Transcript for Meta's scorched earth approach to AI, Tesla's future, TikTok bill, FTC bans noncompetes, wealth tax

SPEAKER_06

00:00 - 00:04

What did you think about that reservation article thing? Oh, that's crazy.

SPEAKER_05

00:04 - 00:46

Well, this is a great top. There is a guy a pretty industrious kid. It turns out what this kid's been doing is he's been getting car bone reservations other top tier reservations and by the way, everybody's had this as an app idea. Nobody's really executed it that well. I don't want to give any plugs for any apps right now, but he has been selling 70,000 dollars. He's been flipping restaurant reservations for upwards of a thousand bucks. Trim off your very industrious and absurd tipper, 100% tipper minimum. I know this because when I paid for dinner one time at Carbone you took me and fell home. It's cards and you said you guys pay and I'm going to put the tip in and then I had to sell Uber shares to cover it.

SPEAKER_06

00:46 - 00:52

I was gross. I've never had problem getting a reservation at any restaurant in New York.

SPEAKER_05

00:52 - 01:14

Yeah, they see you coming. You know what they say? 10 times worth of wine. I have taught many of my friends how to get reservations. I have a series of tips that I could give, but I don't want to give too many of them away. But nobody gives tips to matrices anymore. Sachs, you tip the major day with cash. Oh, all the time. Yeah, sure. Of course, right? See, this is where Sachs and I get along. Sachs is a legit old school guy.

SPEAKER_06

01:15 - 01:21

Yeah, Sax is elite. He's got the $100 bill pressed into his palm. Shakes the guys hand.

SPEAKER_02

01:21 - 01:24

I'll tip the bartender to keep the ice cubes cold.

SPEAKER_04

01:24 - 01:29

The bartender got a hundred just for keeping the ice cubes cold. There you go. See no for you.

SPEAKER_02

01:29 - 01:30

See no for you.

SPEAKER_05

01:49 - 03:10

This is my tip. It has worked. I'm gonna give it out here. And the reason I'm giving this out is because y'all are cheap. And not you, but just a lot of y'all out there. And you, you don't know the art. In Brooklyn, everybody gets tip. We tip the phone guy when he comes to fix your phone at your house. Everybody gets tip. So here's what I would do. And you can do this with a 20. You can do it with a fitting. You know, if you're going to some great place, you can do it with a handy. You fold it twice as chamot says. You put it in your palm. You walk up to the maturity stand. If there's anybody in line, you just cut it and you go to the side of the table. You put your hand on the maturity stand. You push the handle over slightly. Here's the maturity stand. You just slide your hand over and you reveal the 50. And you say, I am so sorry, I was supposed to make a reservation. I don't know if my assistant did it or not, she probably didn't. However, I'm a huge fan of the restaurant. If there's anything you could do for me, I made a stupid mistake to make a reservation of somebody's cancels. I'll be at the bar if there's any way you could accommodate me. I truly appreciate only in town for one night. When I say 99 times out of 100, it works. The one time it didn't work, how much are your tipping? 100. It used to be 20 when I lived in New York. Now I regularly do 50. And the reason I do it is I don't like giving money to charity. I feel like these charities are all a giant scam and I like to give it to service people.

SPEAKER_06

03:10 - 03:15

Like is it awkward when you tip fifty dollars and ones like that? Like doesn't it?

SPEAKER_05

03:15 - 03:52

It's a little harder to hold in your hand. I used to use a roll of quarters actually. That was awkward. The roll of quarters was a little bit hard. I'm just asking everybody here. If you hear my voice, please go tip your matri day 20 or 50 and report back if my technique works because what you're doing in the framing is you're saying you made a mistake and then you make it so the person doesn't feel like you're bribing them or paying them off. They're helping you solve a problem. So anyway, it's kind of like when I troll David and I'm like, hey, freeberg with us with us on the whatever. And he's like, I'll do all the work. Forget about it. You just got a free frame. All right, let's get started here.

SPEAKER_02

03:52 - 03:56

That's a bribe. That is a bribe. Yeah. This is a fact of bribe.

SPEAKER_05

03:56 - 04:01

Yeah. I consider it is interesting to be in some.

SPEAKER_06

04:01 - 04:03

You're creating plausible deniability, but it's still a bribe.

SPEAKER_05

04:03 - 04:06

I consider it a temp in the assets services.

SPEAKER_02

04:06 - 04:10

No, you're not to be in for good service. You're tipping him to basically break the in line.

SPEAKER_06

04:11 - 04:11

Yeah.

SPEAKER_02

04:11 - 04:18

You drink a carbonation. With them now, they're taking away somebody else's spot and you're paying him to break the rules.

SPEAKER_05

04:18 - 04:26

You know what? Your shift to man of the people.

SPEAKER_02

04:26 - 04:30

You're not even really doing him a favor. You're doing yourself a favor.

SPEAKER_05

04:30 - 04:32

All right. Let's unpack.

SPEAKER_04

04:32 - 04:36

It's such a popular. It's so fucking brilliant. I hate you.

SPEAKER_05

04:36 - 04:42

He just figures out a way to get those populist votes. No, here's what it is, because I had this argument with my wife.

SPEAKER_02

04:42 - 04:47

You came in the 50, just for doing a good job, even if you had the reservations.

SPEAKER_05

04:47 - 04:53

I am so confident in how good the service is going to be. I'm giving a pre-tip. I consider it a pre-tip.

SPEAKER_02

04:53 - 04:58

Oh, my God. A pre-tip if he gives you a reservation when you don't have one.

SPEAKER_05

04:58 - 07:30

I am happy to not get the money back if they can't accommodate me. One time it happened, the woman at Asia theCUBE in New York in the 90s said, here's your 20 back. And she said, I'm really sorry there's nothing I can do. I would love it's very lovely of you to give me the tip and she handed it back to me. And I said keep it and she said no, but I got the bartender's going to take care of you at the bar. So I suppose that ends well. All right, let's get started everybody. We have a full docket for you today and story of the week as voted by besties. We have a new system here instead of me sorting the docket. The besties give the thumbs up thumbs down. This one, I think, had two of three people voted for it. One person didn't vote this week. And that is Zuck's scorch earth AI strategy. As you probably know, if you're in tech, Meta was the first big tech company to fully embrace open source AI, Lama leaked last year. Folks said that it wasn't leaked. It was released covertly or on the slide, DL by the folks at Meta. But they just released long with three and I talked to Cindy about this a whole bunch. Last week, it just came out a few days ago and it's already in the top two models on hugging faces leaderboard. You can take a look at hugging faces leaderboard. It's basically where it's almost trusted place I think where people benchmark these big developers are saying it's faster. It's less preaching. It was an observation and chat GPT-4, despite being slightly lower quality. They also have some small models that are performing really well. They also announced very interestingly, open sourcing the Quest operating system called meta-horizon OS. The OS powers the mixed reality headsets, VR on that kind of stuff, AR. But here's the big news. This one is amazing. Instagram, Facebook, and WhatsApp are integrating a search box or their AI assistant chat box into all their apps worth noting that it came out with their results just the other day. And we're taping this on Thursday as you know, it comes out Friday. Their stock is down as much as 60% of reporting. It's Q1 earnings. They beat estimates, but Zuck is saying he's going to spend a bucket load of cash on infrastructure to come off. It's your alma mater. He worked side by side with Zuck growing Facebook from what 10, 20 million to 400 million miles. What do you think of his 100 million when I left? Okay. What are your thoughts on Gold Chain Zuck? and his new strategy, the pivot away from VR to AR, AI, and going full all in, so to speak, on open source.

SPEAKER_06

07:30 - 08:18

They're taking a play that we talked about, which makes a ton of sense, which is it's not a core market. But it's very important. The core money making market for them is monetizing their family of apps. And so they're scorching the earth for these new markets so that the economics are not viable, which will, I think allow a more robust ecosystem where they'll have more of a say. Because I think up until this point, and you could have said that they in Google were sort of lagging behind open AI, But I don't think that's the case. And by the way, this is the strategy that we talked about 16 months ago that these big companies should take. I just think it's worth listening to what we said. And then basically what Zuck said, just right now.

SPEAKER_05

08:18 - 08:22

Here we go. This is a black and white flashback to Moth in a turtle neck. Go.

SPEAKER_06

08:23 - 09:30

I think that Google will open source their models because the most important thing that Google can do is reinforce the value of search and the best way to do that is to scorch the earth with these models which is to make them widely available and as free as possible. That will cause Microsoft to have to catch up and that will cause Facebook to have to really look in the mirror and decide whether they're going to cap the betting that they've made on ARVR and reallocate very aggressively to AI. That should be what Facebook does. And the reason is, if Facebook and Google and Microsoft have roughly the same capability in the same model, there's an element of machine learning called reinforcement learning. And specifically, it's reinforcement learning from human feedback. Facebook has an enormous amount of reinforcement learning inside a Facebook. Every click, every comment, every like, every share, the huge companies will create the substrates. And I think there'll be forced to scorch the earth and give it away for free. Now you can see what Zuck said last week. Look at this little victory lap here.

SPEAKER_01

09:30 - 10:00

It's probably also pretty bad for one institution to have an AI that is way more powerful than everyone else's AI. And I kind of think that a world where AI is very widely deployed in a way where it's gotten hardened, progressively over time. And is one where all the different systems will be in check in a way that seems like it is fundamentally more healthy to me than one where this is more concentrated.

SPEAKER_06

10:00 - 11:19

That is I think the definition of scorched earth. So and he's he's running a really perfect place so far as he's open sourced. the headset OS, he's opening source these models. He stopped training, I think, for Blomah 35, was it? And now he's moved directly to Blomah 4, just to try to head off GPT 5 at the past. Well, so what are we seeing? We're seeing the economic value getting disintegrated. There is no value in foundational models economically. So then the question is, who can build on top of them the fastest? And Jason to your point, Lama was announced last Thursday, 14 hours later, Grock actually had that model deployed in the Grock Cloud, so that 100,000 plus developers could start building on it. That's why that model is so popular. So it puts the closed models on their heels, because if you can't both train and deploy iteratively and quickly enough, these open source alternatives will win. And as a result, the economic potential that you have to monetize those models will not be there. And what that does is reinforce the existing economic mode that Facebook already has in monetizing their apps. Now, why the stock went down, I'd like to talk in contrast to test that a little bit later, because this has nothing to do with that. And it has more about squares versus sharps in stock market.

SPEAKER_05

11:19 - 12:07

A freeberg, your thoughts on meta embracing going all in on AI. you were at Google, you're all mudd up. And you watched them be proprietary and close when it came to search and the search algorithm. But open source when they were behind. And then that's the, I guess, the phrase we use here in Silicon Valley. When you're behind, you use open source to catch up. And when you're ahead, you close everything down Facebook, famously shut down all access to their APIs. You can't get into the social graph. But they're going open here. Why? Because they're behind your thoughts on this from say a Google perspective and then maybe how Google might react and then just broadly do you think open source wins the day, getting to AGI?

SPEAKER_07

12:07 - 13:34

I would say the analogy for Google is Android. where Google opened source the Android operating system because the handset manufacturers and some of the big software companies. So Nokia and Microsoft in particular Blackberry had these clothes proprietary operating systems. And then the telcos put their apps on and make money and basically had control over whether or not people could access Google and Google services through their phone. So the intention with open sourcing Android was to make sure that Google was not disadvantaged in their core business over time. I think that there's a similar analogy here that by open sourcing these models, they limit competition because VCs are no longer going to plow half a billion dollars into a foundational model development company. So you limit the commercial interest in the commercial value. of foundational models. Now, the CapEx question is, is a really hard one to diagnose because we don't know how they're spending the money, where they're spending the money, what they're doing in there. I think that it's a really important sign that founder led companies with these voting rights. You know, have the ability to make these sorts of hard decisions that it might be very difficult for a management by committee group to make. Got it. Look at how Mark is making these decisions and Elon is making big tough decisions that it would very likely be pushed back on if they didn't have the voting rights if they didn't have the control over the company that they had.

SPEAKER_05

13:35 - 14:01

It's a great point about founder authority, I think, that's a really salient point. Shout out to Zah. It would really be great to get him at the Olympics on it. Sachs, we have some breaking news here. It turns out, Lauma 3, they just tested it in the benchmarks. It says here, you can make the founding fathers any race you like. It's a really interesting feature. Any thoughts on Facebook's strategy here? You are a master strategist, David Sachs. Give us your master strategy here, 1700 chess rating. Sachs?

SPEAKER_02

14:04 - 15:09

Well, we kind of glossed over what the real news was, which was that meta-released Lama-3, which they had spent billions of dollars creating in a completely open-source way and the testing on Lama-3 is that it's composted GPT-4. And I think this is what Chmoth means by scorched earth is that we now have a free model. That's as good as G4. Best in class. You're in the tide for best in class. There are some slight differences, and we've been playing around with it. It is faster and cheaper than using Chad GPD4, but the context window is smaller. I think it was only an 8,000 token context window. So that's something that the open source community is going to need to work on is rolling out foundation models of a bigger context window. Nonetheless, the point is that at least for now until open AI comes out with GPD5, which is supposed to happen soon, the open source community is kind of caught up with the top closed source model, which is open AI.

SPEAKER_05

15:09 - 15:12

Will they blow past the closed source model, sex?

SPEAKER_02

15:13 - 16:21

Well, I still think that OpenAI is ahead because the scuddle button about 5 is that it's amazing and it's a big improvement over GPD4 and supposedly it's going to come out any day, week or month. So if GPD5 comes out and knocks our socks off in a few weeks, then we're going to see that, oh, they're actually a cycle ahead. of the open source community. But as of this moment in terms of Westman publicly released, I think it's fair to say that open source is largely caught up. with OpenAI. And this is why, you know, bring up this tweet by Naveen Rauh, who is a founder who created the company, Mosaic ML, which is sold to Databricks for Unicorn Outcome. And he says, I don't think everyone has comprehended the massive disruption and distortion that's going to happen in the Gen AI market due to law Mathreat. Boats will be destroyed and investments will go to zero. Just like everything in Gen AI, this wall will happen fast. So, you know, it's a similar reaction to what Jamalth is saying, which is we have an open source model now that erases billions of dollars of private investment.

SPEAKER_06

16:21 - 17:16

And by the way, you just said something really interesting before, which is, okay, there's a limitation, right? You mentioned the context window, which was a problem. I just found this thing today. They saw that now they're at 96k context. That's amazing. So do your point socks. This market is moving so fast because you cannot compete with open source. So all these closed models, which means open AI. And a bunch of these other folks, especially the ones that are sitting inside of these smaller companies, right? Snowflake has a model, I think data bricks has a model. There's an important question that has to be asked around the economic viability of these models in a world where open sources not only better and better funded, but they're iterating faster and the feature set is catching up to your needs. So the minute that Sachs says he needs a longer context window within a week it's there, that's pretty intense. Yeah, I think this is like one of the, what do you think, Jacob?

SPEAKER_05

17:17 - 19:43

Well, I've got a totally different take on this. Obviously, I agree with all you, you've said here in terms of the open source and the dramatic effect it's going to have on pricing, but there's something people are missing. If you go to meta.ai for a second Nick and you pull it up, what you'll see is they've dedicated the meta.ai URL to a search-like experience. And then they've put search box at the top of Instagram, WhatsApp, and Facebook. And so they are going to put search engine essentially. They're modern search engine, which is starting from zero in front of three billion people using that as collection of services. And so just like Apple and Firefox were able to intercept search traffic, I think, I'm going to make a prediction here. That medicine to get 10 points of the search market now. Each point of the search market, is worth, you know, what is Google's worth about 2 trillion if you take out 500 billion for YouTube and there are other services you get 1.5 trillion, which means 10.0 is worth 150 billion in market capital. Now, as you well know, Chmoth, and you well know David, these two ad networks met us started with psychographic data, the person who they know. And then, of course, Google had the greatest advertising product ever intent. You type in Volvo, you type in Tesla, type in Tesla, Santa Monica used, you know, you don't have to guess what the person is interested in at that moment. Well, for the first time, one of these networks has content data and psychographic, and they're going to be able to put it together. And I think they take 10 points of search, but more importantly, they're going to have data on individuals that will be unrivaled in the advertising space. Now Google tried to do this themselves. They did something called Google Plus. I don't know if you were there freeberg during the Google Plus era. They spent billions of dollars on a social network. It failed. They shut it down because they wanted to get that. So looking at this, I think, man, there's so much going on an open source. But now Google, we haven't talked about Google's role in all of this. And Sundar being a hired gun, not having found a authority to your point freeberg. You know, I think they're going after Google search business as well as, you know, taking away and commoditizing all of the open source. So we'll be might be sitting here in three or four years watching Meta have, I don't know, 10.

SPEAKER_06

19:43 - 20:03

Nobody has to search. It's just that Google can't afford to lose anything. Yeah. Everybody takes a point here in a point there and all of a sudden Google could be in the high 70s of search and that would be economically disastrous for their stock. Yeah, you're going to have to make cuts. Why do you guys think the stock is done? Why is the stock down 16%. I have a theory as to why.

SPEAKER_05

20:03 - 20:06

That tells you they're going to go for it.

SPEAKER_06

20:06 - 22:20

I think that there's a few times a quarter where you can really see the dispersion in the stock market between what I will call the smart money and everybody else. So, you know, using betting language, the sharps and the squares. And I think meta was an example of the sharps taking a line, which I think is very accurate, and Tesla was the other great example this quarter. And so if you look inside of meta and this free bird mentioned this earlier, I think free bird what people really reacted negatively to was the total quantum of spending and the idea that it's misallocated not to AI but specifically to Nvidia. And the reason is that when we've mentioned this before, I've tried to talk a lot about this with Jonathan Ross from Grock, but AI is really too markets, training and inference. And inference is going to be a hundred times bigger than training. And Nvidia is really good at training and very miscasted inference. The problem is that right now, we need to see a capex build cycle for inference. And there are so many cheap and effective solutions, crock being one of them, but there are many others. And I think why the market reacted very negatively was it did not seem that Facebook understood that distinction. That they were way overspending and trying to allocate a bunch of GPU capacity towards inference that didn't make sense. And so I think what people were saying is, hold on a second. We're so far your place are perfect. It's everything we want you to do. We want you to scorch the earth. We want to open source the headset. But we also want you to understand the difference between training and inference in a little bit more of a nuanced way. build up the inference capacity, but spend a lot less money because you don't need to spend it on Nvidia. And the reason is the sharps know that Nvidia cannot do inference. And so I think that's why this thought is down this much. And I think it's important for people who care about AI, but also may traffic in Nvidia to understand why the sharps think that. And I think several of us have tried to explain it now for the last couple of weeks, but it is miscast and so you're overspending.

SPEAKER_05

22:20 - 23:47

Up next, Tesla earnings, Elon's master plan part two is going. Well, as planned, again, this was voted up by our panel here in our group chat. Last time we covered Tesla was episode 164 early February after Delaware judge, avoided Elon's pay package since then. Tesla has made some giant moves. They launched FSD 12. I've been using it. It's pretty great. Also, they cut the price of FSD by one third from 12K to 8K. I think you can also get it for 100 bucks a month. And they announced a 10% riff going to cut 14,000 employees always paying full to do that. They're looking to re-incorporate in taxes leaving Delaware for office reasons. Earlier this week, Tesla shares were down more than 40% year to date. Mostly due to a decrease in demand for EVs, market caps dropped from 750 billion to 460 billion. Cheers from 12% when they've reported Q1 earnings on Tuesday. Investors got excited if Elon announced that Tesla's new line of models could start production at the end of the year, or maybe even early 2025. He shared some thoughts on the Robo Taxi or Cyber Cab, which he talked about maybe five or six years ago, and he has had in the master plan for a long time trim off. You made some great calls on Tesla and made some great trades there back in the day. Your thoughts on Tesla. in 2024.

SPEAKER_06

23:47 - 26:50

Sharps love it. This is another one. Sharps versus the squares. Why did the Sharps love it? Why did it go up and everybody was so confused? And I think the answer is that he's actually executing exactly to plan. And so if you're investing in a stock, what you really want is a CEO to kind of stick to a plan that is well known. So we don't have to actually guess what the plan is because he puts it out on the website. Look at the master plan part do. And if you start reading down, everything that he said he's going to do starting in 2016 is basically what it is. So let's take the first part, right? What did he say in the first part? He said, hey, listen, guys, this is 2016. We're going to build a Model 3. We're going to build a compact SUV, the Model Y. We're going to build a new kind of pickup truck. Okay, check, check and check. Then he said, oh, by the way, we're also probably going to have to do a heavy duty truck and a high passenger density urban transport vehicle. So that's the Robotaxi thing that he's going to announce in August. Okay. check and check and then he talks about the software and the investment in FSD and trying to get to a place where you know you can just have a much higher probability that it will save you from an accident and it will keep you safe when you're driving your car which will be a large driver of why people want to buy the cars themselves and you can see like these FSD also if you're a smart capital allocator what you actually saw was a dislocated stock price. What you saw was a plan that by and large he's been executing on at a strategic level. Underneath, there's the vicissitudes. What are the vicissitudes? Sometimes you overhire, you need to trim some fat. Sometimes you overspend on CapEx. Now, he's spent about a billion of CapEx's quarter on AI infrastructure, so H-100's are training, but the market saw through it because that was a reasonable amount of money to spend on training for FSD. So you can start to see the tail of these two reactions. The sharps looked at the capital allocation and said, OK, you missed by two and a half billion this quarter, but that's going to create a buying opportunity because we think it's roughly mispriced. And we think it's mispriced because going back to this plan for 2016, this is all the things that we've been underwriting from $40 billion of market cap to $750. And now we're getting a 40% discount to buy back in. So I think it's a really interesting moment to just contrast and compare what sharps look at and then what the media breathlessly exaggerates. And I think what they wanted was to lionize the meta-earning story, but the sharps rejected it and they wanted to dump on Elon and the sharps rejected that in size in both cases. And it's just a reminder to all of us be very careful what you're reading. Because if you just took the headlines, you would have expected the two reactions to be exactly opposite. But when you vote with money, it's very clear and unambiguous because you actually move in the direction of accuracy. And that's what the stock market allows you to see. And I think this is a really interesting contrast to compare sharps versus squares here.

SPEAKER_05

26:50 - 27:15

Yeah, just well recapped for those who don't know sharps in gambling or people like Haralabad, friend of the pod. who are just the sharpest betters in gambling, persistitude, that's an unpleasant change in circumstances for those of you who don't know the word. Sachs, I don't know if you want to comment. I mean, you and I are bisonous with the relationship with Elon, any thoughts on Chumat's take.

SPEAKER_02

27:15 - 28:49

Well, I'm not going to comment on the stock, per se. I mean, Tesla's products are amazing. They seem to be really executing well there. And I think that Elon foreshadowed on that earnings call was coming in the future. I'm personally really curious about the optimist robot. I mean, that has potential to create an entirely new market and bring about something that we've only seen in science fiction. So to me, that's very interesting. I think in terms of the company's problems, I think they're mostly dealing with some macro forces. So first of all, the GDP growth rate has slowed to 1.6% in Q1. So this just came out. And that was a notable slowdown, relative to expectations. So first of all, you're dealing with the slowing economy. It seems like Second, high interest rates mean that car payments are higher. If you want to finance the parts of a car, your car payments can be a lot higher when the rates are about 5%. And I think that has been a pretty big headwind for Tesla and really all the car companies over the last year or so. But I would say that I think both of those things are ultimately cyclical and what matters is Tesla's products. I would say the only issue they have that's a real long-term issue is just the Chinese competition. companies like BDY are ramping up production of knock-off products at low prices. And so managing the competition with China is probably the only one of these issues. That's I think probably a long-term issue for them to deal with.

SPEAKER_05

28:49 - 29:13

Let me ask a question here. How do you rank these businesses? Energy, Optimus, trucking, ride sharing, energy, Optimus, the robot, trucking, ride handling. Rank those. Your number one or two in terms of potential for Tesla, Chema, around the horn. It's a good question.

SPEAKER_06

29:13 - 30:21

Ride sharing is number one. The absolute probably by an order of magnitude. And interesting. The reason I say that is in order for ride sharing and ride healing to really work the way that they envision it. You will have level five autonomy. supported in jurisdictions where, again, if you just look at part 2, the whole point is you can sum it up some in a car from your app. And if you don't have access to a mobile phone, you can go to these bus stop equivalents and just press a button in the car comes to you. And so in that world, there's just so much value add in terms of passenger safety and sustainability for the environment and less profit. It's a gargantuan game changer. Meanwhile, what's your number two? Sorry, I mean, I'll, and sorry, just to contrast over and lift, seemingly are profitable because they find pricing power to raise prices. So if Tesla enters in as a third player in that field and just guts pricing, which I think would make sense for them to do, I think this thing is just gangbusters nuclear.

SPEAKER_02

30:23 - 30:24

That's a really interesting point.

SPEAKER_05

30:24 - 30:26

What do you got, sex going around the horn here?

SPEAKER_02

30:26 - 30:29

Well, I already said optimists, but that's based on a long-term view.

SPEAKER_05

30:29 - 30:32

Yeah, this is a long-term question based on the long-term, one and two.

SPEAKER_02

30:32 - 30:56

In the long-term, in terms of option value, I'm the most intrigued by the robot play and Elon has pointed out that once you have robots that are capable of doing lots of different jobs, pretty much any job you point them at, that we can have more robots on earth than humans. So it's a big future market.

SPEAKER_05

30:56 - 30:59

So you got Optimus number one and who is number two?

SPEAKER_02

30:59 - 31:26

I hear it's Martha the short term that right sharing could really reach its its logical conclusion with with Robotaxies. Remember when you know Uber first gained steam and people were speculating about how big the market could be. There was a lot of getty talk about how car ownership would change and you wouldn't need to buy a car anymore because you would just like use over all the time.

SPEAKER_05

31:26 - 31:28

We called it going full Uber.

SPEAKER_02

31:28 - 32:11

Yeah, and I actually I went full Uber or I shouldn't say, I went mostly Uber. Like within a couple of years of discovery, you went on the chart. Yeah. So I thought the potential was there. But the problem is it was just too expensive. I mean, Uber is still quite expensive. And the most expensive piece of it is the human driving the car. It's all that labor cost. So if you're able to charge for the ride purely based on fractionalizing the cap X, and that cap X is even that high because they're making these row of taxis pretty cheaply now. and you're able to get so much more utilization out of a car, right? Because I mean, how many hours a day do you drive your own car like an hour, maybe?

SPEAKER_05

32:11 - 32:19

Less than a row of taxes. 90% I think is the number on average that they're not used. Freebra, who's your one and two?

SPEAKER_07

32:19 - 32:42

I think the optimus has the highest alpha, but the highest beta. So, you know, more upside than anything else, just unclear how You get there. What the path is in the capital requirements. And I think there's going to be a lot of commoditization in this space. But the right sharing is built in. It's low beta and significant alpha.

SPEAKER_05

32:42 - 32:45

So so you're one and two optimists right here.

SPEAKER_07

32:45 - 32:46

Yeah, optimists right here.

SPEAKER_05

32:46 - 32:53

Trim off. What was your number two again? Just so I can recap here. I would actually probably pick energy. And why would you pick energy as your number two after right, Helen?

SPEAKER_06

32:53 - 36:00

I think it's a pretty obvious disruption if So today in America, if you look at the energy infrastructure, the utilities keep raising rates. And they keep raising rates independent of what it costs to generate energy. There are 1,700 utilities in America. They are, by law, obligated to spend, I think in the next 10 years, about $2 trillion on CapEx, they will pass all of those costs plus a margin to consumers. Even though in these next 10 years, the cost of generating an incremental unit of energy will be essentially free. So I think the very disruptive play is to take 100 million homes and make them many utilities. Same hand. What does it mean? Make them utilities. You go to a website. Again, the biggest investment I've made is in a company called Palmetto. They are close to now the largest residential solar business in the United States, if not the largest already. Now what do they do? You're a consumer, you can go and lease or buy. It doesn't really matter. And we give you a super cheap system that goes on top of your roof, plus a battery system. And all of a sudden, you're totally resilient and independent of the utilities. And we help change the laws so that every time you have excess energy, you can put it back into the grid and get paid, which is called net metering. So if you have 100 million of these mini utilities, competing against 1700 incumbents that are forced to make huge investments and are mispriced That's an upheaval of an enormous amount of market cap but also an enormous amount of debt. There's like trillions of dollars of debt. So I've always thought a ginormous directional bet to make would be to go along the disruptor. The person that helps arm the rebels in this case would be the person that arms a hundred million homes and then eventually at some point just short the debt of these utilities because they won't be able to service them if enough people quit and don't need PG&E and everybody else. it'll be just massively, massively disruptive. So that's why I think that that market could be big. I like the Optimus market, the only thing that I'll say is in my experience when I've looked at these generalized robots, the conclusion that I came to and I could be totally wrong. is I suspect instead of having a generalized robot, you have very specific use case robots that look differently. So for example, there's an example that you can throw a picture, but there's something called intuitive surgical, which is essentially a robot that's operates on you. And if you look at that, it doesn't look anything like what you would think a robot would look like. It looks like a ginormous machine. And so I suspect that there will be people that become experts in these vertical use cases. And that will limit the tam for a generalized approach. I could be totally wrong, but that's sort of why I ranked them the way I ranked them. But I'm pretty convinced that Robotoxys are number one and, and then this energy thing that upends the 1700 utilities in America's number two.

SPEAKER_02

36:00 - 36:08

All right, Jake, how you are the third investor in Uber, are you worried about your investment? As I understand that you sell the sold, have you?

SPEAKER_05

36:09 - 37:14

I've sold slightly more than the majority of my holdings over the years to private transaction than I held everything post going public and I'm still long Uber. I give number one to Optimus by far and away because I think the build of materials on Optimus could be 10k or less. I looked at some of these other startups that are in the space and I've been studying it a little bit just at a curiosity. And so at a 10k bomb, I think they could rent you one of these for $300 a month or something like that a subscription. I think Every human on planet Earth eventually will have a robot. So I know that's crazy, but I think Optimus will dwarf the entire entirety of Tesla's other businesses. Number two is energy clearly. I think in number three is ride-hailing. Number two energy. Fairly obvious what's happening here. If you look at what's happening with data centers, it's spike. I think from like three or four percent of energy now till like, is it 15 percent from off? I think we had a discussion.

SPEAKER_06

37:14 - 37:20

It's almost, it's almost, it's almost, I think it's 18 percent. It's almost 20 percent. It's a huge number now. Okay.

SPEAKER_05

37:20 - 38:07

So we can tell the two stories together, these H-100s are beasts, cooling beasts. This is like, you can't even, filled with something else in the group chat. Like, you can't even cool some of these places. And what that means is, There is going to be demand for energy to trimots point. If each home becomes a little provider, you know, it's going to create some regulation change. I believe I'm no expert on the regulations. We should definitely have do it on the pot at some point to talk about this. But imagine these like in Texas, they keep having the grids go down. And in Australia, they have the grids go down. It's going to be so annoying for consumers to have the grids go down while demand spikes for data centers. All the regulations are going to get opened up to put batteries and solar everywhere.

SPEAKER_06

38:07 - 38:35

It's also dangerous. I mean, people die when these blinds and outages occur. And also, like we saw in St. Carlos here in the Bay Area, not gas lines explode. PG&E is responsible for forest fires. I mean, if you can do your part to basically get off these grids, use somebody like Palmetto or somebody else and just get solar Tesla and be done with it. And at least you're not contributing to some of these downstream errors.

SPEAKER_05

38:35 - 40:02

Yeah. And so I agree 100%. And by the way, if you can make money from your solar and your batteries and somebody else picks up the cost of insulation, I think there are some arbitrage here from off to be had. And I think that's like what you discovered when you did your first principle. approach to this. So I think those two businesses will be far bigger than anything else they're doing. Now on ride-hailing, I'm using FSD12. I have been using auto-pilot. I was one of the first users of auto-pilot, you know, from the beginning, like literally. And FSD12 is a significant improvement. That being said, all of these systems work really well in a controlled grid, like we've seen with Waymo in Arizona and in, you know, limited parts of Los Angeles and San Francisco. I think that vision is five, six, seven years out from having low single digit percentages. And you may have seen Uber has incorporated Waymo and the taxis in London into their system. I think Uber's ultimately going to be the place people go to call up one of 20 different Self driving. I think a lot of people are going to get there at the same time. Wouldn't be surprised if you won't get their first. But I think that's five or ten years out if I'm being totally honest, you know, in terms of getting to scale. So I would never ever bet against Elon seeing what he's done. Watch it again.

SPEAKER_02

40:02 - 40:13

When are you saying that? Self driving will be good enough to power just one robot taxi. Let's just forget about the scale. Just like when will it be good enough to have like a steering wheel, free car?

SPEAKER_05

40:15 - 40:38

Yeah, so if you, you can just look at crews in Waymo and you can have your answer, which is today in a contained environment with remote drivers intervening on some regular basis, it works. So people are taking Waymo, San Francisco, LA on a pretty regular basis. Cruz, I think I kicked out of San Francisco. But in the crews' data, there was a lot of interventions going on. I suspect Waymo's doing a lot of interventions.

SPEAKER_06

40:38 - 40:56

So I think, I don't want to be a proponent of this, by the way, but bleep out his name was saying that Jason with FSD, they're very strict that you have to be holding the steering wheel instead. Yes, but you can go to Oli Baba and buy something that hacks that right.

SPEAKER_05

40:56 - 40:59

It's a weight. I'm not promoting that.

SPEAKER_06

40:59 - 41:02

I'm not promoting that. I'm not promoting this. I'm just saying that it's.

SPEAKER_05

41:02 - 41:30

So anyway, answer your question, Sachs. I think today, or let you say by the end of this year, an FSD 12 could be operating in a country in space, just like wemoist. Now to get it to all regions, back roads. You know, whether there's a lot of edge cases here, so I think the more important question is when can automated be 5% or 10% of rights? And I think that's 5 or 10 years from now. I do think a couple of people will reach that moment at the same time.

SPEAKER_02

41:30 - 41:48

Well, let me show you a video. This is one of my co-workers at CraftTook this. This wasn't me, but he was writing in the back one of these Robotaxes. I think this is San Francisco or New York. I'm not sure which one. But there is no one in. Yeah. the driver's seat.

SPEAKER_05

41:48 - 41:59

Yeah, there's a safety driver watching this remote, I believe, which is what cruise was doing. And then when they get to a point where they can't figure it out, the human comes in.

SPEAKER_02

41:59 - 42:01

In terms of safety driver, where's the safety driver?

SPEAKER_06

42:01 - 42:11

No, it's a remote safety driver remote remote remote. But I have to say, watching this video, that is the coolest bloody thing. I mean, yeah, this is amazing.

SPEAKER_02

42:11 - 42:26

I'll be honest, like, I think it's underrated in terms of how we get this is going to be. This is a Jaguar. Look at that. It's a Jaguar. So you're telling me that Tesla's not going to have something at least as good as this better soon. Yeah.

SPEAKER_05

42:26 - 43:42

I think they have it already. If you drive FSD 12, I believe FSD 12. Probably could be working today in San Francisco under a controlled grid with the remote drivers like the other people have. If somebody knows about this by the way, can they send us information? I'm Jason at Calacan. It's not Comfort Live. Just send me a picture. I'll keep it on the D.L., I will reveal sources of who these remote drivers are, what their setup looks like. I'm very curious to understand how the remote drivers work for waymo and crews. Can they park the car? They can take the car with a joystick, is my understanding, and move it around a garbage can in the middle of the street tomorrow. And that might be the future of this. Let's say 10 or 15 percent. Let's say 10 percent of the time it needs an intervention. one an hour, two an hour. Having some remote person in Manila wherever, watching 10. videos concurrently and looking for moments to do this. So cruise workers intervened to help the company's cars every 2.5 to 5 miles according to a New York Times article. All right, and just if we score everybody's rating here, I give two points for first place, one point for second place. Optimists got six points right, healing four energy two tracking zero. They have a thugs. There's your scores from the bestie.

SPEAKER_06

43:42 - 43:44

What is wemo? What is that?

SPEAKER_05

43:44 - 43:46

Is that like Google Self Drive and they spun it out?

SPEAKER_06

43:47 - 43:48

But what is it?

SPEAKER_05

43:48 - 43:51

Is it like $150,000 cars? Uh-huh.

SPEAKER_06

43:51 - 43:56

But is it a compete with cruise?

SPEAKER_05

43:56 - 43:58

Yeah, they're doing what cruise did.

SPEAKER_07

43:58 - 44:03

It was the original self-driving car company that Google set up and then they set up Google X around it.

SPEAKER_06

44:03 - 44:18

And I just explained to me the market guys, I'm not sure I get it. So there's way, way-moant cruise. Yeah, there's way-moant cruise, which are like, there's no drivers. And then there's Uber and Lyft where there are drivers. Yeah. That's the basic Right. Does that? Yeah. That's right. Yeah.

SPEAKER_05

44:18 - 44:25

Yeah. Okay. And there's also Aurora. I just, I don't know if Uber has owns a percentage of that or not, but I think you know about Aurora.

SPEAKER_07

44:25 - 44:52

Aurora was set up by Chris Ermson. He was the original engineering lead on Waymo inside of Google. When they did a management changeover, there was a big falling out. A lot of people ended up leaving the Waymo program. Chris left took a bunch of people with him and started Aurora, which was basically software to do autonomous driving. that they were then going to license into OEMs. So that company got backed by a bunch of VCs and ended up going public via SPAC and it's publicly traded today. Oh, I see.

SPEAKER_05

44:52 - 45:07

Yeah. We're owns 26% of Aurora or actually now it's down to 20%. There's also zooks. They made an investment in it. Yeah. There's also zooks, which is part of Amazon. So I think there's about 10 people who are going to get to the finish line at the same time, and these are going to be a very crowded space.

SPEAKER_07

45:07 - 45:26

But again, some of these guys are trying to make software for OEMs, so that the OEMs don't have to build their own autonomous platform. And some of them are trying to make a driving service like Waymo. And then some of them are like Tesla has a driving car. They actually sell cars. So different models.

SPEAKER_02

45:26 - 45:26

Yeah.

SPEAKER_07

45:26 - 45:27

So they're going to convert you.

SPEAKER_02

45:28 - 45:47

I actually disagree that there's going to be 20 or 30 of these because I actually think that self-driving is really really hard and we know that Tesla has been spending years. getting to this point and then Google as well. So I'm not sure why there'd be more than two or three companies that can do.

SPEAKER_05

45:47 - 45:58

Well, there are 10 or more pursuing it. I do agree it goes down to four or five. And then it's a question of does any, is it a winner take all winner take most? And that's what remains to be seen.

SPEAKER_02

45:59 - 46:31

But I mean, you need a ton of data to make it work and you need a lot of data around edge cases. And so the advantage Tesla has is, they actually have real cars on the road. They have real cars on the road with real driver minutes and with drivers using the previous version of FSD and making interventions. So they're constantly getting better. I think Google seems to be putting enough resources into this to get somewhere, but I don't think a lot of companies are going to figure this out. I think it's going to be somewhere between one and three companies figure this out.

SPEAKER_05

46:31 - 46:47

Well, Waymo has the most on the road right now, and then crews are second to them in terms of in-market. So the question is, how quickly can Elon get this out? Have you guys, any of you guys taken one of these Robo Taxis? I haven't taken one. No, it's like go workers. Yeah.

SPEAKER_07

46:47 - 46:54

We got to give you take them on. Yeah, they're cool. I just move around. You did take one. Yeah. They're all over the city. You can take them in San Francisco now.

SPEAKER_06

46:54 - 46:57

Yeah. You have to download the Waymo app.

SPEAKER_07

46:57 - 47:03

Yeah. And there's like a wait list and then you get on it and you know, they're letting people on and then you just get on it and go for right.

SPEAKER_02

47:03 - 47:14

Pretty cool. By the way, someone tweeted some kind of funny they said, you know, I took Uber. years and years and what you're trillion dollars to finally get the profitability and now they're about to get disrupted by robo taxis.

SPEAKER_05

47:14 - 49:11

This is brutal. I think I'm likely, I think it's going to be a very slow roll out, you know, one or two percent a year. But you know, it compounds and so we'll see. All right, everybody, is this a big win for Lena Kahn, the FTC just banned non-competes, three of three people voted this up of three besties who decided to vote on the docket Federal Trade Commission this week voted by three to two margin to ban non-compete to give a sense of impact here estimated of 18% of the total US workforce are covered in some way by non-compete's 30 million people. The ruling bands agreements entirely and requires companies to let their staff know that non-competes are non-inforcible. There are a few exceptions like existing non-competes for senior level executives. I'm guessing when you buy a company, you can get somebody to non-competate for buying the company. The Democratic FTC commissioner Rebecca Slotter called non-competes unfree and unfair. One of the dissenting commissioners, Republican Andrew Ferguson said they have to see lacked authority from Congress to make this ruling. Thoughts specifying whether or not he agree with it. Theoretically, the new rule takes effect in 120 days. Well, we're on a fast timeline after which the vast majority of existing non-competes will be un-inforcible here in California, the non-inforcible as we know, except in a certain circumstances. So this is really an east coast thing. people in Boston, New York, they're really affected by this. And people will actually enforce these forward things as silly as hairdressers. It was a big lawsuit by hairdressers who had to sign like 50 mile non-competes with their beauty salons. The US Chamber of Commerce says a plan to follow suit over the ruling FTC says the room will create 8500 new startups a year because people can leave and compete freeberg your thoughts in California non-competes are not enforceable but outside of California they are and they're often used like in the agriculture

SPEAKER_07

49:12 - 50:47

industry, the ag inputs industry where folks are developing new technology, mostly it companies based in the Midwest and East Coast. As you guys know in financial services as well, they're often used that if you work for one company because you have a lot of trade secrets, you can't carry them over to others. But in Silicon Valley, we're very used to engineers, product managers, executives, taking all of the knowledge and capabilities that they've developed at one business and leveraging that into a new role. It creates a dynamically competitive Marketplace, it also inflates obviously costs because you're willing to pay more for someone who's worked directly at a competitor and has deep knowledge. But they are bringing IT off and there is, you know, a real risk that they take something from your company that you've invested in them to understand and then they take it to your competitor. So I see both sides of this. I think non-compete's. give companies the ability to invest in employees and feel confident that the knowledge and information and support they're providing to those employees doesn't ultimately find its way over to a competitor. And it gives you a rationale for paying more to your employees. It actually inflates salaries. If I'm fearful that someone might leave and take knowledge with them, I'm going to share less with the employee. I'm going to pay them less. So I could see this going both ways. I'm really fairly torn on this issue to be honest. I don't know what the right answer is. Or if there really is a strong kind of ethical case one way or the other, I think that non-competes can both benefit and hurt employees and benefit and hurt companies.

SPEAKER_05

50:47 - 50:53

Yes, there are unintended consequences. Chmapwari, you stand on this. Is this a huge win for Lina Khan, neutral or a loss?

SPEAKER_06

50:55 - 52:18

I don't see non-compete having any value in any market except East Coast financial markets. I've heard of folks getting something called beach leave, typically in finance. These are Wall Street jobs, hedge fund jobs. So I know it exists there. What does it mean beach leave? Like if you leave hedge fund A and you're going to go to hedge fund B, they make you sit on ice for six months or nine months, garden leave. I think maybe they call it. And the whole idea is that you don't take any active market thoughts to your next job for what for what Freeberg said, I just think the whole thing doesn't make much sense. I mean, like intellectual property is the least valuable. It's ever been right, more people. develop things now via trade secret, then patents, the whole patent system has become a little bit of a game. We just talked about open source, right? They have less and less value. So innovation is happening in plain sight. And so I don't think companies are actually thinking about this issue at all anymore. They're paying people because they need to pay more to get the best and brightest. So I think if you're hoping to rely on one of these agreements, if you're an employer, I think that you should just forget about them and just hire the best people, pay them the best, and if they suck fire them.

SPEAKER_07

52:18 - 52:23

Did you ever see that movie Spanish prisoner starring Steve Martin? Yeah.

SPEAKER_05

52:23 - 52:24

Great film. God.

SPEAKER_07

52:24 - 52:51

Well, let's deep open. Steve Martin plays the con man. that goes to this guy and the guy is like a chemical engineer, Campbell Scott is a guy named the actor. And he has like a process for making a chemical and it's worth so much money. And the whole movie is Steve Martin, Conningham, into telling him the chemical process. And eventually he took it. He was going to give him all this money, hire him, and then he disappeared once he got the knowledge. And that was the end of it. It's a great, great film.

SPEAKER_05

52:51 - 52:52

Shout out David Maman.

SPEAKER_07

52:52 - 53:20

David Maman, exactly. But I think there's a lot of investment that goes into intellectual property businesses that include things like chemical engineering, obviously financial services, trading companies, algos and hedge funds and a lot in software that if you can access that intellectual property without stealing it, but actually hiring an employee that has it in their head, you gain quite a lot.

SPEAKER_06

53:21 - 53:24

But you can do that now. I don't see it actually doing anything bad.

SPEAKER_07

53:24 - 53:35

So I have had a lot of folks that I know in other industries outside of tech or software where California non-competes are not enforceable. That aren't allowed to go work at a competitor for one year or two years, three years. No, no.

SPEAKER_06

53:35 - 53:45

I'm not disputing that it doesn't exist. I'm saying, where do you see it actually having negative repercussions in California? The point of the fact that it doesn't exist here is also seemingly that it doesn't mean anything.

SPEAKER_07

53:46 - 54:14

The rate of change here is crazy. The rate at which software changes, I think is quite distinct from the rate at which, for example, a chemical engineering process might change. When you learn that process, you spend $2 million building a system, and then that employee can go and tell it to someone else and suddenly change is everything about that other business. So I don't know, I feel like there's something about California software that gives us this point of view that maybe it doesn't matter, but another industry is it might

SPEAKER_06

54:14 - 54:19

In that example, you'd still need to have come up with hundreds of millions of CapEx to implement it, whatever you know.

SPEAKER_05

54:19 - 54:19

Yeah.

SPEAKER_06

54:19 - 54:22

So Sachs any thoughts? I just don't think these things mean anything.

SPEAKER_07

54:22 - 54:24

Yeah, do you care about non-capital sex?

SPEAKER_02

54:24 - 55:43

I think one of the reasons why they're taking stream moves so fast and innovates so well is because of the happy coincidence that California doesn't allow non-compete and so the industry's never had them. And as a result of that, like you're saying, the talent is flows freely to wherever the opportunity is. And you have this dynamic in tech where the VCs and the talent all swarm the biggest and best opportunities in the newest platforms in a completely decentralized way and there's little or no friction in doing that. If you were to impose non-competes on all of the talent, there's going to be enormous delays and friction in them moving around to pursue opportunities. And so I think it's been very beneficial to the industry as a whole that we don't have that. Now, it's hard for me to speak to other industries, but I think that if you're looking to maximize the pace of innovation, you wouldn't have these employee non-capit. So on that level, I kind of agree with what Lena Khan's done. That being said, I do think the Republicans point was well taken in the sense that this was very aggressive rulemaking. I mean, I think you could legitimately argue that it changed. This big should be made by Congress, but I kind of think this is probably a positive change.

SPEAKER_05

55:43 - 56:29

I think this is great when we're in a con doing. And this is two for two. I think our Apple action was great. I think this is great. I love to have her at the summit. I would be an amazing fire site chat. So if anybody knows her, invite her to the summit. It really is three way. Oh, and by the way, Jamoth media business on these coasts also does this. And that's why friend of the pod, Tucker Carlson, and Don Lemon, both of them started shows on the internet, not other networks because they have very tight non-competes and it's paid a play. They got paid out their full contracts according to reports. And so there is something I think in a middle ground here to them off where if you do want somebody to not compete, you got to pay the play. In other words, they're getting paid. But this is what I'm saying.

SPEAKER_06

56:29 - 56:44

It tends to be examples, Jason, over and over, of markets that don't really matter that much relying on these things and markets that are dynamic and has value in humanity, just moving past them. So it's probably makes sense for all of us to just go and move past them.

SPEAKER_05

56:44 - 56:48

Absolutely. 100% is going to be great for the economy. Sacha, are you going to say something?

SPEAKER_02

56:49 - 57:25

Just because these agreements are no longer enforceable doesn't mean that businesses don't have modes. It just means you have to look in other places. I mean, you have to find network effects. You have to find data scale effects. There's other ways of building a mode besides just. trade secrets or, you know, patents is another category where, you know, the tech industry patents have never really mounted that much. And the only people who are seeking to litigate patents are basically patent trolls losers. So you want to find real durable notes, not these like legal arrangements that try to protect your business through.

SPEAKER_06

57:26 - 57:31

You know, these types of controls said that's really well said. That's exactly what I was trying to say. That's what said.

SPEAKER_05

57:31 - 57:36

Well said team product brand. These are the ways to build a great business.

SPEAKER_02

57:36 - 58:12

Not one of the reasons why the industry moves so fast is because best practices get shared very quickly. And one of the ways that happens is that everybody is moving around to different companies. I mean, we'll see how we're such a determined deployment. What are you doing? 10 36 months. Right. And you don't have to worry that if you've got some knowledge in your head, that you don't have to worry that if you use it, some new company are going to violate some trade secret. But the one thing everyone knows not to do is take anything with them in terms of, you know, Not everybody. Not everyone.

SPEAKER_05

58:12 - 58:14

No ski. Was that his name? Lou and Doug.

SPEAKER_02

58:14 - 58:44

Well, that's why it's really funny. What an idiot. Yeah, I mean, sometimes people do break the rules. I mean, the rule is you don't take any work product with you. You don't take any documents. No thought drives. Don't bring your old computer to the new to the new job. Don't bring any old code. There are people who violate those rules. And that is definitely breaking the rules. But you're allowed to take with you anything in your head. And it is one of the ways that best practices sort of become more common.

SPEAKER_06

58:44 - 59:16

You guys know the story, right? Like Steve Chan before he started YouTube was an engineer at Facebook. And there was like at one point, remember being in some meeting was like oh I think we found an early version of the YouTube code on an old on an old laptop that was a Facebook laptop that's even so I remember like the gc was like I think we technically own YouTube Could you imagine if Facebook sued Google to get YouTube?

SPEAKER_05

59:16 - 59:32

Speaking of startups, this is critically important for founders listening. If you're working at a company, the best practice is if you're going to do a side hustle is to get permission and a waiver from your boss that you're working on that. and get a machine. And you got to go on a clean machine. Your machine is being done.

SPEAKER_06

59:32 - 59:34

You use your work computer.

SPEAKER_05

59:34 - 59:40

Your work machine. I'm telling you right now is being monitored every step of the way I had.

SPEAKER_02

59:40 - 59:42

It's not just monitoring. It's about it. It's a property.

SPEAKER_05

59:42 - 01:00:33

It's a property. It's a property. And if you type on it, especially in this work from home era. And you know, anyway, I had a situation, I wouldn't say at which company where a sales executive left the company, went into the CRM system, downloaded it, and he was so dumb. He had written plans for his next employer on his computer, and then his corporate email, email the database, and his plans for the new employer to his Yahoo or Outflow email. They busted him. Of course. They dropped a legal letter on him. They put a legal letter on the person's hiring him. The person has recently received the offer. Obviously, they don't want some toxic nonsense. And yeah, the person, you know, I have no idea what I'm doing.

SPEAKER_06

01:00:33 - 01:00:59

You know, there's that very famous email that Steve Jobs sent to Bruce Chison. which goes something along the lines of Dear Bruce, it's come to my attention that Apple never recruits from Adobe, but it seems that Adobe is actively recruiting Apple employees. One of our practices have to change. Yeah, please let me know who or something like that. It's just a phenomenal email.

SPEAKER_05

01:00:59 - 01:02:08

Yeah, this actually resulted in a bunch of legal action settlement because I think Eric Schmidt and Steve Jobs, pretty much if I'm wrong producers or there was something between Google and Apple where they agreed and I think Sergey or somebody was, yeah, Sergey got in on this. I don't know if this is legal. But they didn't want to piss Steve off because it's not the kind of guy you want to piss off because he can execute. And Eric Schmidt was on the board of Apple at the time. There's a very famous picture of them at the Palo, the the San Tell Road or Stanford Mall having coffee and Steve is lit. He's not happy about this. And I think they agreed to not post a certain level or something like that. Oh, there's the famous picture where they were breaking bread and then Eric Schmidt did Android, Steve felt very betrayed by this and Eric Schmidt left the board of Apple shortly thereafter, because Steve reportedly felt like he was double cross. But you know, all that is speculation. So check your own folks. Any, do you have any other details on that freeberg? Do you remember that kiss? It was after your time, right?

SPEAKER_07

01:02:09 - 01:02:37

I'll tell you a funny story. We had a meeting with the exact team from Apple when I was at Google. And Marissa Mayor and Sergey and myself and one other person went to the meeting. And Marissa's idea was, why don't we pitch Apple that we could put a cache of the internet in 200 megabytes, like the most important 200 megabytes of the internet, cache it and put it on the iPod. So you could access the internet on the iPod. Search the web.

SPEAKER_06

01:02:37 - 01:02:38

Right.

SPEAKER_07

01:02:38 - 01:02:51

So basically search a cash version of the web. And that was the pitch. And they kind of were like radio silent. They didn't respond to the pitch. And then they kind of blank-faced stared at us two years later. The iPhone came out.

SPEAKER_05

01:02:51 - 01:04:33

I have three amazing Steve Jobs stories. I'll tell you one of them right now. I was the co-founder of the website called Engadget, which was a large blog in the world. We wound up saw in the collection of the blogs too. AOL. How is that a conference? Steve Jobs was there. He sees my badge. says in gadget he goes oh Jason in gadget my favorite tech blog in the world I read it every day yada yada and I said oh that's great and you know they're done I said hey can I ask you a question so yeah sure anything we're out there beautiful view of the Pacific Ocean and I said you know Steve I have the ipod I pulled it on my pocket and it had a color screen and I said to him I said you know It seems to me that I could download short video clips like of the Chappelle Show. And I used that as an example. And they could sell them to me like you're selling in B3s. And you could just buy like a Chappelle Show issue episode, pretty obvious idea. And then I could play it when I'm on the subway or something or got some downtime in a cafe. I could watch a Chappelle Show clips. Could you make a video version of this? Since it's already got the storage in the screen. You looked at me, said Jason, do you want to watch a thumbnail size video? Has it? Yeah, totally fine. He said, all of our research says nobody wants to watch a tiny video like that. It's the worst idea ever. And I had this moment of like self doubt because he had that reality distortion field. I go back and tell my guys what he said, and hey, should we write a story about it? And 30 days later, He releases the video and the ability to watch videos on it. He had the greatest poker face ever. It was just an incredible moment. Man, I really missed that guy. What a incredible.

SPEAKER_06

01:04:33 - 01:04:42

An incredible three doing a walk down memory lane of our Steve Jobs stories. Do you have one? I have to give us one.

SPEAKER_05

01:04:42 - 01:04:45

Come on, these are great. People loved by the way, the segment we went on.

SPEAKER_06

01:04:45 - 01:06:14

When I worked at Winam, my boss, when it was merchant to AOL to create AOL music was this guy Kevin Conroy, great guy. Now I remember Kevin. And Kevin basically got us runway to launch a 99 set music download store. And we were able to use AOL's cards on file. So there was like 25 or 30 million credit cards. and we were able to use Warner Brothers music library because A.O.L. had merged with Time Warner. And so we launched this 99-cent music store and it performed phenomenally. And I went and I did demos for Walt Mossberg to I went to Apple, I showed James Higa, Eddie Cues, Steve Jobs, all these guys, and AOL just couldn't do anything with the data. We kept pushing, Kevin kept pushing, but they were just so tied up in their own political nonsense. They wouldn't greenlight it, becoming more than a beta. And then nine months later, the 99's at Download Store launched on iTunes. And I was just like, oh my God, this is execution. And they had all the labels. And it was a thousand times better experience and we created, but it was the first time where I stumbled into something relatively accidentally and just got frankly owned by an organization that just a thousand times better.

SPEAKER_07

01:06:20 - 01:06:48

Yeah, I met him at Mac World in 2003. He was walking the floor. It was at Moscone. I remember it because I've been a Mac user since 1984. First Mac original, I still have it in my office. Diehard, Diehard McFan are at every edition of Mac World, Mac user, Mac week. And so to meet him on the floor, walking around, I was just like, like, a 22 year old kid. I was freaking out. It was awesome. Only come in metal.

SPEAKER_05

01:06:49 - 01:06:52

He was the greatest. He was the absolute greatest.

SPEAKER_06

01:06:52 - 01:06:55

I have one other story, but I'm not going to share it.

SPEAKER_05

01:06:55 - 01:06:58

You know what? Segment people love last week.

SPEAKER_06

01:06:58 - 01:06:59

I interviewed with him for a job.

SPEAKER_05

01:06:59 - 01:07:11

What? Oh, come on. You can't tell. That's the right one. I love Facebook. People love this story last week when we did our childhood business. Oh, I'm going to have a story tomorrow. Come on, Jama. You give us one more. I'll give you one. That's recorded on video.

SPEAKER_06

01:07:12 - 01:07:15

It's like so littered with my failures and my insecurities, but okay.

SPEAKER_05

01:07:15 - 01:07:21

Yeah, we want to hear it. Yeah, we want to hear it. Yeah, it's successful. Be self-deprecating. Share with your brother.

SPEAKER_06

01:07:21 - 01:08:23

There was basically somebody at a wall known recruiting firm who pinged me and said, hey, there could be a consult. This is right when I was leaving Facebook and I had a pretty large project that never saw the live day, which was this Facebook phone, although people in the ecosystem knew that we were working on it. So, you know, Samsung and Intel were our partners and AT&T and all this stuff. Anyways, long story short, there was a rumor that they wanted to consolidate iPhone into one business unit, right? And at the time, it was kind of like very Balkanized or whatever. And I got approached by recruiters saying they're thinking of creating a role, which is kind of like head of iPhone. And at that point, I was like, this isn't 2011. And I was adamant that I would never work for anybody until I heard it was Steve Jobs. And I was like, I will do whatever he says. I would have driven his car. I would have driven that car.

SPEAKER_05

01:08:23 - 01:08:26

I would be driving this Daisy. Oh, Steve Jobs, you're on my best friend.

SPEAKER_06

01:08:27 - 01:08:54

And I went through a couple of interviews and I'm not going to get into those details. And at the end of it, it was like, well, he's not going to become, he's not going to be the CEO. You know, he's going to become executive chairman. And so you'll be reporting to Tim Cook and that's where that process died. They said I wasn't a good cultural fit for Apple in the new era. Now, and then it turned out what happened. Yeah, you got forced all after I was not a good culture. I would not have been a good cultural fit for that.

SPEAKER_05

01:08:54 - 01:08:58

He wanted radicals and Tim Cook wanted, you know, optimizers. Yeah.

SPEAKER_06

01:08:58 - 01:09:21

So then I went to nice started social capital, but that was my only job interview that I had. When I was leaving Facebook and it was for me, I had the same reaction as Fieberg. I was like, kid meeting his, I don't even want to call it idol. Like, I think I was like a believer meeting Jesus. That's how it felt.

SPEAKER_05

01:09:23 - 01:09:31

I will save my, um, just to get this, uh, we gotta get through two more stories in the dock and I'm gonna leave my other Steve Jobs stories for another time. We got time.

SPEAKER_06

01:09:31 - 01:09:40

It's time that famous clip of you asking in that question where you basically was looking at you like, that's a very famous one because that, that you, you really got the better of him. I thought it was pretty good.

SPEAKER_03

01:09:40 - 01:09:50

All right. Well, you, uh, help companies like ours, uh, sell podcasts, you know, be an audible. So if we wanted to sell a podcast through your service, would you, uh, help us do the fulfillment?

SPEAKER_00

01:09:51 - 01:09:57

You know, we're planning on having all the podcast be free at first, but zing me an email with what you've got in mind and we're open anything.

SPEAKER_03

01:09:57 - 01:10:02

Same email I always send it to you. Yep. Okay, you got it.

SPEAKER_06

01:10:02 - 01:10:07

So strong. I mean, I got to give it to you, Jake. All you have balls.

SPEAKER_05

01:10:07 - 01:12:13

The truth is, I treated emails with Steve many times. He was with the press. He was full contact as you know. All right. It's time. It's time. Four, sacks red meat and we've got a double serving for sacks. Sacks stands are going to be really happy right now. TikTok's divester ban bill has been signed into law. Senate passed the bill. 79 to 18. We've talked about this here over and over and over again. President signed it with the things on the fashrack divest or shut down. TikTok bill was packaged bundled with $95 billion in foreign aid. 61 billion for the Ukraine Ukraine 26.4 billion for Israel and human humanitarian aid for civilians in Gaza and about 8 billion for the Indo-Pacific region, aka Taiwan. How's that at a provision to build our require the president to seek a $10 billion repayment from Ukraine's government? Finally, they're talking about the lease back. We'll see if that ever happens. I'm curious what's the next thing's there. Last year, CMBC reported that bytence was buying back $5 billion worth of stock. And early Thursday morning, it was reported that bytence is exploring selling a majority stake in TikTok's US business. Looks like Gun to the Head is working to a non-tech company without the algorithm. In other words, maybe they sell it to a Walmart, somebody who they don't consider super competitive. I'm not sure who the non-tech company is here. It could be Disney. Would it come to mind as well? And remember, Disney did look at buying Twitter, but they didn't want the toxicity of an open platform. TikTok is obviously heavily scrubbed of anything that is aggressive. You can't show a movie clip with somebody getting attacked violently. It's very PG-13. But this is the key part, sex, no algorithm in the package deal. Your thoughts on this, and you can take it either way you like, because I know your fans want to hear about everything. Do you want to talk the budget bundling or the TikTok ban, which, and the divestiture, which seems to be happening?

SPEAKER_02

01:12:13 - 01:12:58

Well, the overall theme is just that the national security state got everything I wanted. It got $100 billion for to support forever wars. It got a TikTok ban. And this divester sure things a total fig leaf because it's not clear that China's going to allow TikTok to divest because it would set a horrible precedent. where the U.S. could just pass along and then essentially steal the value of a Chinese company. So I don't think they're going to build a divest. I think they're just going to get shut down. So the security states getting its wish there. And then another bill that you didn't mention, which they just passed, is they approved the warrantless spying on Americans. So the federal government can out spy on you and your communications without even getting a warrant.

SPEAKER_05

01:12:58 - 01:13:00

Ridiculous. So disgusting.

SPEAKER_02

01:13:00 - 01:13:53

Then ask security state just seems to get whatever it wants. And there was large bipartisan majority's fall of this. And the way they do it is they can juror all these fears to try and fear us into. Well, if we don't agree to warrantless spine, then you can get a terrorist attack. Well, When has a warrant requirement ever gotten in the way of actually doing what we need to do to stop terrorism never. But that fear was enough to get Congress to authorize that legislation. They're keeping us involved in this forever war in Ukraine by this fear that Putin's somehow going to conquer all of Europe, which I think is total threat inflation. And this TikTok fear that somehow what videos we like is like precious data that's being shared with the CCP. Look, I'm willing to believe it's possible, but they never proved that.

SPEAKER_05

01:13:53 - 01:13:55

Oh, they've proved that data. It's been proved that.

SPEAKER_02

01:13:55 - 01:14:07

Yeah, you have shown a way debated this. We debated this. You showed one article from the New York Times about how, yeah, that's not proof, J. Cal. Those were two rogue employees who shared some data with.

SPEAKER_05

01:14:08 - 01:14:21

I spoke to your top supporters. I spoke to multiple TikTok employees myself personally and they tell me that the Chinese representatives are all over the company and inside of it. Free burger, your thoughts?

SPEAKER_02

01:14:21 - 01:14:27

Well, what was the judicial process or legislative process to prove that? They have hearings, they prove that.

SPEAKER_05

01:14:27 - 01:14:46

I understand that, you know, you're here, say, and your view is good enough to ban it, but I don't, you know, my position on banning, thanks for asking is based on reciprocity and the potential damage it could do and based on how influential and powerful the product is and how they could change sentiment and censorship. And the Chinese government is

SPEAKER_02

01:14:47 - 01:15:33

Fantastic. Fantastic. Fantastic. Fantastic. Fantastic. Fantastic. Fantastic. Fantastic. Fantastic. Fantastic. Fantastic. Fantastic. Fantastic. Fantastic. Fantastic. Fantastic. Fantastic. Fantastic. Fantastic. Fantastic. Fantastic. Fantastic. Fantastic. Fantastic. Fantastic. And the government cannot use it to shut down apps that don't like. And I guarantee you, I think here's where this goes next. I think telegram is next on the hit list. You have a Russian founder. Okay. You have rumors for years. I'd say unproven that somehow telegrams been back toward by the Russian government. You know, you've all heard those those rumors. It's kind of like the. Where is he?

SPEAKER_05

01:15:33 - 01:15:37

So isn't he out of there? He's in Monaco or something. He doesn't live there.

SPEAKER_02

01:15:38 - 01:16:20

Here's what you're going to see. You're going to see, at some point, you'll see a media campaign that we promoting the idea that telegram is used by Hamas, by terrorists, by groups that the U.S. doesn't like and that it's backdoored by Russia and that it's got some shady investors on its cap table and no politicians going to want to stand up and defend telegram and all the industry money. that flows into Washington will be promoting this idea that we have to ban it because think about the market share gains. Then all of telegrams competitors will make another one's wired into DC. So this is a foregone.

SPEAKER_05

01:16:20 - 01:16:28

But you will just say on Twitter, you thought this would come to accent to rumble. You actually think they'll take this to American companies. I think that that seems like a stretch.

SPEAKER_02

01:16:29 - 01:17:35

Not really, I think that the first step is you go get telegram because that's easy. You know, this guy is an agent of Putin, obviously. And anyone who says differently is, is themselves an agent of the Crimea, that's how this is how this rhetoric works. So first of all, the whack telegram, and by the way, we all know the companies are going to benefit enormously by slurping up that market share. And then if Biden wins a second term, they will eventually set their gun sites on X, but look, that's a battle because in X, you have a billionaire who has resources who's willing to stand on his hind legs and fight. Yeah. And so they're not going to do that before the election, but look, if we continue to see more weaponization and more censorship, I believe that eventually what they will do is try and push Elon to divest X. And look, all they got it all, all they got to do, listen, Jacob, this, this act in power, it's your journey, general, to open an investigation. So I think that in a second, Biden term, they will open an investigation and start ratching up the pressure on Elon to get rid of X because that's clearly what they want.

SPEAKER_05

01:17:35 - 01:17:40

Yeah, and the TikTok guys bought a Trump ready. So he's going to fight for it. Free brag, you're that's

SPEAKER_07

01:17:42 - 01:18:24

I don't agree that the Chinese government will shut it down. I certainly don't have any insight into what the Chinese government is discussing or thinking about doing, but there's a lot of money to be made here. So if I'm bite dance, I'm very likely get a higher a bunch of bankers running an auction process and sell this thing and I have a year to do it. This is a business that did $14 billion in revenue last year, according to a published report. 170 million Americans are active users of TikTok, a revenue group 40% plus last year. So I don't know how they would just say, hey, let's write this thing off and shut it down when we could probably generate.

SPEAKER_02

01:18:24 - 01:18:53

I'm basing that statement on publish reports that China has said they're opposed to the force sale of TikTok in the US. and that it might change. But I think about if you're the Chinese government, you're adamantly opposed to this, you know, like the precedent. And you don't really care, you don't really care about tech entrepreneurs getting rich. So let's assume the the founder CEO of TikTok lives in Singapore. Right. So why would they give a shit?

SPEAKER_07

01:18:53 - 01:19:41

But now let's assume that they let it go through. Think about the implications. Morgan Stanley and Goldman Sachs get hired to run a joint process to auction this thing off, right? They're going to run this process for a period of months. There's only a certain number of folks that could actually make a bid to buy this thing. Maybe some of the big guys in private equity, Silver Lake, and others trying to pull some capital together to buy it, but I think it's more likely a big company tries to buy it. Siffius and anti trust will probably not be And as relevant here, it's normally would be certainly siftiest wouldn't be because it's being completely divested. Anti-trust, there's a real question on whether they're going to be given some leeway. But even if anti-trust does apply, who could buy TikTok in the US? There's only a handful of companies that could or would.

SPEAKER_05

01:19:41 - 01:19:47

Oracle, maybe Microsoft? They said it's not a tech, is the report.

SPEAKER_07

01:19:47 - 01:19:47

That it's not a what?

SPEAKER_05

01:19:48 - 01:19:54

not a tech company. So that would be Walmart, Disney, you start to get to over maybe a media company, right?

SPEAKER_07

01:19:54 - 01:20:42

Yeah. Absolutely. I do think that there's a really interesting Netflix maybe Netflix. So I think that there's a really interesting rewrite of the landscape a little bit here where some of the traditional big tech companies meta Google have really had total control over the consumer media consumption on the internet that there's going to be a real difference here that might a be triggered in how the industry kind of is sorted based on the TikTok auction if it does happen. And I think it's probably like we could argue all day about what the Chinese are going to do. But if it does go through, there's next story you're going to see in the Wall Street Journal is how much money the bankers are going to make on fees running the auction here. And then the next story you'll see after that is going to be about how the tech and media landscape had been re-shuffled and rewritten by the TikTok deal.

SPEAKER_05

01:20:43 - 01:20:50

from off, Paul, I have Batia, our chairman dictator. Can we see a poker tonight? What are your thoughts on this, if any?

SPEAKER_06

01:20:50 - 01:22:17

I think the thing to keep in mind is that the reason why the government is banning TikTok and I'm totally speculating and guessing has nothing to do with these silly little videos. But it is that the overwhelming majority of the people that download TikTok keep the microphone on and it is an ambient passive surveillance device. And I think to the extent that A foreign government has access to whatever you hear ambiently and randomly, while the app is not even being used, is the real problem here. And so I think that that's effectively what this is as a listening device into an African-American. And I think that that's pretty scary to folks. The second thing is with respect to the actual product itself, in the absence of that algorithm, which I think is just incredible, has somebody who is a voracious user of that app until I deleted it, I don't think the product is much of anything. It's probably no better or no worse than shorts or reels or some of these other alternatives. So I don't see the economic justification for anybody who already has one of these assets to buy these things because the content is roughly the same now. It is the thing that makes that app as the Algo. But the videos are everywhere. They're on YouTube, they're on Instagram. They're everywhere. So I don't see why anybody would pay a lot of money for this, especially in the absence of a bi algorithm. This is my honest thought. What do you think, Jacob?

SPEAKER_05

01:22:17 - 01:24:41

I think this is a security risk. I've made that clear here before. And I don't think we would ever allow Iran, North Korea, Russia to run any of these companies inside of America nor would they allow us to run Facebook, Acts, etc., in their countries. So I think reciprocity is the key, but I am running a little test right now. I posted this video to my TikTok today, and it's under review. They won't let it publish. And the video is very simple. It quotes a study from Reuters. You don't have to play it. I'll explain what I said in it. But I just took a video of the Reuters study. What this Reuters study shows you. Pull up the chart there, Nick. Is that in this Reuters study? The CCP is censoring sensitive topics related to China. And so if you want to understand why the CEO, why do you have worked with before Chimoff at Facebook? The CEO is saying it's a ban when in fact it's a divestiture. If you want to understand why they care about this, it's because they want to be able to influence things in America. They want to have data on Americans. It's spyware. That's my position. And it's the most censored platform I think in America, which I know you feel passionately about sex. So I did this video and just like COVID-19 was blocked on X. Here in America, in the US, if you talked about Wuhan, if you talked about any of these topics, our government banned it. Well, if you talk about Hong Kong, if you talk about weagers, if you talk about Tiananmen Square, your video will not be posted. In fact, my video is held right now. If you're here on my voice right now, I'm doing a little experiment. I want everybody to post that chart and just read the Wikipedia page, maybe talk about Tankman, talk about the Hong Kong riots, and then use the hashtag, don't ban TikTok. as a little bit of a cheeky way for us all to track each others. And I want to see if 100 or 1,000 all-in fans post one of these if they all get banned or if we can see any of them so we can do a live censorship test here in America are Americans allowed to talk about the elements where the Hong Kong riots, weegers or any of those things. And you can also if you want, have mentioned me. I'm at Jason Calcana.

SPEAKER_06

01:24:42 - 01:25:56

I want to I want to I want to see this thing banned immediately our divest I would prefer to be divested ones I think people love it one quick thing I think but sacks that is really interesting about them then going off to telegram The the big issue that I think telegram has always had is that it is encrypted, but it's it has its own form of encryption that they rolled themselves, right? Like typically, I think what's happened. A lot of these other folks just use pretty standard signal. I think as well, use SHA 256 encryption, which is like pretty standard, but there is always a fear that the US government actually can unencrypt that and has some kind of a back door. That was always the fear of that issue to 56. And so Pavledurov and his team basically rolled his own, which is also six bits of metric encryption, but different standard altogether. And what people would say is, hold on, he has the back door to access point. So that was always the claim counter claim between these things of why telegram was always painted in more of a sketchy corner. I'm not saying that it's true. And I think that if they go after it, I think it's because this underlying encryption model is something that we can't get access to. And so they'd rather just eliminate it to your Disaccess point.

SPEAKER_02

01:25:56 - 01:26:05

All right. I think Telegram can stick its head between its legs and kisses ask goodbye, because they're next on the hit list.

SPEAKER_05

01:26:05 - 01:26:07

All right. We're going to say, what do you think of my don't fancy.

SPEAKER_02

01:26:07 - 01:26:21

I don't understand how short he stayed has has used for yours, like the one that Jake helped. explained to get a new power. And it's not a power to ban TikTok. It's a power to ban any foreign controlled app. So goodbye telegram.

SPEAKER_05

01:26:21 - 01:26:27

What do you think of my, uh, don't ban TikTok challenge. Sex. The censorship challenge.

SPEAKER_02

01:26:27 - 01:26:29

Yeah. I mean, fine. Whatever.

SPEAKER_05

01:26:29 - 01:26:32

Wow. You're so passionate about. It's over.

SPEAKER_02

01:26:32 - 01:26:37

It's over. It's over. Yeah. Look, the not security state gets whatever it wants. It's pretty clear.

SPEAKER_05

01:26:37 - 01:26:39

Not if we stay vigilant.

SPEAKER_02

01:26:39 - 01:26:45

I mean, if we keep talking about this one, this one, this spine thing happened. I mean, look, I think the wordless spine is actually a verse in the same talk band.

SPEAKER_06

01:26:45 - 01:26:46

Me too.

SPEAKER_02

01:26:46 - 01:26:51

100 times. How are they not required to do it?

SPEAKER_06

01:26:51 - 01:26:56

We eliminated the physical courts entirely. We don't need those anymore, either. They can just do whatever they want.

SPEAKER_02

01:26:57 - 01:27:01

Well, I think we saw a Pfizer, but you don't have to go to the courts to get a warrant. They can just do whatever they want.

SPEAKER_05

01:27:01 - 01:28:54

We need to listen. Let's take a deep dive on that in a future episode because we're running out of time. We really need a story to get to you. Let's deep dive it. Listen, there's a lot of topics people want us to talk about. And this one, I think people are talking about a whole bunch. It's kind of breaking. I haven't couldn't find a Wall Street Journal or a Washington Post covering this, but a lot of people were talking about our next. Biden's 2025 budget includes some serious capital gains. Hikes. There are three proposals in the 2025 budget. We'll put on the links in the show notes to increase cap gains rates, as opposed to income, cap gains. If all three are passed, big F, it would more than double the long-term capital gains tax to almost 45% important to note this only covers those making one million or more a year, which is like less than 1% of the country, way less. And so this is definitely a tax-the-rich idea here. Currently, the highest long-term capital gains rate is 20%, which is really about 24% of you are more than 200K per year, because you have to pay an extra small tax. If these proposals become law, big if it would create the highest cap gains rate in 100 years, here's the chart. This comes from Americans for tax reform, which was done by a Reagan era and NGO, I think, that was formed by a former Reagan administration. They basically make politicians sign that they will increase taxes. The budget also proposes a 25% unrealized cap gain tax. This would be a tax on total income, including unrealized cap gains for all taxpayers worth over 100 million. Okay, sacks. I know this is your red meat. There's a lot of pieces here, but gosh, this is crushing for those folks who want to vote for Biden, but are moderates because this is like the number one thing you can do to stop innovation and investment in the country, which we desperately need. This is a headscratcher.

SPEAKER_02

01:28:54 - 01:29:48

Biden is playing a game of chicken with the tech industry and with, I'd say, suburban voters in general. I mean, this is what you want. At some point, you're going to have to say that this is not okay. I mean, first of all, you've got this 25% unrealized gains tax, which is a wealth tax. If you're somebody who's created a small business or a family farm or you're a tech founder, if you get to qualify for the amount, then you've got to pay 25% and in order to raise the money for that 25% You're going to get taxed on, let's say you try to sell 25% of the company. You're now going to get taxed 45% of that plus 13.3% California. So really, you're going to have to sell more like 40% of the company to just to pay off this unrealized gains tax. And by the way, you haven't made a dime yet. You haven't put a dollar in your bank account.

SPEAKER_06

01:29:48 - 01:29:52

And that's your own confiscation. That's your one. But what happens the following year?

SPEAKER_04

01:29:52 - 01:29:53

This is the same.

SPEAKER_06

01:29:55 - 01:29:57

This is ridiculous. These things will never pass.

SPEAKER_02

01:29:57 - 01:30:34

Let me tell you, I mean, so this is in Biden's budget for next year and this idea, this is not the first time we've seen this. It was in his original build back better proposal and the only reason that failed is because mansion and cinema voted against it. So mansion and cinema are not going to be in the Senate. next year. Okay. They're not running for reelection. So if the Democrats have the trifecta, if Biden wins reelection and holds on to the Senate and House, but without mentioning cinema, I think you have to price in the strong possibility that this passes. I don't think you can just shrug it off.

SPEAKER_05

01:30:34 - 01:30:40

Free break your thoughts. Well, we're talking about it here. We're not shrugging it off. This is like five along fire here on X. Everybody's talking about it.

SPEAKER_07

01:30:40 - 01:32:01

Free break your thoughts. There was a poll published yesterday. Bloomberg News morning consults surveyed 4900 registered voters in seven swing states. And the poll showed that 77% of registered voters in those states support basically an asset tax on ultra high network people, people worth over $100 million to keep social security intact. So I think that's a strong indication of where things are headed generally. We can debate the tactics and the nuance of this election cycle, but as we all have talked about and know, social security becomes de facto bankrupt by 233, perhaps earlier. So we have a few years to figure out whether we cut social security benefits in this country or find alternative ways to fund it. And it's pretty evident from this poll that Americans are not in support of raising the minimum age from 67 to 69, which was one of the questions in here. Only 25% of Americans support raising the minimum age for social security from 67 to 69. Meanwhile, 77% strongly support attacks on ultra high net worth to fund the gap of the funding need.

SPEAKER_02

01:32:01 - 01:32:52

Well, yeah, I mean, that's a loaded question because you're basically positioning this tax, which is really complicated in the details and the person getting asked the question doesn't understand it compared to the most popular program that the federal government has, which is so security. So obviously it's going to pull that way. I mean, look, you can ask a question in a way on a poll to get whatever answer you want to get to. I can basically prove to you that a majority of the American public is either for Ukraine funding or against Ukraine funding, depending on how you ask the question. And look, yeah, obviously taxing people with $100 million of paper wealth is going to be more popular than sacrificing your social security, obviously, but that doesn't mean that this is a good proposal economically at all.

SPEAKER_07

01:32:53 - 01:33:04

No, it doesn't, and I don't think that that's what really matters. I think most folks are voting for themselves. They're particular needs and the majority of people need more support.

SPEAKER_02

01:33:04 - 01:33:21

And this is the timing of safety security. I mean, you know, what is this, this tax going to get us? It's going to destroy the startup ecosystem. It's knocking about the budget. We're still spending way too much for that. It doesn't pay down the debt. It doesn't save so security. It's just more more taxes.

SPEAKER_07

01:33:21 - 01:33:38

I think that's the inevitable trend. I'm just saying, I don't know how it's going to manifest, but I think it's inevitable that we're going to raise federal revenue through some form of taxation that's going to feel deeply uncomfortable and inappropriate and it's going to have negative economic consequences. And this is where the economic spiraling

SPEAKER_02

01:33:41 - 01:35:11

But he actually had a brilliant blog post about this called all it takes is all you got. And what he pointed out is he was talking about the federal governments run away deficits and dead and borrowing. And somebody responded to him with this chart that shows assets versus liabilities. This guy, Brent, who I guess is a foil on X for biology sometimes said oops, you only showed one side of the balance sheet common mistake though, basically saying that biology didn't know what he was talking about because biology was only showing the red, which is the government liabilities, the government debt. And he showed that well, no, you have to include all the green bars, but what are the green bars? Those are private assets. and balls you pointed out that no actually you're proving my point because people like you just see all of the private assets of citizens of the United States as belonging to the government. And if you actually extend the red bars to the present value of all the long-term liabilities that this government has, it's more like 175 billion. You know, people like this, see the 160 trillion of private wealth as being on the balance sheet of the federal government and being used to offset the 175 trillion of liabilities. In other words, All it takes is all you got. That's the directory we're on.

SPEAKER_05

01:35:11 - 01:35:12

Is we.

SPEAKER_02

01:35:12 - 01:35:44

You're for all one K is the government and we're going to go after you're going to absolutely go after your retirement accounts because that's the only way they're going to pay off these liabilities. It's gross. Well, there's another there's another great tweet by a guy who said laptop mercenary. I don't know this account, but he says something funny. He said imagine being a California hire owner options either vote for your own financial liquidation or vote for the orange man. Yeah, it's a project mate dude. Checkmate. You guys got to put on the red mega hat. It's happening.

SPEAKER_05

01:35:44 - 01:35:52

Uh, here's a, I mean, I read the, you're, uh, you're all, you know, you don't have to wear the, like, you don't have to wear the red maga hat.

SPEAKER_02

01:35:52 - 01:35:55

When you go into that polling booth, nobody knows the button you're pushing.

SPEAKER_05

01:35:55 - 01:36:01

Yeah. Okay. I mean, these, these are the two worst candidates in the history.

SPEAKER_02

01:36:01 - 01:36:31

Jason Biden has had Biden has had four years to prove that he's a moderate. He's had four years to prove that he represents the normal C that he promised us when he first got elected. I mean, well, how much more does it take for you to understand that his policy is radical? Yeah, I mean, he combines the foreign policy of Dick Cheney with economic policy of Elizabeth Warren. How much more does it take? Are you going to vote for your own financial liquidation? Because that's what we're talking about.

SPEAKER_05

01:36:31 - 01:36:43

It's the worst two candidates, and I think I'm voting for the third. Ooh, an RFK endorsement. Wow, I didn't see that. I think I just have to put in the protest vote of RFK or a lot of artists.

SPEAKER_02

01:36:43 - 01:36:48

I think he's a great vote. Yeah, for Democrats. I mean, crazy.

SPEAKER_05

01:36:48 - 01:36:57

I think maybe I go after the rock, but yeah, congratulations on Biden on making this easy for Trump with his build back broke plan. So dumb.

SPEAKER_06

01:36:58 - 01:37:15

All right, everybody, this is the world's greatest podcast. By the way, Jason, if you do decide in the end to vote for Biden, I'll send you some luxury tents that you and your kids could sleep in. You can tell them stories about how you voted for him. It's so brutal.

SPEAKER_05

01:37:15 - 01:37:18

I mean, the worst two candidates of our lifetime.

SPEAKER_02

01:37:18 - 01:37:26

Jake, I'll hear your choices, okay? You can vote for Trump or you can give up this the ski lodge. What's it going to be?

SPEAKER_05

01:37:27 - 01:38:06

I mean, at this point, I think I'm RFK all the way. I think I got to go for, just try to support independence. I just think we got to balance the budget shout out David Friedberg for the Rain Man himself, David Sachs. Yeah, David Friedberg, the Sultan of science. We didn't get to science corner this week. We're going to start with it next week. And the chairman, dictator, chamoth, polyhopatia. Oh, yeah. World's greatest moderator of the number one podcast in the world. I'm manifesting. Can we get the Spielberg? I'm manifesting tracking here and take us out, Spielberg. Young Spielberg, baby, come in at you. Z1, Hubsi, buddy. Love you, boys. Bye, bye. Happy best of you.

SPEAKER_04

01:38:06 - 01:38:15

Welcome, everybody to episode 175. It's right. It's episode 175. It's episode 175. It's episode 175. It's episode 175. It's episode 175. It's episode 175. It's episode 175. It's episode 175.

SPEAKER_06

01:38:23 - 01:38:26

What's the largest list in two podcasts?

SPEAKER_04

01:38:26 - 01:39:15

I'm Manifestie. Come on, just like a dragon on you. There's a world where it's called a player. And every watch moment is real over him. Is that a new word that most is used for lying? Not always just like, you know, the greatest poker player.

SPEAKER_06

01:39:15 - 01:39:20

And just so you know tonight, there's a murderer's role. And hell, he is flying back. You saw the line up.

SPEAKER_05

01:39:20 - 01:41:25

And now the plugs follow the show at x.com slash the all-in-pod. Our TikTok is at all, underscore in, underscore talk. Our Instagram is the all-in-pod and on LinkedIn search for the all-in-pod cast show is produced by producer Nick Calacanis and our CEO is John Hall. You can find some off at x.com slash, Chema, and you can sign up for his weekly email. What I read this week at Shemoth.substack.com, sign up for a developer account at console.grock.com and follow. Send deep modra. x.com slash, send deep. You can follow David Sachs at x.com slash David Sachs. Sachs recently spoke at the American moment conference. It's his pinned tweet on his x.com profile. Follow David Friedberg, the sultan of science at x.com slash Friedberg. Oh, hollow is hiring, and David Freeberg is the CEO. You can click on the career stage at hohollowgenetics.com. We're hiring a full-time researcher here. We need somebody who can do data research for us. We're looking for somebody to make charts and do surveys and research deep research. If you'd like to apply, go to allimpocas.co slash researcher allimpocas.co slash researcher to apply. The summit is taking place in September, in Los Angeles again at UCLA, summit.allinpodcast.co. I'm Jason Calacanish. You can follow me on x.com slash Jason or search for this week and start up on YouTube and follow my other podcast. I'm hosting my liquidity conference again in Napa on June 2nd to the fifth, only LPs and GPS come to this event, 125 people every year. This year's speakers include Ibrahim Ajami from Mubatala. David Freerberg, Chamal Polyopatia, Gavin Baker, Jordan Stein from Crescent Partners, Monique Woodard from Cake Ventures, I'm an L.P. My guy, Pegeman from Para Ventures, and Phil Dollych, my bestie, liquidity.pod.com slash summit to apply for one of the few remaining tickets we'll see you next time.