudoun County, Virginia…

We have a big story about Loudoun County coming next week.

I know Loudoun County well. My family had to leave Buffalo due to a lack of jobs, and many of my siblings ended up in Loudoun County when it was still farmland. Now, they have massive data centers in their backyards. Initially, it seemed beneficial, but as tax breaks expired, they’re now facing rising utility bills and property taxes. Many are experiencing buyer’s remorse.

I’ve learned from examples across the state, country, and world. I want to ensure that what we do in New York is based on sound practices. We embrace AI, but if data centers are necessary, we must ensure they’re built responsibly. I’ll continue to challenge them to improve.

When I first became an elected official, tech companies approached me about building cell towers. They insisted everyone needed their own freestanding tower. I opposed that, saying they were unsightly. I proposed co-locating on existing structures, like water towers or tall buildings. They initially resisted, but I passed strict regulations, forcing them to comply. Now, my town doesn’t have cell towers everywhere, and I made them pay for the ability to build.

I know how to manage these situations, and I’m applying that experience to New York. We’re not saying no to cell phones or AI; we’re saying yes, but companies must be challenged to do better. Their profit motives often lead them to prioritize what’s cheapest and fastest, which doesn’t always serve the public good. That’s my responsibility to protect.

Governor, thank you for your time and insights. You’ve shared a lot today, and I appreciate it.

It’s been a pleasure. Thank you for having me.

Questions or comments? Hit us up at decoder@theverge.com. We really do read every email!