Reframing Risk & Innovation in Defense with Larsen Jensen

Ryan Connell [00:00:49]:
This is Ryan Connell with the chief digital and artificial intelligence office. I am joined here today with Larsen Jensen. Larsen, welcome, Ryan.

Larsen Jensen [00:00:56]:
It's a pleasure to be here. Thanks for having me today.

Ryan Connell [00:00:59]:
Yeah, absolutely. Looking forward to getting into it. We're just talking offline before we started my first time ever talking to an olympian. So I'm super excited to unpack that a little bit to start.

Larsen Jensen [00:01:08]:
Thank you.

Ryan Connell [00:01:09]:
Thank you. 2004, 2008. Both.

Larsen Jensen [00:01:13]:
Both, yeah. So prior to my service in uniform, I had the fortunate ability to serve on the playing field, and for me, that was in the Olympics. As an Olympic swimmer in 2004 and 2000, 2008, many will recall that 2008 is when Michael Phelps won his eight gold medals, which was the greatest olympic performance of all time. Usurping Mark Spitz is seven gold medals from the seventies. So I was lucky to be on that team and to observe that and while being on the same team as him, but in my own right, earned a silver medal in 2004 in the 1500 meters freestyle and a 400 in the 400 in 2008, earned the bronze medal. Unfortunately, never had the opportunity to have the us national anthem playing during my races, but saw it a lot during both of those games.

Ryan Connell [00:02:01]:
Yeah. Appreciate. Congratulations. That's awesome.

Larsen Jensen [00:02:03]:
Congratulations.

Ryan Connell [00:02:04]:
So, yeah, absolutely. Let's get into it. So I want to talk a little bit about your story. You're probably a prior Navy SeaL. Just give a little background intro to yourself.

Larsen Jensen [00:02:12]:
Absolutely. So a little bit more about my story, aside from being a former professional swimmer and olympian, decided to hang up the cap and goggles thereafter and join the military and serve in uniform as a Navy SeaL. So I was lucky to go into the recruiting office and tell the recruiter at the time that I wanted to join the Navy with the goal of being a SeaL. And they told me essentially take a number, kid, and get in line. So does everybody else that comes into recruiting depot Los Angeles. I remember filling out on my piece of paper when they said, what are the top six things that you want to do in the military? And I wrote Navy SeAL for each one of those. Fortunately, that worked. And on April Fool's Day, I actually got a phone call from officer candidate school in Newport, Rhode island, saying, you need to show up seven days from now to check in for ocs.

Larsen Jensen [00:02:58]:
Given that it was April Fool's Day, I thought I was a joke, that some of my friends, some bad humor from my swimming buddies, but it was the reality. That's how the military works. This whole hurry up and wait thing is, is, is real. And thereafter was lucky to go down to Coronado and spend some time going through buds, which was an interesting and awesome experience. Had the opportunity to go to a couple of seal teams thereafter and do a couple of deployments and then have the opportunity to move up to Silicon Valley and work at some of the larger venture capital firms that exist up there, namely Andreessen, Horowitz and Lightspeed Venture partners. And its while I was there that I saw this rising tide of great power competition, how technology was really going to enable our country to stay on the forefront of deterring future conflicts and heaven forbid, if we get into them, hopefully win them, and decided that there should be a private sector venture capital firm that invested at that intersection of national security meets emerging capability subsequently, we've done a lot more than that, but that really is our bread and butter. And so if you think of our venture capital firm as a bell curve on either end, we've done things that are government only and non government at all. But that bread and butter in the middle of the curve is things that are, quote unquote, dual use in nature.

Ryan Connell [00:04:13]:
Yeah, that's awesome. You're a young guy and I'm just, I'm sitting here in awe that you have this resume of Olympian, Navy SeAl, entrepreneur, VC. It's incredible. So just curious, like, if there's been any aspect of that through your career so far, I'll call it that you think has been a consistent team, whether it's been like a teaming or just been biting through red tape or like any of that, that seems to run through all of those different aspects of your career.

Larsen Jensen [00:04:39]:
Yeah, there certainly is. For me, I think the common thread is one of service to our great nature or our great nation. I had the opportunity, as I mentioned, to wear the american flag on my swimsuit and on my uniform on the playing field and then to do in military. And now we still literally and figuratively wear the american flag on our uniforms here at harpoon as we think about the technology areas that we want to invest in. So that's certainly a common thread. But beyond that, I think it's been a willingness to shun off what popular convention and to try and break through the limits that society puts in front of us. A few examples of that, going back to my swimming days, were when I was a young swimmer, I had many coaches that told me to set, quote unquote, realistic goals and that nobody had ever dropped the amount of time that I wanted to drop in such a short period of time. And for whatever reason, I just didn't accept that as a reality.

Larsen Jensen [00:05:36]:
Similarly, when I had the opportunity to sign up to join the military, many people thought that was a wrong decision. I even had some of my closest friends and mentors tell me that I was throwing my life away, which I think was absolutely the wrong way to think about military service. And I still am somewhat offended by those comments. And even today, I think it's the opportunity to work with entrepreneurs that are changing the game, to transform industries, to change our national security prowess, and then how our technology can help. And I think it's our duty as Americans and our duty as a venture capital firm to assist in that to the best we possibly can. There's a lot of work to be done, but there's no such thing as a small ambition over here at harpoon. And I think throughout the course of my life, I've realized that it's just as hard to do something really big as it is to do something really small. So you might as well go for the fences.

Ryan Connell [00:06:27]:
Yeah. I love the mindset approach that resonates with me, for sure. And obviously, the work we do trying to break things in order to put them together, make them better. Do you have, I'll call it, like, the biggest challenge or most difficult thing that you've had to overcome throughout that course in that journey that you've had.

Larsen Jensen [00:06:44]:
I think it's always your own psychology, without question, when you're trying to do something, whether it be as an entrepreneur or as an athlete or a. In the military, something that's dangerous, something that hasn't been done before, something that maybe only a handful of people have ever done. Giving yourself permission to ask how well could this go? Versus what could go wrong? Is, I think, the central issue I faced throughout all of my different careers and all of the different things that we currently do. It's too easy to be bogged down by thinking about the negative. And it's really hard to manage your psychology to thinking about what could go right. And it's a central tenet of everything that we think about. And what we invest in is we know if things go wrong, how much money we could lose. If we invest a dollar, we know we could lose a dollar.

Larsen Jensen [00:07:32]:
What's really important for us is to invest behind the entrepreneurs, where if something goes right, what could the implications be? Could we see a path where this becomes a world changing company or an industry changing technology? And if we do see that path, even if it's an outside chance, that's the type of situation we want to be involved in. We know what we can lose, but we don't always know what can go right. And I think managing our own psychology as investors and as elite performers over time is something that's a building block of success.

Ryan Connell [00:08:05]:
Yeah, I love that. So how do we get that mindset translated or scaled to others? Why is what you just described so.

Larsen Jensen [00:08:16]:
Difficult for defense, Department of Defense procurement, perhaps? I think there's a lot of things that we can learn from that mentality, and I don't always get it right. Nobody ever does. Everyone's always working on these things. But I think it is. Reforming the concept of risk is extremely important as we think about bolstering our national technological prowess. And I think too often we look at a program failure or a technology failure as a failure versus a learning opportunity. And I think SpaceX is probably the best example you can point to how many rockets have blown up on the pad, how many things go wrong, but all while things are going in the overarching correct direction. We cant let risk of failure hold us back from trying to do something ambitious.

Larsen Jensen [00:09:07]:
Oftentimes, I think we fall into that mindset when we look towards investing in and building new capabilities in the Department of Defense. And I think it's something that we just need to reframe the concept of risk to acknowledge the opportunity cost. There's sins of omission and sins of commission a lot of times, if we don't invest behind some of these really prolific technologies, I think it's a greater risk than if we try and if we fail. And so I think it's reorienting that mentality to say it's not so much a failure. If we engage in something that's truly ambitious and novel and it doesn't work out, that's fine. We got to step up to the plate and swing again. I think the risk of doing nothing is far greater than trying and failing.

Ryan Connell [00:09:53]:
Sure. Yeah. Do you have any approaches to that? You talked about failure and learning in this basics example, is it through storytelling or another method? How do we share those failures so that the macro community can learn from them as well? And it's not just dung silos.

Larsen Jensen [00:10:11]:
I think it's a cultural thing. I think if we. I think it's a cultural one that America was founded upon. There's been no guarantee of success in anything ambitious that we've undertaken as a nation. But our ingenuity, our entrepreneurship, our free market economy, our democratic republic really provide us with a whole host of advantages that is very unique to any other country around the world, culturally. And so I think it's something that's within us as a nation that we just need to remember. In my opinion, there's been a little bit more red tape that's been put onto the process in the past number of decades that has stifled some of that entrepreneurship and that innovation gene that we have as Americans. I think we still have it in private industry.

Larsen Jensen [00:11:04]:
We have a tremendous deep bench of entrepreneurs who are willing to roll up their sleeves and solve our hardest problems. We have a deep bench of private capital and venture capital and broader financial markets that are able to support those founders in pursuing the improbable. And I think that we have a government apparatus that feels the same sentiment. But oftentimes, I think, gets lost in the day to day, and we all get lost in the day to day. So I do think it's something that's more aspirational and cultural in nature, and I do feel like there's a resurgence of it. I don't think we'd be on this podcast here today if there wasn't a resurgence for it. I really don't. I think a lot has changed in the past six years to encourage innovation, to adopt innovation, to get behind these problems.

Larsen Jensen [00:11:57]:
And so I think we are making tremendous strides. I just wish it happened a little faster.

Ryan Connell [00:12:03]:
Yeah, me too. Me, too. Putting on the VC hat that you wear. Curious where you think state of tech is in terms of what next year, five years, ten years, looks like in the defense space, integration of AI, things like that. So just turn that over to you?

Larsen Jensen [00:12:19]:
Yeah. A big thing that we've been thinking a lot more recently is that there is a proliferation of a new enabling technology coming to market, whether that be on the autonomy side with LLMs, cybersecurity, so on and so forth. I think that the military, broadly speaking, is doing a sufficient job of bringing those new capabilities to bear, creating clearer acquisition pipelines than it existed in my lifetime with DiU and the things that you folks are doing and what affworks is doing, I think these are all great things. I think one of the other problems we're having, unfortunately, is acquiring technology is different than knowing how to use it. It's why Accenture, from what I read, has the largest amount of AI revenue of any AI company, because enterprises are struggling with AI adoption and how to use it. What do you use it for? Everybody understands, I think, broadly, that this is enabling technology that's going to change how organizations do business and how the military conducts business, how the government conducts business. But the implementation of said technology is a big challenge that's going on right now. I think that's a challenge that we have in the military, as I talked to some of my friends in uniform, is just because we can outfit our soldiers and sailors, marines, airmen with this capability doesn't mean that we know how to use it.

Larsen Jensen [00:13:50]:
It doesn't mean that we have the ttps, the doctrine of how this is used in the wild, to say nothing of in training or in a real world situation. To me, I think that's something that's being under addressed. Everyone's talking about how do we get the best technology? But how does that best technology now change our workflows and change our operations and change our forced posture and how we deter potential adversaries? I think we need a complete doctrine rewrite across the board. The special operations community needs to rewrite our doctrine and ttps on how we engage and soften a near peer environment with this new capability that we're now seeing over in Ukraine and in Gaza. And I don't think we have yet, and I think that's a big passion area of mine, personally, where we sit middle of the year, 2024.

Ryan Connell [00:14:43]:
Yeah, let's go into that LD, Curt, for lack of asking a question. I'll just say more things about that.

Larsen Jensen [00:14:48]:
Sure. So I guess, broadly speaking, I have come to the belief that warfare has fundamentally changed in a very unique way, akin to what it was like when the machine gun was introduced to the battlefield. How wars were fought were no longer with people lining up and going straight towards each other because you would essentially cause a mass casualty environment by virtue of the other side having the machine gun. And we're seeing a modern reincarnation of that similar principle with drones and electronic warfare, specifically on the Ukraine Russia front, where there's, practically speaking, a ten kilometer, no man's land on either side of the fly, which has occurred essentially because of the proliferation of armed drones of a variety of capacities, not only autonomous ones, but FPV drones, loitering munitions, bomber drones, ISR platforms, et cetera. And that full stack mosaic warfare with drones and EW is something that we really haven't experienced as a American military. I think we're behind the curve, and I think somebody needs to do something about that to modernize and understand how we will conduct maneuver warfare in a drone contested environment. And so that's something that really concerns me as a former serviceman and somebody that believes that our soldiers should be not only extremely well equipped, but extremely well trained for the future of conflict. And I think the future is here.

Larsen Jensen [00:16:31]:
It's just not evenly distributed yet. There's lots of lessons that are being learned, and unfortunately, I don't see them trickling down to the unit level where people are understanding what to do with this new capability when the bad guys have it, to say nothing of us employing it ourselves. I think this is as important as when General Petraeus wrote the coin doctrine and the coin field manual for counterinsurgency during the Iraq and Afghanistan conflict. There needs to be a tech enabled drone ew plus field manual that comes out that is modernized with a. At a pace of relevance. And that pace of relevance is changing every couple of weeks to couple months. And so I think we really need to get with the times there and figure out how we can more quickly adapt as a fighting force to understand how the battlefield has fundamentally changed. One time with all of these drones, and now with the capability that's improving organically by virtue of what the industry is providing us in terms of range, duration, payload, cape, you know, capability, et cetera, we need to do that.

Larsen Jensen [00:17:45]:
And I don't think we're doing it. And so it's something that we as a venture firm are taking very seriously and thinking of ways that we can help to assist our country and our allies so that we're ready for that fight whenever it comes knocking on our door. I think it's a matter of when, not if, because these capabilities are so prolific that it's not just nation states that have them anymore, it's non state actors as well. So I've come to the opinion that this is something that is everywhere and is omnipresent, and we need to be prepared for. And I think we are woefully underprepared. Just because we have some very smart people getting a PhD in the topic doesn't mean that we're actually practicing medicine. There's a difference between studying it and practicing it. We are studying it, we are admiring the problem, and as far as I can tell, doing nothing about it.

Larsen Jensen [00:18:37]:
And we need to solve that.

Ryan Connell [00:18:39]:
Yeah, no, it's curious. It seems, I don't know, eight years ago, maybe five years ago, maybe ten years ago, somewhere in that range, we had this challenge of kind of the more innovative companies, the startups not wanting to do business with DoD.

Larsen Jensen [00:18:55]:
Right.

Ryan Connell [00:18:57]:
It feels like that's not the case anymore, but I'm curious what your thoughts are on that.

Larsen Jensen [00:19:00]:
I agree with you. You're right. It's not the case anymore. So when we started our firm, even when I used to work at a couple of the other powerhouses of Silicon Valley, it was, there was two different objections. I would say the reality under the hood, when I talked to the n plus one entrepreneur, anybody that I'd meet, everybody, Washington in private, willing to do something about it. It was one of the things that gave me the confidence to start our firm. At the time we did, even though in the media they would say that there was cultural objections, there was the Google walkouts from supporting Project Maven, et cetera. And yes, those things definitely existed and still do exist in their pockets.

Larsen Jensen [00:19:36]:
But the biggest objection that I saw from the venture community and from the entrepreneur community was that it was too complicated to even try. And I found that confounding, because here was an entrepreneur that had an idea for a new capability that didn't exist yet, to sell into a new market where there was no customers for it yet. And they were so audacious that they would start a company to solve for something that didn't exist yet. There's no customers and no product. And they were going to manifest this vision, but they weren't bold enough to sell into an existing market where there's definitively customers and definitively a demand signal that you can underwrite and you can research. They were so confused and intimidated by the labyrinth of doing business with Uncle Sam that they decided to just opt out and not even try. And for the ones that did, they were advised by their boards, very commonly not to, because a lot of times programs would evaporate or there'd be a continuing resolution and other problems like that that would be put the business in existential perilous, all good reasons on that side, from a business standpoint, to consider the markets that youre selling into. But I just thought that was odd that youd have these founders with such bold visions on one hand that had the blinders on and had blind faith they could accomplish that, but zero faith that they could sell into Uncle Sam.

Larsen Jensen [00:20:55]:
And whats unfolded over the past half a dozen years or so has been more of a cultural shift. Wherever, in my opinion, precipitated by the russian invasion of Ukraine and other geopolitical events, people in Silicon Valley have woken up to realize that there are threats out there that we need to address, we do need to deter against those threats from ever manifesting in the first place, and that national security is a really important thing for our country and for the world. And so I think there has been a cultural shift that has allowed for people to feel more comfortable stepping out and building into this. And also beyond the cultural shift, there's been a lot of hard work by the department and by the broader ecosystem to show that you can actually build businesses and sell into government and rule being the best case study of how this is possible. But plenty of other companies have blazed their path and figured out a way to sell into the department. So I think other founders have gotten more confidence that it is not only possible, but you can have a huge impact. And so I can say with a high degree of certainty that now, present day, we're in an environment where there's vastly higher caliber founding teams coming together expressly to build products to exclusively service Uncle Sam. And that didn't exist as short as half a dozen years ago.

Larsen Jensen [00:22:21]:
There's very few people that were building pure play defense technology companies. And we're now in an environment where there's a lot of people who are doing that, and very accomplished entrepreneurs and engineers who are building businesses exclusively to sell into that channel and to modernize our defense apparatus. So I'm really encouraged by that. I think that's a sign of some great things to come. That said, every positive also has a counterargument as well. I think there's also, with any technology inflection that you go through, whether that's cloud, mobile, apps, gaming, the urban mobility, the scooter craze, crypto, etcetera, there's great companies that come out of that, but there's also a lot of them that don't end up making it. So in spite of the fact that I do think there's higher caliber entrepreneurs building in the space now in higher volumes than that there were half a dozen years ago. Not everybody's going to make it through to the promised land, but ultimately, I think this is a net positive for our country, and I'm pretty excited about it.

Ryan Connell [00:23:23]:
Yeah, that's great. You talked about. So we've established there's definitely the, I'll say, vendor pool. The tech exists, the desire to sell to Uncle Sam, as you put it. We talked about the sort of acquisition, procurement front ends with Diu, CDAO, fworks, army applications lab, all these organizations that are trying to reduce red tape, make buying happen faster. You talked about some of the strategy aspects of bringing tech to the user. Like, it feels like the pieces are coming together, but we're not quite there yet. So I'll ask this question.

Ryan Connell [00:23:57]:
If you had the rubble lamp, you get a genie, you get one wish. Like, what's your, how are you solving that issue if you had one, one thing that you could implement?

Larsen Jensen [00:24:08]:
Man, I think I need three wishes at least. Just like in Aladdin. No, you can go.

Ryan Connell [00:24:15]:
You want to go three? You can go three. I was just going to make it easy on you.

Larsen Jensen [00:24:21]:
I'm really happy with the progress that's being made with the talent, with the technology, with the front doors that are being opened for companies to do business with the government. I think a clearer path to understanding what the terminal market opportunity is or the end market is and the total Tam is for some of these companies. That's a common critique, and I think, in many cases, is not really knowable in the enterprise. In many cases, especially when you have a new technology where there's no existing budget, how do you calculate the Tam if people aren't currently spending on it? But I think just broader than that, when we have a genuine new technology shift, having the responsiveness of Uncle Sam and the government buyers to go out there and buy it and bring it on board, without needing to go through a multi year programmatic process to get that technology at a speed of relevance to the people that need it, whose lives depend on it, I think that is something that would be a big change. And I dont know if its in smaller pockets. I think Diu is doing great. I just got roughly a billion dollars, and so hopefully they do some great work with that. I know they will.

Larsen Jensen [00:25:29]:
Theyve done a great job to get to this point. But I think its really hard if youre starting a company and youre exclusively focused on defense, to play both sides of the field at the same time. And I believe you have to, you not only have to work with the end users, you have to understand the contracting, you have to understand the programmatics, you have to understand color of money, you have to work the hill, you have to work on lobbying to get appropriations done for your capability to make sure that the program office that you're selling into is appropriately resourced to buy your thing in the first place. It's a huge mosaic that you have to navigate as a founder, and that's extremely intimidating, especially if you're a first time founder selling into the space. You might be a brilliant technologist, but one of the biggest problems I see day in and day out is it's not a market where best technology wins by default. It's just not. It's a market where those that understand how to play the game win disproportionate over those who have the best technology. They're not.

Larsen Jensen [00:26:30]:
They're mutually exclusive things. In an ideal world, you have both of those. And I think that's why we have the defense primes that do a great job in their go to market. And for what they do is because they understand how to navigate that process better than anybody and have huge teams to do it. Then they build things that are really good. But if we really want to level up our technological prowess as a country, we need to do better and create an environment where even if you don't understand all the intricacies of navigating these various stakeholders, you still have an opportunity of success. And not just for a prototype, not just for a sibber, phase one, phase two, but actually for something that could be an enduring, important customer for the business. So I think demystifying that and creating an environment where founders realize they've got a shot for a multi million dollar contract, or it'd have to be even larger than that.

Larsen Jensen [00:27:24]:
If they're building something specific to the DoD for that business to justify existing independently, a little bit more of that reflexiveness would be helpful, I think, for early stage founders as they try and build for this market.

Ryan Connell [00:27:36]:
Trey? Yeah. When you're talking to the first time entrepreneur, you mentioned earlier on at the beginning of this about investing in the entrepreneur, what's that balance like for you in terms of the tech versus the person?

Larsen Jensen [00:27:52]:
In almost any other market, I think they're synonymous. There's generally when investing in a early stage startup, you want to look at the founding team, the technology and the market. They're addressing sort of those three legs of the stool. I've come to believe that it can all be solved for with one of those legs, because generally the founding prowess that the backgrounds and the capability of the founders solves for that, the likelihood that they will be able to build the technology in question and subsequently the market that they'll be able to sell into. So if we're backing a cybersecurity company, it's nice to have a founder with domain expertise in that arena who's built, who knows deeply how everything in the cybersecurity stack works and deeply where the budgets are for them to sell into inside of the enterprise, I think it's been a rarity to find that as it relates to government, because oftentimes we'll find brilliant technologists that come out of name your loan technology company, and they are for sure able to build the technology, at least in our assessment. But a lot of times we're held back because I don't think they know the intricacies of how to sell to government. And so we're held back a lot from making investments in some of these companies because we don't think that the founding team or the early hires they plan to make are sufficient enough for them to crack the code on going to market with the government. That's a huge challenge, and I think that's something that we need to figure out a way to solve.

Larsen Jensen [00:29:29]:
So where we have been able to get comfortable, it's been where the founding team does have that expertise. They've spent a lot of time at Palantir or Anduril or inside of choose your other defense tech company or defense prime. And they have a deep appreciation through hard earned lessons of what they did wrong the first time or what they did right as well. And they're bringing that to bear with their new product they're trying to bring to market. So for us, when we're looking at investing in something in the defense tech space or the dual use space, that founding DNA is critically important, not just from can they build what they say they think they can build, but an appreciation for the markets they're selling into. And that's a rare combination that's hard to find right now. I'd say we're seeing a lot of deeply deep domain experts from a technology standpoint, but the missing piece is those deep domain experts on how to navigate both sides of the field from a government procurement standpoint.

Ryan Connell [00:30:30]:
Yeah. So if you were to give some level of advice or recommendation to someone who's listening that thinks that they have a good idea or a technical solution doesn't know where to start, what would that advice or recommendation of play?

Larsen Jensen [00:30:44]:
If you're doing it for government, I would have. It's so important. If you're building a government technology business, you need to have government DNA on the team. And I think it's in short supply to be honest. I think they're really hard to find. These people and the ones that are successful are doing pretty well financially where they're at, so they're hard to poach, and so it's really difficult to get those folks. So the, the killer one two punch is a brilliant technologist paired with a brilliant government go to market savant that's not just focused on any specific side of this, not just on. Not just good at navigating through the OT consortia, not just good at understanding how affworks works, not just good at understanding all aspects of the far, but also understanding how to engage with Congress.

Larsen Jensen [00:31:32]:
Those people are the white whales, in my opinion, of founders that should be paired with the best technologists in the world. And when we see those two things combined is when we really get excited about investing in those types of companies because it's so important. You can't really be a Govtech or a defense tech company without some gov or defense chops on the team, in my opinion.

Ryan Connell [00:31:55]:
I think that's an awesome play for the playbook and the listeners. So I appreciate that. Um, we'll look to close. I have one question. If I have been a listener of Fahni's version of the podcast, they know that she started asking, well, if her guess this, and I'm going to continue to carry it on. So if given the opportunity, would you dip your grilled cheese into hot chocolate?

Larsen Jensen [00:32:16]:
I don't think so. I'm a purist, and so for context, I don't think so because my wife gives me a little bit of hard time on this because I just love chocolate by itself. I don't like strawberry chocolate. I don't like caramel chocolate or peanut butter chocolate. My. I'm a chocolate purist more than anything else, and so my chocolate is not to be contaminated.

Ryan Connell [00:32:39]:
Perfect. Larsen, I appreciate it so much you being on the podcast today. Thank you for your time and your words of wisdom to listen.

Larsen Jensen [00:32:46]:
Ryan, this is great. Thanks for having me. And I look forward to engaging with the listeners as questions come in.

Ryan Connell [00:32:51]:
Awesome, thanks.

Larsen Jensen [00:32:52]:
Thank you.