SPEAKER_02: OK, besties are back. Besties are back going around the horn. Rain Man David Sacks calling in from an undisclosed location, suffering through two code 13s in one lifetime. And David Friedberg is here, the queen of quinoa, spacking everything in sight, living the life, calling in from a nondescript Ritz-Carlton room, it appears to be. And of course, the dictator himself, Chamath Palihapiti, a cackling like a fool. Welcome back, everybody. This is what you pay for with your subscription to the All In podcast brought to you by Slack. If you didn't own Slack shares, raise your hand. It's been an incredible week on a number of levels. We're going to talk this week about Salesforce buying Slack, Trump and Section 230, the Coinbase, the ongoing Coinbase saga. Friedberg found some interesting science that could save humanity. And of course, the trust fund socialists in The New York Times who hate their parents for giving them money. Let's start off with... Let's start with off the most important thing.
SPEAKER_03: What is that shirt undershirt combo you're wearing? I mean, look, you have buttons on buttons. It's incredible. Did I break the layer rule? You can't... If you're going to layer properly, you can have only one layer of buttons, but to have two layers of buttons... That's not how it works? No, Jake, Jake, Jake went in and got an almond...
SPEAKER_04: I don't know. Layers are for players, not me.
SPEAKER_04: No, he got like an almond milk cappuccino. And he's like, I like how that barista dresses and I'm going to wear that from now on. Wait a second. Can I ask a technical question? Can I have buttons? I can't have buttons on
SPEAKER_02: buttons, but can I have buttons and then a zipper up like with the... No, you can't do that either. Listen...
SPEAKER_03: Chamath has had a weird aversion to buttons ever since he spent the time in Italy.
SPEAKER_03: Did you... Was he button shamed in Italy? I was a little button shamed, but I'm looking at... Sax has buttons on his collars, which just makes no sense. Sax is wearing the same Brooks Brothers shirt that he graduated high school in.
SPEAKER_02: At Brooks... He owns 17% of Brooks Brothers at this point from the number of blazers he's bought there. All right, let's get off to it. We've insulted each other. I don't think Freeberg's taken the brunt of anything yet. Anybody have any chop busting they want to do with Freeberg or is that just sort of built in? No, Freeberg took the tablecloth that I used for a picnic in the summertime and made it into a shirt.
SPEAKER_03: There it is.
SPEAKER_01: You know, you have to be frugal at this time. And also, Freeberg cares about the environment.
SPEAKER_02: He's not going to just land a picnic...
SPEAKER_03: Why was it? It was a... Blind gig go to waste. It was a hemp-based tablecloth. And so I knew it was going to get taken and stolen. I love how I choose to spend my time with you guys. It just pays off. Here we go. All right.
SPEAKER_04: Can we kick this off?
SPEAKER_02: All right, let's kick it off with our advertisement for nobody because tomorrow will not let me make any money off of this podcast. And thanks again for the suggestion that we launch a syndicate with no carry. Now a bunch of dipshits on Twitter are like, hey, when is the all-in syndicate starting? I'm like, never. I need to make a living. I need to get my beak wet. And this week...
SPEAKER_03: I'm sorry, but I think an all-in syndicate would be super, super disruptive and cool.
SPEAKER_02: I'm totally fine with running it as long as we can have the 20% carry and I'll manage the whole thing. We got four people on the call. We each get 5% carry, but we got to make a living here. Not everybody's made a Chamath. Not everybody's got SPACs A through Z or had all of their Slack shares bought. I think we'll kick it off with that. Chamath, we saw this week. In fact, just two days ago, Salesforce in a record transaction for a SaaS company, I think it's the highest ever paid for a SaaS company, $27.7 billion for Slack, which has only been public for just over a year, I think. You were, I think, did the series B and Slack right after they did the pivot at Social Capital. I don't know if that was in front of one or two, but Phil Helmut keeps talking about it. It was a series B in tiny spec, but it was the
SPEAKER_03: series A in Slack. There's a really important story, which is that myself and Ray Co, who's my partner at Social Capital, we've worked together now for, my gosh, I think it's probably 15 years, wrote a really great memo justifying the investment in Slack. It had to do with one thing and one thing only. We ignored the revenue and ARR. It was fine and nice and good. But the single biggest thing that we were attracted to was something that we looked at and which was called intercompany edges. Even back in 2015 or 2016 when we did this original investment, there was this dynamic where people across companies were communicating via Slack channels. I was completely stunned by this idea because that was effectively a substitution for email. Because the only way you communicate across companies today is by email. David is at craftventures.com and he emails me at socialcapital.com and I email Jason at inside.com. That's how we communicate across businesses, except now all of a sudden you could be messing and having a much more real-time interface. That to me was incredibly disruptive and it justified the entirety of the real forward-looking investment thesis. Now, fast forward five years later and these guys have more usage on a daily basis than Facebook, which is stunning because these guys have 10 million DAUs and Facebook has 2 billion. It just goes to show you the quantity of traffic and the volume of information and theoretically, productivity that's happening on Slack. I'm not sure what Salesforce bought. I actually think that you can make a case why it's a shame that it got bought, a very strong one in fact. What they did get, whether they know it or not, is an intercompany edge effect, which is the most disruptive thing to email. In the hands of Salesforce and that sales team, I think it has the ability to really be a very disruptive force for good in enterprise software. All right, so Sax, this is a natural passing of the ball to you in the baton because you
SPEAKER_02: did Yammer, sold it to Microsoft for a billion dollars and obviously Slack was the mobile successor to the desktop version of Yammer and you got a lot of your fingerprints all over this. But the fact is you did a tweet storm about it. Slack is an unbelievable success. Stewart is a great founder. He sold his first company Flickr for 30 million. This one for almost 30 billion. So that's pretty nice. But there was one failure and you pointed out in your tweet storm. Explain what the one failure, if you could pick out of the hundreds of things, thousands of things they did right, there was one thing they did wrong that to Chamat's point, would have resulted in them remaining an independent company that could have become worth more than 27 billion. Yeah, it was a slowness to embrace the idea of enterprise sales.
SPEAKER_05: And by the way, let's put this in context. I mean, Stewart and the Slack team did a phenomenal job, 30 billion dollar exit, seven years of just about flawless execution. So I don't want to, and also, you know, I was an investor in the company, so thank you to Stewart for letting me invest. I definitely don't want to sound like an ingrate or a critic. I mean, they just, they did a phenomenal job. But if you were to nitpick just one little thing that I think they could have done faster, it would have been embracing enterprise sales. The big learning from Yammer, you know, we learned this at Yammer from 2008 to 2012, is that enterprises don't self-serve, right? They don't self-close. Bottom up, SaaS products are phenomenal for generating top of funnel, basically generating leads. But you have to have salespeople close the deals. And enterprises don't just kind of pull out a credit card and self-serve. They need a salesperson. And I think there was something in the DNA of Slack that actually I see really very commonly in the DNA of sort of producty SaaS companies, producty SaaS founders, which is they kind of have a reflexive dislike or distaste for sales. And they resist the idea of sales. And they want to believe that they can just be entirely product-driven. And what I see across the board is they all come to the same realization that we had at Yammer, which is we have to have a sales team. And I do remember back in 2014, the whole Yammer sales team was basically rolling off because of, you know, Microsoft acquired the company in 2012, and there was an integration period. And by 2013, 2014, they were all looking for jobs. And I remember, you know, my former CRO, I think, was interviewing at Slack. And it would have been such a perfect thing for them because he had just learned all the lessons of how you layer on kind of an enterprise sale on top of a bottom-up product. And they just weren't ready to make that higher yet. And so, look, if you're going to nitpick, look, $30 billion outcome, no one's criticizing. But if you're going to nitpick, you know, it's an A-plus regardless. But, you know, this would be the one thing you could say. Well, congratulations all around to everybody involved, especially Phil Hellmuth, who was an
SPEAKER_02: LP in one of Chamath's funds. So if you need insights on Slack or anything inside information, you can just follow Phil Hellmuth on Twitter at being the greatest or I am the greatest or I'll always be the greatest. One of those Twitter handles is his. But, Jason, I mean, you basically came to the same conclusion in your emergency pod, right? I mean-
SPEAKER_02: I did. I hadn't seen your, I think your tweet came after the emergency pod. But, yeah, it just seemed to me this company, unlike Zoom, should have been able to grow quicker. And
SPEAKER_02: if you look at their numbers, they had 87 companies that were spending over a million dollars. You put a rabid sales team on that product and they go in like Benioff does with his sales team. I mean, he was just hyper aggressive at just putting huge numbers out there and saying you have to pay us this much money. So much so that I don't know if you remember Elon getting into a public spat with him where he's like, Salesforce is horrible software, get it out of the organization. He basically banned it because they came to him with the bottom up people using of Salesforce and said, hey, you owe us this amount of money. And Elon was like, F you, ban forever from inside of our organization. We'll build our own software. We don't need it. And they didn't have somebody and Stewart didn't have that DNA, I think, to say aggressively, we need to charge what this product is worth. And you saw that in, I think one of their strengths and weaknesses, which was they only billed you for people who were actively using the product. Now, that's a beautiful, awesome feature. It makes you not scared to use it. But on the enterprise level, I mean, that seemed to be like maybe one of those non cutthroat things that maybe were holding them back. David, you have any insights on this or should we go on to AlphaFoam? It's really important to remember the mechanics and the game theory around M&A, especially,
SPEAKER_03: big game hunting when you're doing $30 billion acquisitions. It's also kind of true at billion dollar levels, but less so. But the bigger the acquisition gets, you have to remember that there's an asymmetry of information between buyers and sellers. And the question is, who does the asymmetry favor? Because you could look at this acquisition and say, wow, Salesforce is crazy for spending $30 billion. And somebody else may say, wow, Slack was really stupid for selling it for $30 billion. The reality is that I think that there was asymmetries on both sides. I think that what Slack probably saw, and I don't know, because I've been off the board now for more than a year, but I think what they saw was, as David said, just a level of sophistication and scale and ability to cross sell and upsell that was needed for enterprise scale. Either you overcome it with precision and speed, or you overcome it by going the same pace as somebody like Microsoft, but with an equivalent product portfolio. So that's sort of one realization that Slack had. But in the case of Salesforce, what they probably had was a realization that they couldn't go wall to wall inside of a customer, because they didn't really have a product that was useful or usable to every single individual inside of an enterprise. And so both of those two things create asymmetries. There's a level of fear inside of Slack, and there's a level of fear inside of Salesforce. Both of them are about the fear of disruption. And then the question is, who gets the better of the other person in the middle of the acquisition? So the deal could have probably gotten done at 22 billion. It probably could have also gotten done at 45 billion. And that's, again, to a combination of how well you play poker in that moment, who blinks first and the quality of the bankers. This is like two people having top pair on a very textured board. It's like,
SPEAKER_02: yeah, it's- And they're just raising versus each other.
SPEAKER_01: Yeah, it's who plays them. Because it's similar also to how Microsoft bought LinkedIn. Because
SPEAKER_03: if you think about what happened in LinkedIn, if you remember when that happened, it was almost to a T very much like Slack. LinkedIn had a one bad quarter. They got decapitated by... And then I owned it at the time in our public fund. It got decapitated by 50%, 60%, 70%. I mean, something insane for missing numbers by like a few pennies. And all of a sudden, it took a lot of the wind out of their sales internally. It didn't change the user momentum at all. Because the users that were signing up for LinkedIn didn't care what the stock price was yesterday, today and tomorrow. But it all of a sudden created a fear. And I think Microsoft was able to exploit that fear. And within a year, this company was bought for $25 billion. Not dissimilar, Slack had a hiccup, and they got rerated, the stock bounced back. But I think that if Salesforce was smart, they probably created sort of like a white knight kind of bid that said, Listen, you need enterprise scale and the ability to cross sell and upsell, I can give it to you. And Slack probably said, Listen, you need to go wall to wall. So I understand why you need me. And the price is what the price is. Okay, Freeberg. If you look at the pricing, right? So Slack, normally the way
SPEAKER_04: these big M&A, you know, public company M&A deals get done, is the board has to approve the price, and they have to say, this was the right deal for us relative to other options. And one of the ways you assess that is you look at where the share price has been historically, and if you're getting a premium to where the share price has been historically, let's say 30-40% higher than it's ever been, then the board says, Great, that's a good deal, we should take it because we've got a long way to grow into that value. In this case, the deal was done not at a very high premium to where Slack traded just in the summer. Is that right? Chamat, so it looked like it peaked. It's basically if you look at the-
SPEAKER_03: It's a 10% premium, right? Yeah, 10% premium. Yeah. 10% premium. Yeah. We opened the direct listing at 40 or 41. And this was at 45. Right. And so there clearly was a sense of weakness from the board, which is, I think,
SPEAKER_04: why the Salesforce stock traded down afterwards, because if they were willing to sell at that small of a premium, the forecast internally is probably feeling not that strong. And then people translate that into, Hey, Salesforce bought something that's not that strong. There's something a little bit amiss. But obviously, to your point, they're missing a lot of the cross-selling and the synergy that will arise. I think it's a huge slam dunk acquisition. And
SPEAKER_03: I go back to this idea of intercompany network effects. I think they exist and I think they're real. And I think that the Slack product team's ability to innovate around that was not as fast as it could have been, but it was still very unique. And I think it was a true moat. And the tragedy is we won't see what the terminal value is if they were left alone to execute. And in this weird way, I've always struggled with why Microsoft was so overly obsessed with Slack, because if you looked at the team's product, it was much more directly competitive with Zoom. And to this day, still remains much more directly competitive with Zoom than Slack. But there we have it. And if you look at the revenue,
SPEAKER_02: Slack was doing 800 million run rates. Anyway, rounded up to a billion. And yet Salesforce at 20 billion. So 5% revenue to revenue. And then they got 10% of the company. So in that way, if you look at it on a percentage basis, which is how you might look at the Facebook, Instagram, and WhatsApp is what percentage of the existing entity did they get?
SPEAKER_05: Size growing about 60% a year and Salesforce is growing about 22%, something like that. The other thing is the president of Salesforce is Brett Taylor, who was our CTO at Facebook,
SPEAKER_03: who I worked with. And so I think Brett also understands network effects really well. And by the way, in this interesting twist of fate, Benioff was the underbitter, I think, for LinkedIn. And so we've seen Mark around the hoop on these social network, network effect, business tool acquisitions before and finally- Also Twitter. He was running, he was hanging around the basket with Twitter. And then they also brought his name up for
SPEAKER_02: TikTok, which made no sense. So I think Benioff is just looking at this like, if Google and Microsoft and Apple are too scared to buy things because of antitrust, well, I'm under the radar of the antitrust trillion dollars. So I'm the only one in town.
SPEAKER_05: He's under the radar because he doesn't have a play in this sort of communication or collaboration space. And so therefore there are no antitrust issues. If Microsoft were to do it, it would definitely be scrutinized because you could argue that they're adding to their existing dominant market share and collaboration. But Benioff's dream has always been, at least since he launched Chatter to compete with us when we were doing Yammer, this was back in 2010, 2011, is his dream has always been to have a product that could get him onto every seat in the enterprise. His current product set is departmental. I mean, you've got kind of the CRM product for sales and they've got the support cloud for customer support and they've got the marketing cloud for marketing. And so he's gone department by department, but he's never really had a sort of pan, cross company. Yeah. Something that the entire company would use. Like a central login system, right? And Slack is that central login system. But when he came up
SPEAKER_02: against you, it was very, you know, Benioff, you're friendly with Benioff. Benioff came at you so hard. He threw three or 400 engineers at Chatter. He took out full page Wall Street Journal ads. He tried to poach your people. He tried to make the product free. He made it personal against you after you would not sell to him true or false. David Sachs.
SPEAKER_05: I don't think he made it personal, but it was definitely a big thing. Did he feel personal? Did he hear your voice? No, no, no, no.
SPEAKER_03: He did. That's your way of saying he did.
SPEAKER_05: No. I mean, if we had sold to Salesforce, like we ended up... So what I would say is, yeah, we got in like a very... It was a very competitive situation. He didn't beat us. You know, I... What's that? He failed. Does that product even exist? Yeah. It's sort of like a feed inside of the CRM product. It didn't really succeed as a standalone collaboration product. And so we won that battle, but it definitely... I would say it scared us enough to sell to Microsoft because the... We were about to enter a new stage of competition. So here's what happened is he launched his product to kind of be a clone of Yammer inside of Salesforce, but he was initially charging $15 per seat. We were charging like five. And so they massively overpriced it. And then they were on this like slippery slope where they kept lowering the price to compete better with us. And then finally they realized that they should just give the thing away for free as a strategic move. And that was when we decided to sell to Microsoft is we didn't know... We knew we had a better product than Chatter, but we didn't know how it would go if we were up against a free Chatter. Tell us honestly, how much did he offer? What was the meeting like where he made you the offer?
SPEAKER_00: We... Yeah. So...
SPEAKER_05: Take us to the... They were... Yeah. So here's... I'll tell you the backstory. I mean, this hasn't been publicly revealed, but... Oh, here we go.
SPEAKER_05: We got an exclusive. In service of the All In Podcast... Go ahead. Go ahead, David. Get us some ratings.
SPEAKER_05: Yeah. So trying... In service of trying to get us from number three to number one on the charts. No. It's funny. We launched Yammer at the TechCrunch40 conference that Jason, as you know, you were the co-founder of. And Benioff was like a judge. He was a panelist and he was raving about it. And you could just... From the moment we launched, he was raving about it and you could see the light bulb go off with him. And he realized that social was gonna be... At the time, obviously social is big with consumer social networks, but he saw the potential of social or collaboration inside the enterprise. And so, yeah, I mean, I think a year later or something, they were interested in buying the company for around $250 million. The big issue for them, though, was that Benioff had a bunch of engineers who wanted to build it in-house. And so they actually... I don't know what would have happened if they didn't want to build it themselves, but basically they vetoed doing a deal. And so they ended up building Chatter and they threw the 300 engineers at it and they basically spun their wheels for a few years. And anyway, it turned out to be much better for us because we ended up selling the company for five times as much to Microsoft. If we had sold to Salesforce in 2010, it would have been a much smaller deal. But yeah, I mean, he was very interested in it from the get-go. All right, folks, here you have it. Breaking news in the background on what actually happened.
SPEAKER_02: Congratulations to Stuart and the team. Wait, I wanna ask a question. Chamath and Sax, did you guys keep all of the shares you
SPEAKER_04: originally invested in to the exit here? Just to set the context for folks, you invest in a company, it's a small startup, it's exiting for 30 billion. Did you hold it?
SPEAKER_03: For every share that I owned, half of it were half... No. Yeah, of 100 shares that I owned, per every 100 that I owned, 10 of them I sold at 38 right at the direct listing. I wanna say 40 of them I sold in the mid-20s and the rest of it just got taken out at this price.
SPEAKER_02: So your dollar cost average to the whatever, high 30s, maybe 40 or something? Yeah, I don't know my exact... I mean, I sold some and I still own some. So I definitely got
SPEAKER_05: my beak wet from this acquisition. But no, but look, I think I probably sold more than half of them and that was a mistake. And one of my biggest learnings as an investor has been to let your winners ride. My biggest mistake as an investor has not been the losers, it's been selling the winners prematurely. Yeah, my... You did that with Uber as well, David. And I sold some Uber before, but I kept a lot of my Uber,
SPEAKER_02: maybe most of it or half of it, I think. Anyway... Uber, Facebook, I mean, Facebook, when they IPO'd it was worth 50 billion, we all thought that was
SPEAKER_05: unbelievable. I mean, because it was over a 50x return, but... What's the lesson for you, Sax? It's just never sell anything if you can help it.
SPEAKER_03: I sold it on my Facebook in 2014 and bought Amazon and Tesla. I think that you have to be able to sell for two reasons, liquidity and moral obligation.
SPEAKER_05: Yeah, I mean, that's an exaggeration. I mean, you can never... People need to be able to sell, but to the extent you can hold on, just don't sell everything. Always keep... Yeah, keep it. I mean, think about the people who were at Apple in the 80s or Microsoft in the 80s
SPEAKER_02: or Amazon in the 90s. A lot of those people got frustrated holding the shares for so long. And I think keeping at least 20% of your shares forever could be amazing. There was somebody told me, had never sold a single share of. I don't know if that's a true story or not.
SPEAKER_03: I told you that you can't be... Okay.
SPEAKER_02: Okay, anyway, I didn't know that was a leak.
SPEAKER_05: Boop, boop, boop, boop. More breaking news.
SPEAKER_03: Let's move to AlphaFoam. Every alpha era. Most credit all in podcast. Oh my God. The same may or may not be true with AlphaFoam and his shares.
SPEAKER_04: You know what we should do is we should do a... We should put beeps in there, Nick. I was told
SPEAKER_02: beep had never sold a share of beep and then we just let everybody react to it.
SPEAKER_01: This way nobody knows what we're talking about.
SPEAKER_03: Well, I do know that beep has not sold a single share of beep and it has only sold shares of beep to fund capital calls, which is an incredible statement to fortitude and vision. Incredible. Lord. Incredible.
SPEAKER_04: Hey, by the way, it's not always worked out because he did the same with beep
SPEAKER_04: and those didn't go as well. Yeah. I mean, look, you have to diversify when you've got all your eggs in one basket in one
SPEAKER_05: company. Obviously, you have to sell some shares. But one of the things I've just learned over the last 20 years is probably... People ask me, what's your biggest regret or learning or whatever. It's just selling too early is one of the biggest mistakes you can make. Look at PayPal. PayPal is now a $250 billion company. We sold it in 2002 for 1.5 billion. We thought that was a great deal at the time and we sold it for less than 1% of what it's worth today and the product is basically the same. It's just compounding. So never sell is the lesson. Never sell. If it's a winner, ride it. You can pair...
SPEAKER_02: Well, okay. Hold on. Hold on. I'm gonna put a final nail in this coffin then we're gonna
SPEAKER_03: go to AlphaFold. There's a great quote by Warren Buffett, which is, if you know what you're doing, the best thing you can do is be as concentrated as possible. Nobody ever got rich in their seventh best idea. I think that that basically sums it up. But you have to be in a position to have the ability to have that kind of portfolio allocation and I think that's hard. Freebird, explain AlphaFold, please.
SPEAKER_04: Okay. Give me two minutes on... I'll explain proteins and then the importance of proteins and then AlphaFold. So the numbers to remember are four, three and 20. There are four nucleic acids that make up your DNA. We all learned this in high school biology. Sets of three, A, C, T and G combinations define an amino acid. There are 20 amino acids. And a protein is a string of amino acids. So in your body, in every cell, there are these organelles. They make proteins by reading the DNA, taking out a copy of it and turning it into amino acid chains. And that's what we kind of call proteins. But what's interesting is when you make a chain of amino acids, so there's 20 of them that you could put in each point in the chain, it doesn't come out as a long chain. What happens is those amino acids, the whole thing collapses and it turns into a very specific shape. And the shape of that protein is what defines its function. So pretty much every biological function across all life is undertaken by proteins doing something. Some proteins like hemoglobin and our red blood cells will have a very specific little pocket where oxygen molecules stick into the pocket and then it moves the oxygen from your lungs to your cells. It's a pretty amazing protein to exist and it specifically is shaped to do that exact function. There are other proteins that can, for example, rip apart other molecules, break a molecular bond. There are other proteins, for example, that can take nitrogen out of the atmosphere and put it into plants cells that the plants can then use to grow. There's an incredible set of potential on the nanoscale of what you can do with proteins and we see that in life and we're just shocked and awed and amazed by it every day. But in order to figure out how to create proteins that do specific things, you have to know how do those amino acids turn into the shape that the protein ultimately takes and that's what's called protein folding. And so the hard thing is, and why is this important? It's important to know it's important because we can easily read DNA and therefore we can figure out what amino acid sequence is being made to define that protein. But what we don't know really well is what is the shape of that protein and therefore how does it undertake the function that we see it taking in biology. And if you think about the reverse of this, the reverse of this, if you have a function you want to undertake in biology, you can design a protein to do that function for you. For example, bind to a specific point on a cancer cell or take carbon out of the atmosphere or pretty much anything else your mind can kind of imagine on the nanoscale proteins can be designed to do. The challenge is how do you write the code, which is the DNA, to make the protein that does that thing? Well, we don't know how the code turns into the shape and that's what the folding problem is. So the folding problem, there's a data set and the data set is what's the three-dimensional shape of a protein and then what's the DNA code that defines the amino acid sequence that makes that protein. And how do you figure out how to predict the shape of the protein from the amino acid sequence? It has been an impossibility. And again, if you think about this chain of amino acids, they each have little electrical spaces and the way that they bind to each other, it's very complicated. You can't just deterministically define it. We don't have that level of understanding on a quantum scale. So what AlphaFold has done is they have now been able to predict from a sequence of amino acids what the protein shape will ultimately become by learning from a database of hundreds of thousands of structural protein shapes that have been defined through really, really, really difficult scanning microscopes and other techniques to really try and scan a protein on a microscopic scale and then looking at the DNA sequence and figuring out, okay, what's the relationship? And the accuracy of their predictive model now is within the range of error of the microscopes that are being used to actually scan and measure those proteins. So that's incredible because now theoretically you could come up with a design for a protein and you could actually build that protein by writing the amino acid sequence and that protein can do any number of things you want to do. And this has been a difficult problem that's been intractable by humanity and we've been challenged by it for decades. For this machine learning breakthrough to kind of be realized in literally less than three years, I mean, these guys were at a score of 40 last year and this year they're at like nearly 90, which is incredible. And so now, we can now predict what the shape will be from the DNA sequence and this is going to unlock this ability. Everyone's now going to take their model if they license it or whatever they do with it or people are going to go learn using the same techniques that DeepMind used, but it just means that it's possible. And then scientists will go away and they'll say, you know what, I want to do this particular thing on a microscopic scale. Let me design in three-dimensional space a protein to do that thing. Okay, now let me go figure out how to make that protein by writing the DNA code, which is really easy if you can use this algorithm to solve that for you. And it is literally dollars and pennies to make proteins. We can write DNA on a computer, we can get printed DNA sent to us in 48 hours in a FedEx envelope for a DNA printing facility, we can put it in a microbe and we can get that microbe to make the protein for us in a day. The lab cost, any high school biology class can do this now. So by being able to actually figure out what DNA to write based on the objective function of what do we want the protein to do, it's going to unlock this universe of things we can do in medicine, in environmental science, we can do things like break apart PET plastics, we can do things like fixing nitrogen from the atmosphere and getting rid of fertilizer plants, we can create all sorts of new, you know, food solutions, health solutions, environmental solutions. Any chance you can make a pizza that doesn't have carbohydrates, because that's what
SPEAKER_02: I'm thinking about here is, is there a way a healthy pasta or pizza or something like that? But in all seriousness, what do you think the early wins will be out of this technology? And is this a theoretical win that will benefit from in 20 years? Or is this a serious breakthrough that we're going to benefit from in the near term, like one to five years? Both are true. This is an incredibly important advancement in machine learning.
SPEAKER_03: But the reality is that, you know, Google will still have to spend, a deep mind will have to spend a lot of time refining it. And then they have some really big ethical challenges ahead of it. How do you expose this technology to whom and under what conditions? And it's the same situation that open AI has with GPT-3. Although a lot of people, I think, you know, the scale of the computer science challenge maybe was a bigger win in GPT-3, because it was a much more open space. And I think this is a much more specific sort of almost expert system in a way. But the downstream commercial implications of this are just enormous. And so just think about this, like, this is where like, you gotta, you gotta love companies like Google, the fact that they exist because from, you know, PageRank in 1999, to CPC ads in 2003 and four, we have AlphaFold in 2020. And that to me is just that's just an argument against breaking up tech, because only
SPEAKER_02: a tech company with this amount of resource knowledge can then go spend a billion dollars on DeepMind. I mean,
SPEAKER_04: alphabets burning four to $5 billion a year on their quote unquote, other bets line. And people give them a lot of shit for it. But I mean, you hit any one of these things and it's $100 billion payday. I mean, look at YouTube. YouTube's easily $100 billion payday on a billion dollar bet, billion six. That's a 250 to $500 billion company.
SPEAKER_02: Applied semantics. A lot of people miss this, but applied semantics was $100 million bet. And
SPEAKER_04: that's the entirety of AdSense initially. Android, Chrome. Android. Is this the first commercial application of DeepMind? Because until now, you know,
SPEAKER_05: they've had AlphaZero. So there was a period of time. A lot of people, I don't know if,
SPEAKER_04: let me just think about this for a second. Because AlphaZero was really good. I want to be careful about this, but I do think that, Be careful to not disclose. No, but I do think it was disclosed that they've used DeepMind to improve ads quality and to improve YouTube viewing. And as a result of that, you get the number of hours per day of the average user on YouTube to double or triple ad revenue goes by 3x. And I think in one quarter, Google was able to generate something like an incremental 15 billion annualized revenue from DeepMind's algorithm.
SPEAKER_01: And you know what that DeepMind actually did on YouTube? It sent everybody to the outright info wars and Ben Shapiro. Congratulations. Be careful when you send people's minds with artificial intelligence. Maybe you just argued to break them up.
SPEAKER_04: Yeah. But I understand, Sax, that it's being used broadly across the products at Google. Now in a much more careful way is my understanding. Look, I'm a big ally of AlphaVent. I'm a big fan and I love- You know, they were- And I used to work there and I'm very close to people there.
SPEAKER_02: You know who used to be on the board and was the major backer of that company, DeepMind?
SPEAKER_05: Founders Fund. Founders Fund.
SPEAKER_02: Elon Musk too. And he begged them to not sell to Google because- I mean, $400 million exit was a steal for Google.
SPEAKER_04: With 40 or 50 scientists, I think.
SPEAKER_02: Yeah. Absolute steal.
SPEAKER_04: No, Elon has publicly said that he thinks DeepMind is the greatest threat. Well,
SPEAKER_05: he thinks AI is the greatest threat to humanity. And of the people working on AI, DeepMind is the furthest along and therefore most dangerous.
SPEAKER_02: He tried to stop me. I mean, he told me straight up, like when he's been very public about this since, that he said, I'll give you an unlimited amount of money to not sell to Google. He's friends with Larry Page too. But he said, don't sell. I want you to be independent. I want you to keep working on this. But he said that when he saw the AI there become aware that it was an AI, that that was when he was like, wait a second. No, wait. DeepMind is not- Alpha Fold or Alpha Zero is not self-aware.
SPEAKER_05: He felt it was becoming self-aware that it knew what it was. I don't know if that was just Elon
SPEAKER_02: just sort of taking it to a lot of conclusions. No, it's not self-aware. So I mean, I've watched- I mean, it's pretty amazing.
SPEAKER_05: Yeah. I mean, the amazing things that DeepMind has released prior to this were games, right? They had this chess- Publicly. This chess AI called Alpha Zero, which rapidly became not just the best chess. It not only beat every human in the world, it also beat every chess engine because computers became better at chess than humans a long time ago because of their sheer computational power. But Alpha Zero plays like a human, but with kind of that same computational power. And so that created a whole revolution in chess engines. And then they also did that with a game called Go, they created Alpha Go. And basically every single game that you can think of, DeepMind's created an alpha, whatever, alpha version that destroys both humans and computers. But this is the first thing they've publicly announced that seems like it will be available to others eventually that could have tremendous social impact. Imagine the government trying to understand this. Can you imagine them being brought before
SPEAKER_02: like senators and congressmen? Well, these are the new weapons of mass destruction. I mean, let's be honest. Like if
SPEAKER_03: somebody else had Alpha Fold and probably somebody does and just hasn't said, I mean, Google actually values transparency. So that's the only reason why we know. Imagine what they could do as Friedberg said, it's like the opposite of this is basically to design a specific protein that basically destroys organs. There are proteins called prions, which are the scariest thing known in biology, in my opinion.
SPEAKER_04: A prion is a protein that it actually finds similar proteins and based on its shape, it gets those proteins to change and it becomes like a virus. And prions actually, there's an extremely sad series of diseases that are related to prions where your body expresses a protein in the wrong way and then that protein itself gets other proteins to change and creates copies of itself and it spreads. It is a fascinatingly scary biological phenomenon, but there are extremely scary things you can do with designer protein capability. So basically you could make a bio weapon that would be similar to what the aliens and prometheus
SPEAKER_02: and aliens were doing, the engineers. Even much worse. This is why I think they're going to spend years before. So this is why
SPEAKER_03: back to that earlier question. It'll be years before this sees the light of day because they're smart enough to know what they've uncovered. And I think they did the right thing by talking about it because I think there's a lot of really amazing R&D. But the reality is that Google for the next 20 or 30 years will have layers and layers of oversight because it's not like you're going to allow a company to enrich uranium in Mountain View without oversight. And this is the equivalent. We're buying time until governments realize that they have to do it. But let's also remember the protein dataset they trained on is publicly available. Anyone
SPEAKER_04: can access this and with a catch up in machine learning capability to DeepMind infrastructure wise, theoretically, someone could catch... I think it's an inevitability that in the next 24 months someone else will replicate this. Well, right now, I think what DeepMind has done is showed that specific techniques of learning
SPEAKER_03: can overcome limitations in compute. But to your point, David, we're accelerating silicon at a fast enough speed where if you can throw 5, 10, 50, 100, 500 pet ops at a problem, you can run some really, really old version of TensorFlow and probably get to the same answer.
SPEAKER_04: Yeah, I actually think they published... I'm going to find it while you guys are chatting, but they published what the compute needs were on running this. I'll find it in a second.
SPEAKER_05: Let me make one slightly descending point on the whole WMD thing. I mean, look, obviously, who has access to this technology needs to be controlled. We do have to make sure it doesn't get into the hands of bad actors. But the reality is there's plenty of existing WMDs out there that have been around for a long time that bad actors could get their hands on. They could already make extremely dangerous viruses in a lab. They could take something that's as contagious as smallpox and make it as deadly as a bull or something like that. And it's these new technologies that provide a way for us to combat those WMDs because technology has a tendency to become democratized. Was it 75 years ago the US was the only country that had an atomic weapon. Now what, like close to 10 have nuclear atomic weapons. And so these nefarious technologies get democratized anyway, and we really need some of these new technologies and new abilities as a way to combat them. It's like last week we were talking about the ability now to basically print a vaccine using this mRNA technique within two days. You can imagine if someone tried to use a bioweapon and create a new virus, we could print a vaccine the next day. Those are the kinds of capabilities we're going to need to fight the spread of WMD. I think you're right. It's just that you then have a law of large numbers problem,
SPEAKER_03: meaning the previous problem before is you had 180, 190, 200 state-sponsored actors. So if you had a 1% rate of people who are just bad, you're talking about two states. Now when you talk about 5 billion people getting access to code, that's basically running an AWS or GCP instance someplace, and you have a 1% bad guy rate, all of a sudden that 1% really matters. And I think that's the problem. It's just the law of large numbers, David, applied to very, very small rates of immorality. But I mean, you can already do very scary things
SPEAKER_04: with recombinant DNA, taking DNA from one organism, putting in another and sending that organism out. And theoretically, you could have designed a virus that would spread throughout humanity and cause a lot of death. I mean, there's a lot of this capability out there. Except that people would have found that out because you can't run these labs,
SPEAKER_03: and you're not going to get monkey models or mouse models. There's a trail of breadcrumbs there that is easier to track, wouldn't you agree, than just running an instance in a simulation on GCP, sending it someplace to then have a protein printed that comes into FedEx on Friday. And you have to hire people. As we saw in Iran with their chief scientist being whacked
SPEAKER_02: by whoever accidentally whacked him with 60 people, you need to have the brain power to do this. Once you have the brain power to do it, you can track that brain power. And we had, for the last, I think it's since we even tested nuclear bombs, we've had these special planes flying around the globe looking for the signature of nuclear detonations or any kind of nuclear fallout. And we've been flying those forever. I think I think I think I think biodefense
SPEAKER_04: is going to become probably one of the biggest industries on planet Earth starting in the latter half of this century, because you're going to get to a point where digital biology is like a tool, just like software was in the 80s, where suddenly everyone could access it, everyone could use it, everyone could do stuff with it. You have this ubiquity of scary shit happening, hackers everywhere. Hold on, freebird. Didn't we have that as well? And those same claims about nuclear power
SPEAKER_02: and we were been able to for 100 years with nuclear close to 100 years nuclear in particular,
SPEAKER_04: with nuclear in particular, there is a material problem, you have to source and refine material to do something scary. With biology, you don't you can do this anywhere. You can do it on your desktop at home. And you know, it's getting easier, cheaper, faster. And you can use software and a printer and you know, a cheap sequencer do stuff. Do we believe that China has this freebird?
SPEAKER_02: Yes. China for sure. Yeah, I mean, look, this is Yeah, I think the head of DeepMind are behind
SPEAKER_02: 100% 100%. So here's the stats that DeepMind put out, it took the equivalent of 100 to 200
SPEAKER_04: GPUs run over a few weeks to build this model. That is, I don't care how advanced DeepMind is at this point. That's so you know, if that's the model, then someone else can replicate that. You know, someone else. That's what happened to alpha zero, the DeepMind chess engine after they
SPEAKER_05: proved it. Now there's a whole bunch of chess AIs. And I think we're within within one year,
SPEAKER_04: Jay Cal of a lot of startups, replicating this alpha fold technique, and then using that to go do drug discovery. And you'll see 50 startups getting funded 12 to 18 months from now based on some novel protein idea. And I think that this we got to get our beets wet on this and the ISAs
SPEAKER_02: go to this is getting ridiculous. Everybody should get a syndicate com slash all in. But we should create a protein folding syndicate.
SPEAKER_02: Yeah, absolutely. Here it is. Everybody go to the syndicate.com slash all in. If we do this, I'm collecting the emails now. But I will make my first series of bets less on the application and more on the protection. I
SPEAKER_04: think biodefense 30 years from now is going to be so important. If you want to invest with the best ease.
SPEAKER_03: Can there is there going to be a protein that prevents Rudy Giuliani from farting? I mean, what is going on? Sax, let's throw to you as our resident right wing.
SPEAKER_02: Joking Sax, don't take it so personal. We know you didn't vote for Trump. We know you did a write in vote for Tucker Carlson. Let me ask you this. Have you or have you not had dinner with Tucker Carlson? That's a big pause. I call all in.
SPEAKER_05: I've actually yeah, I know I don't think I've had dinner with Tucker, but You've been to a party with Tucker Carlson at Peter Tills house.
SPEAKER_02: No, but let me get to here's what's happening is, well, I feel my dream of gridlock in Washington
SPEAKER_05: for the next four years is slipping away. I described this as sort of like it was kind of a dream scenario that you'd have a divided Congress and the Republicans, they won 50 seats in the Senate in November. And then because of the stupid rule in Georgia that you have to, you can't just win, you have to win by having over 50%. The Republicans would have had 51, but now there's a runoff for these two open seats. And the Republicans were ahead in the polls at the time. They were the more, I think it was mostly it's based on the candidates being more popular than the Democratic candidates. But now because of all these antics around the election, the Democrats have both Democratic candidates have pulled ahead. So yeah, they are now both Democratic candidates in the last couple of, last week or so. Ossopp is ahead of Perdue by about two points, which is a stunner because Perdue has already beaten him before he beat him in the November election. He's, I think a better candidate. That's Margin of Air though, right? And the Margin of Air has always sworn to the Republican. Right. But Warnock is seven points ahead of Loeffler. So that one is outside the Margin of Air. He's clearly beating her and it, you know, and now it looks like Perdue's in danger too. The Republicans just need to win one of those in order for us to have, you know, divided government in Washington, which I think tends to produce better results than giving one party all the levers of power. But this is the crazy thing. And so I think even from
SPEAKER_05: Trump's point of view, you know, I think this is a branding exercise to, you know, prove that he didn't lose. The problem is- How's that going? Well, it's not working. And it looks like it's going to cost the Republicans the Senate, which is something that I think he won't come back from. So if I was advising the president, I would tell him to drop this, you know, these legal challenges. They fired Sidney Powell from the legal team, which I think was a good decision because of her crazy wild allegations. But now Rudy's out there doing the same stuff. Tooty Giuliani.
SPEAKER_03: Tooty. Oh no. Tooty Giuliani.
SPEAKER_04: The answer that I gave you is they didn't bother to interview a single witness. Tooty Giuliani. He was adjusting. He wasn't waking up the genie. He was tucking his pants
SPEAKER_02: in, laying down in the bedroom, having a drink with a Russian underage.
SPEAKER_05: I mean, Rudy is just, I mean, fresh off his guest starring appearance in the Borat movies. I mean, it's like he's- Uncredited. Uncredited. Yeah. It's like he's reenacting My Cousin Vinny or something in these hearings.
SPEAKER_05: How many things am I holding up? But it's going to cost the Republicans the Senate.
SPEAKER_00: Yeah. I think they're, it's so amazing. The Democrats basically now have a stone cold free
SPEAKER_03: roll because there is a very good chance that these guys are going to win these two Senate seats, which would just be absolutely incredible. Absolutely incredible.
SPEAKER_05: So Republicans are definitely figuring this out. Rich Lowry had a great column. He's editor of National Review. He's on the right, but I think provides very good objective political analysis. His last column sounded the alarm bells about what was happening in Georgia. And look, if the issue in the Georgia runoffs is, are these antics, if it's Rudy and Sidney Powell, the Republicans are going to lose the seat, both seats. If the question of the election is whether Democrats should have a free hand to ramp through whatever legislation they want, then I think the Republicans win. So the question is, what is that election going to be about? And the longer that Rudy stays on the stage making these crazy wild allegations, the worse it gets for Republicans. When is the Georgia runoff election? I think it's January 5th or 10th. It's one of those
SPEAKER_05: two. January 5th, I think. My gosh.
SPEAKER_02: Would anybody hear if they had gray hair? And I know we have three gentlemen on the call who have gray hair. Friedberg, somehow you might be, maybe I've answered this question already. Just not on his head. Would any of you dye your hair if you were a 79, 87 year old Rudy Giuliani? No, my hair is white and getting whiter. It's like, it is what it is. It's a passage
SPEAKER_03: of time. I would just move on. David, would you consider just taking that gray right out of your hair? Because you
SPEAKER_02: have the silver fox as it stands. Would you ever consider it? You can see the decision I've made. It's man to man here.
SPEAKER_05: You can see the decision I've made, but look, that's not, I mean, it's, yeah. I mean, that was just like a meltdown. I mean, a literal meltdown, literal meltdown. And it was so like representative of the moment.
SPEAKER_05: The congressional Republicans want to use a hook to get Rudy off the stage. I mean, they cannot wait to get him off the stage. And why don't they just stand up and just
SPEAKER_03: tell Trump to shut this down? I think it's coming. It's coming. So.
SPEAKER_05: Yeah. Oh, wow. So the Republicans are going to stand up to Trump with four weeks left
SPEAKER_02: in office. Wow. What a profile in courage. Freeburg, are you dying your hair? Do you have gray hair? Are you actually dying or have you not hit the gray yet? Just tell us right now. It's an emergency pod.
SPEAKER_04: No.
SPEAKER_02: That's the truth. David, are you dying your hair? Yes or no? This is it. This is so many ways.
SPEAKER_04: Does anybody have an opinion on whether Trump is allowed to pre-parten himself and his kids?
SPEAKER_03: It's exactly where I was going.
SPEAKER_02: Yeah, Sax.
SPEAKER_04: Well, he can definitely pardon his kids. I don't know that there's an open legal question
SPEAKER_05: whether he can pardon himself. Can you pre-parten?
SPEAKER_02: What does it mean pre-partening in this definition? You mean pardon for future crimes? You can only pardon for a committed crime, right? I mean, that's traditionally part of
SPEAKER_04: the... Nixon was a blanket, right?
SPEAKER_05: Well, you can pardon for things that happened in the past. I don't think you can pardon for things that happened in the future. But do you have to define it? What's that? You can give a blanket pardon and have to define it. No, I don't think you have to define it. I think you could just do a blanket pardon. I would advise Trump not to do it if I were one of his advisors. And the reason is that he can only pardon for federal. And the big problem the Trump family has right now are these... Southern district. The Southern District of New York, these mad dog prosecutors who are Democrats, I don't approve of it. Yum, yum. This is... Yeah, they're gonna get him. To me, this is the criminalization of political differences. I think it'd be great if he could pardon because I do think that those guys are... Again, they're trying to criminalize political differences. But pardoning doesn't solve the problem with the Southern District of New York. And Biden has already said that he doesn't believe in having a federal investigation of Trump. And so I don't think Trump has anything to worry about federally. I think the problem is... God, can I just say Biden is just so fucking decent and classy. Isn't it refreshing? It's
SPEAKER_03: actually boring, but isn't it just refreshing? Wait, what were you talking about? Biden is just so decent. Who's Biden? I haven't seen that guy. Has he worked for us?
SPEAKER_02: Oh, he's been great. No, he's been broadcasting.
SPEAKER_01: Well, he disappeared. No, he doesn't disappear. He's just not crazy.
SPEAKER_03: He's Biden... Biden has done a few really smart things. In his acceptance speech, he
SPEAKER_05: did what Churchill advises you to do in victory, which is be magnanimous. He's made the right sort of sounds towards reconciliation. I think saying that he didn't believe in going after Trump criminally. I mean, look, I don't think that would have been a good political move anyway because it would have created a backlash, but it was a smart thing to say. And then I think the other smart thing he's done is... Which is very Biden anyway, which is he's got an establishment all the way for his cabinet. He has not put... He hasn't named any totally crazy progressives to his cabinet yet that the Republicans could latch onto for the Georgia runoffs. And so Biden's doing a very good job right now of appearing non-threatening and doing nothing to blow up his honeymoon.
SPEAKER_03: He and his advisors have run a perfect, perfect... Flawless. It's been flawless. I mean, David, you just nailed it. Like all of the things he could have done to potentially put the Senate at risk or to potentially give Republicans sort of something to hang their hats on. He has given zero space. He has not created a single opening. Well, then... So you would have thought that coming into this election cycle, the way that Trump tried to paint Biden was like this, you know, gaffaholic. And instead he has just been picture pitch perfect. Roxxon.
SPEAKER_05: Well, I think he's a gaffe machine when he speaks spontaneously, which he has not done. I mean, every time I've seen him speak since the election, he's been reading off a teleprompter. But I think that his campaign has run a really good... They have run a good strategy. And now, look, it helps that the press doesn't really challenge him. This is like weekend at Bernie's, except it's like presidency at Bernie's. It's like four years...
SPEAKER_04: Listen, they hit him in a basement. He only reads off a teleprompter, hold him up, put him on the stage, put him back down. Yeah, the press let him get away with it. I mean, no other candidate could have gotten
SPEAKER_05: away with a basement strategy, but the press was so determined to go after Trump that they really gave him a free pass on what Biden believed and what he was gonna do. But look, Biden has run a very good campaign and a very good transition. And really, I think the biggest mistake he made during the campaign was not declaring definitively that he would not try to pack this through court. That was his big mistake. And what happened? The voters split the ticket to give the Senate to the Republicans so that Biden wouldn't be able to pack the court. And so he wouldn't be able to do it anyway. And I think maybe his administration has learned from that mistake, which is don't do anything or say anything that's gonna give Republicans something to latch onto to say that Biden is really a radical. We gotta stop him. And anyway, so now George is in play and Biden could win the Senate.
SPEAKER_02: That's a perfect insight, Sax, because what you haven't seen as well is you haven't seen Kamala Harris out there all that much because that's something Republicans could glom onto. And you haven't seen AOC Bernie Sanders or Elizabeth Warren. They are persona no grata. They are not involved in this. Wow. They are MIA. They are MIA. And the Democrats won't bring them up. And you have Bernie Sanders, like, wasn't he supposed to be in charge of like- Elon Omar wants to cancel rent and mortgages. I mean, they're throwing everything out there
SPEAKER_03: just to see if anything sticks right now. Yeah. Biden has really given Bernie Sanders
SPEAKER_05: and that wing of the party the high hat in these cabinet choices. In fact, he just named a woman to be the head of OMB, the budget director, who has a huge Twitter feud with Bernie Sanders. And the Bernie folks are up in arms about it. I don't think she's gonna get through. But yeah, I mean, Biden has really stiff armed a lot of the progressives in this administration. He doesn't wanna be associated with the hysterical left. I mean, why would you
SPEAKER_02: wanna... I also think it's an appeal to the right. I mean, he is appealing to the right to some
SPEAKER_04: extent, right? I mean, like, by not putting those people in place, I think all the moderates on the right are- He's never gonna be able to appeal to the Trump base. But what he's gonna be able to do
SPEAKER_05: is prevent the Republicans from sort of labeling him as a radical and therefore, win over those independents that he needs. And- By the way, back to Trump for one second. I apologize, because I wanted to ask you, David.
SPEAKER_03: I mean, the other thing that could tip Georgia is this whole craziness where Trump is like, I'm gonna veto the defense bill unless we repeal Section 230. And if you're a military person in Georgia, you're like, wait a second, you're gonna leave my brothers and sisters in arms, basically lollygagging without any financial support because you don't like Twitter's tweet policy? It's gonna seem kind of crazy. Yeah, it was one of these like classic Trump moves where
SPEAKER_05: you feel like... I think he does have a good point with respect to the social media companies. I do think they've been engaging in censorship, they've overstepped their bounds. They do deserve some sort of comeuppance or control. I personally don't think that repealing Section 230 is the way to go for a bunch of reasons that we could get into if you want. But yeah, it was one of these like reflexive Trump tweets. And you heard Republicans in the Senate were very, very quick to shoot it down. And there was an article in Politico where Republicans were quoted, well, anonymously saying they're pretty sick of this shit. That was the quote. And so, yeah, I mean, I think that Republicans on Capitol Hill are kind of ready for those types of antics to be over. Okay. Should he or will he pardon himself and the kids? I mean, I guess that's what it
SPEAKER_02: comes down to. And then I think we should move on. I don't think so. And I don't think it'll matter
SPEAKER_03: because I think Biden will leave him alone and it will not help his biggest risk. And this is, by the way, why they tried to get Jay Clayton to resign from the SEC and move over to the Southern District of New York because they thought maybe he could run some kind of interference. But I mean, I think the state AGs will want a pound of flesh here. And so, should they or should we move on?
SPEAKER_05: Yeah. If I were advising Trump and advising him on how to maximize his legacy, it would be, pardon people in the administration have been treated unfairly. There's no need to pardon yourself. I don't think he has federal exposure. And I would tell him that if Republicans lose these Georgia Senate seats, that he will be blamed for among the base for a long time. And that I think will be hard for him to get past in four years. And so, it's very important, I think, for him to make sure that at least Purdue wins his election.
SPEAKER_00: Yeah. Can I ask another question? What do you think is going to happen with... So, Trump is
SPEAKER_04: trying to make his case, but no one's listening. Twitter keeps putting up his fraudulent, you know, claims, disputed claims thing. And he's been pushing Newsmax and OANN. Do you think those become viable and real kind of media businesses now? And are they actually going to steal an audience away from Fox News? A hundred percent. It's already happened. It's just the increasing
SPEAKER_05: fragmentation of media, right? But the cable networks don't pick them up, do they? The cable
SPEAKER_04: companies? I've seen Newsmax. Newsmax has a cable channel. My theory is this entire twisted,
SPEAKER_02: like crazy right, alt-right mania just fades into oblivion. And the Republican Party reinvents itself. No, no. Because they can't win. They can't win, David. They can't win with this brand.
SPEAKER_02: They did. They did win. They did. And they will not in the future because they just lost.
SPEAKER_05: The Republicans won like 10 or 12 seats in the House. They've almost got the majority back in the House. They almost certainly will win back the House and retire Nancy Pelosi in two years during the midterm election. I'll put money on that right now. They held the Senate. They held the Senate. They're never going to win the presidency again with this strategy. You think
SPEAKER_02: they can win with the demographic shift with Trump in 2024? Really? Yeah. Because. You think
SPEAKER_05: people want to go back to that level of crazy? If Fox News is four years, same. People don't
SPEAKER_05: want the crazy. But this idea that the issue set that Trump ran on and won on is dead, I don't agree with that. Those issues are still there. You'll have a better branded face and a standard
SPEAKER_03: bearer for those issues. And if you say it in a less crazy way, and you're generally less crazy, I think that it will resonate with a lot more people than have already proven that it resonates with. It already resonates with 70 million. Could it resonate with 75 and could they overtake the White House? It's not inconceivable. So I think we can't all of a sudden say this is signed, sealed and delivered. It's a fait accompli. And all of a sudden it's just Democrats the rest of the way. David's right. The down-ballot results for the Democrats were not good. And it's a sign that moderate centrism is the only winning strategy. If you really have a strategy where it's like, I really want to win and not just me, but my party and generations of people after me, you have to run a centrist campaign. Which is why they're retiring the AOC,
SPEAKER_02: Elizabeth Warren, Bernie Bro contingent, right? So if the Democrats marginalized that group of crazy.
SPEAKER_05: Right. There was a Democratic House member, I think Elizabeth Spanberger, who almost lost her seat, I think in like a Virginia, like kind of a swing Virginia district. There was a big call of the Democratic House caucus. And she was just laying into Pelosi and the leadership there, because she was basically saying, don't ever mention defund the police again. If you want me to win my swing district next time, do not mention this ever again. And she was just, this was all in the Washington Post. The call was leaked by about a dozen different press outlets, which tells you there was a lot of unhappiness among the House members who almost lost their seat because of these like radical ideas. The other thing is, and unless all of a sudden
SPEAKER_03: the folks that are in their twenties and thirties are radically different than many, many generations before them, the reality is that they will, as they get older and wealthier, generally speaking, get more conservative. And we are about to go through over the next 20 years, $30 trillion of wealth transfer. And so, I mean, you can wear buttons on buttons on flannel, but at the end of the day, when your mom and dad pass away, and all of a sudden, you have four, five, six, seven, eight million bucks, and you have to think about your children and your children's children, I tend to think people generally do very predictably get more conservative. And so again, another reason why you can't count on a staid interpretation of progressivism. There will be progressivism. I think it just will be a different form of policy, and it'll just be more moderate and centrist, and it'll be normal. Jared which is a perfect segue to the New York Times story that came out on the Friday after
SPEAKER_02: Thanksgiving, November 27th. The rich kids who want to tear down capitalism, socialist-minded millennial heirs are trying to live their values by getting rid of their money. Lately, Sam Jacobs, and I'll read just a little bit of it, has been having a lot of conversations with his family's lawyers. He's trying to gain access to his trust of his $30 million trust fund. At 25, he's hit the age where many heirs can blow their money on harebrained businesses or a stable of sports cards. He doesn't want to do that. But by wealth management standards, his plans are just as bad. He wants to give it all away. I want to build a world where someone like me, a young person who controls tens of millions of dollars is possible. A socialist's college, Mr. Jacobs sees his family's extreme plutocratic wealth as both a moral and economic failure. His parents must be very proud of him. First of all, Sam Jacobs sounds like an idiot and he shouldn't have any money.
SPEAKER_03: Hopefully, he gets his wish. Why did his parents give him $30 million? His trust fund should be given to somebody
SPEAKER_02: who deserves it.
SPEAKER_03: Yeah. But what Sam Jacobs wants doesn't mean that Sam Jacobs gets to decide for everybody else. Just because that he wants to live in a communist country, he can go and find one. The reality is, we just talked about AlphaFold. Well, guess what? There's four of us on this podcast today that over the next 20 or 30 years are more than likely going to invest hundreds of millions of dollars in protein design. I don't do that with any sense of shame. I'm glad that Stuart Butterfield made me a lot of money because it's going to go back into the world in positive ways. And maybe if my children are taught properly, they'll be able to take a small piece of that and they'll decide that there's something else that's important to them. But the reality is that everybody should be allowed to make their own decisions. And I don't want somebody like him, especially a 25-year-old dipshit, telling me or my kids who even though they're under the age of 15 are probably smarter than him, what to do. David, when you read this article, if you did
SPEAKER_02: read it, what were your thoughts, especially in regards to parenting and thinking about our own
SPEAKER_01: kids? Because that's what I started thinking about. I was like, oh my God, what if one of my
SPEAKER_02: daughters wants to take her trust fund and just throw it into the wind? I really don't want- Yeah. Communist- Wait, hold on. I just want to say one more thing. The part that's completely reasonable and that I
SPEAKER_03: respect is this 25-year-old seems to have come to a decision. What I find completely unreasonable and just completely lathered with insecurity is his need to then project it and say it has to be true for everybody else as well. And the grand arcing statements of how it should never be just completely betrays what we've learned in how society functionally works. If you want democracy, the only sort of economic philosophy that's been partnered with democracy to work well is capitalism. And so if you want to change one, you're going to have to change the other. And just the fact that with all of his education, the hundreds of millions of dollars didn't get a course in civics to understand that is kind of sad. I just, before you go, David, I have to read one comment because it's so deranged that it
SPEAKER_02: almost seems like it was part of a script to some billions or secession. Heirs whose wealth have come from specific sources sometimes use that history to guide their giving. That's a New York Times saying that. Pierce de la Hunt, a 32-year-old socialist anarchist, Marxist communist, or all of the above, has a trust fund that was financed by their former stepfather's outlet mall empire. When I, and this is Mr., Mr., I'm sorry, Mx, I've never seen that before, de la Hunt. How do you pronounce Max Hunt? How do you pronounce Mx? Mx de la Hunt takes non-Mx pronouns. Non-gendered pronouns. Has anybody seen Mx? I've never seen that. That was the first time, yeah.
SPEAKER_05: That's the first for me. So I guess if you're non-gender. So you don't have to say Mr. or Miss or Miss. Got it. It's like Latinx where you just can group a bunch of people into one thing. I got it.
SPEAKER_02: This is what Mx de la Hunt says. I'm just trying to figure out how it's pronounced. Maxis Hunt de la Hunt. Taking a shot.
SPEAKER_01: You're, Jason, you're not showing respect for his pronouns.
SPEAKER_02: I don't want to get canceled. It just is kind of hard to pronounce Mx. I don't mean to laugh,
SPEAKER_01: but I need somebody to tell me how to pronounce Mx.com.
SPEAKER_01: But this is the quote that is so insane. When I think about outlet malls, and I think this is what we all think about when we think about outlet malls. When I think about outlet malls, I think
SPEAKER_02: about intersectional oppression. Well, it's the first thing that comes to mind, Freebird, when you
SPEAKER_01: think of an outlet mall. Certainly it's intersectional oppression or a subway.
SPEAKER_04: Can I just point out like the New York Times has become a little bit sensationalist. Like, if you were to ask statistically what percentage of people that are inheriting wealth are going to be stupid like this, the answer would probably be pretty low. But they find the one or two characters like this and they build the story around them. And then people extrapolate that as if that is the persona of the entire population of people that are going to inherit some degree of wealth. And that's the story. And I'm just so sick of it. Like I don't read the New York Times anymore. And look, I love the New York Times. I would read it every single day. I still have it on my phone. I still pay for my subscription, but I'm so sick of the narrative being written by the author's objective. And then they go and find one or two facts that meet that narrative. And rather than speaking about it statistically and saying, we surveyed 100 people that were wealthy, this is how many... And if it was 60% of them saying, I'm going to go give away all my wealth and do crazy shit. Great. Like that's the story. But picking an individual and building the narrative around that individual as if that is the whole kind of... But David, and this is the point, like what they do is they don't even talk about people who want
SPEAKER_03: to give their money away. What they do is they create these caricatures around this like judge judgment. It's all about this like judgment. It's like, I am... It's like, I am holier than everybody else because of these decisions that I made. And I just find it so offensive. Now, can I just tell you, I had my physical last week and I have a doctor in LA who's superb and he's in many ways sort of a philosopher king to me. He's been incredibly important in my life. Dr. Agus? I talked to... His name is Christian Renna at Lifespan Medicine. But anyways, and here's what... And I talked to Chris about raising kids and Chris has seen thousands of people over the course of his journey as a primary care physician and he's seen the kids of these folks and et cetera. And he boiled it down to me. It's like, your job as a parent is to make sure that your children have incredible tools, married with incredible habits. And so some of these
SPEAKER_00:
SPEAKER_03: things are very simple like food and how to eat and self-care and exercise. But some of these things are really important, which is a worldview, empathy, and he uses this word which is called awareness. And awareness is this idea that you understand the world around you. And that's an incredibly difficult thing for parents to be able to teach their kids. But it seems like if you could give them that, that's independent of anything other than time and care. It doesn't matter whether you're rich or you're poor. It doesn't really matter whether you're black or you're white. You can really teach the concept of awareness and empathy. And then the other thing that he taught me was, there's a really big difference between folks like you, meaning guys like me, who grew up poor and who are focused on the generation of money, meaning making money. And some of you make it, some of you don't, but you're living in this existential threat that you feel is hanging over you. And so you go out and you make it and a lot of it is driven by this insecurity you've had since you were young. But make no mistake, your children's lives is harder than yours. And it's about the utilization of money. And whether they want to give it away, or whether they want to use it, you have a responsibility to teach them whether you're giving them $1, a million dollars or a billion dollars. And this is where I think somewhere along the way, these kids as parents, you know, may or may not have done the best. Maybe they did the best they could. But somewhere along the way, these gaps are obvious, at least in the telling of the article. And this is where I go back to, if you're really going to talk about something like this, which actually is quite important, because again, we're going to go through the most enormous wealth transfer in the history of the world in the next 20 years, $30 trillion. So talk about that. If enough people took their inheritance and decided to eradicate student debt, it would be 3% of what's going to be inherited over the next 20 years. Think about it. So obviously, you can do some incredible things. But it's not framed in the right way. It doesn't promote the right kind of discussion. And all it is, is salacious reporting that makes these kids look like caricatures. And by the way, remember that money today is invested somewhere.
SPEAKER_04: So to pull that 3% out would have a kind of crippling and kind of probably deleterious effect on... Yeah, these are Amazon stock, a little lower. No, forget about that. It's factories, family-owned businesses. This is my point also, is I think that there's a responsibility to these stewards of capital. You can call them wealthy all you want, but they really are the people that pull the strings that are where money's moving. And there's, I think, to your point, kind of a degree of responsibility that inevitably has to kind of sit with this group. Because that capital is sitting somewhere. Here's the problem with it is, if they just want to give their money away to a charity
SPEAKER_05: that they thought was worthy and they were willing to live like monks or something and not need money, that'd be fine. We could respect that. But the reason why they're in such a hurry to get rid of this wealth is because they feel like money itself is ill-gotten, that wealth itself is, by definition, ill-gotten. It must have come at the expense of somebody else. You only could have gotten that wealth by ripping people off. And that is the thing that... That's the idea that's really pernicious about this socialism movement is they don't really understand that the way capitalism works, you only get rich by selling something to somebody that they want that makes their life better. I mean, all of us are engaged in the creation of new technologies and new products, and that makes the world better and people are willing to pay for that. And that's what creates value and that's what creates wealth. And it's really just kind of sad that people... It goes beyond this article on these trust fund kids, but this whole condemnation of capitalism and this attack on billionaires or whatever, the problem with it is it doesn't recognize the way that value is created for everybody. Can I give you a quote from Walter Williams who just passed away, who's
SPEAKER_03: a very famous economist? Prior to capitalism, the way people amassed great wealth was by looting, plundering, and enslaving their fellow man. Capitalism made it possible to become wealthy by serving your fellow men. And that's really true. And somewhere along the way, folks have lost the script and have all of a sudden gone back to prehistoric capitalist times. And I think that we don't have enough good examples of constructive capitalism that prove that this is not a bad word. Yeah, and to give it... Yeah, exactly. Yeah, I love the Walter Williams quote. Just to give
SPEAKER_05: another example, Jeff Bezos just gave $10 billion to climate change. $10 billion. And you know what? This kid Teddy... What's the kid's name? Teddy Schafer or something like that,
SPEAKER_02: the journalist, has been riding him on Twitter. I think he works for Vox or something. They have basically been attacking Bezos since he made the announcement that he hasn't done enough. And it's like $10 billion is the largest contribution ever made to a single cause. I mean, obviously, Bill Gates gave it to his foundation. Right. And how did he do that? Because he created Amazon,
SPEAKER_05: which has created enormous value for all of us. Imagine if one of these kids in the article, instead of just giving their money away... By the way, it looks like there's a bunch of organizations that have sprung up to scam these kids out of their trust fund. It's sort of a fool and their money are soon parted. There's a whole bunch of scam artists who are trying to scam these kids. But yeah, I mean, they're definitely getting scammed. But imagine if instead of just getting scammed out of their money, they were to use it to create a business that created a new product or technology that served people. Then maybe they could turn that $30 million into $10 billion like Bezos did. And if they lost it, they would have
SPEAKER_03: done it in the pursuit of something really grand. And so nobody would actually... Instead of virtue signaling. Instead of virtue signaling on the New York Times. Yeah. These guys were so glad to be in
SPEAKER_02: the New York Times to dunk on capitalists and literally dunk on their own parents. Think about that. You hate your parents so much, you have to go to the New York Times and tell them how much you hate them. I mean, I don't know how this changes- Well, by the way, speaking of virtue
SPEAKER_05: signaling in the New York Times, can we talk about the New York Times writing that hit piece on Coinbase? All right. I mean, if you want to go there, I mean, this is the third rail of the
SPEAKER_02: podcast. But we've been talking about Brian Armstrong just to set the table here. Brian Armstrong wrote a memo. He said, no politics at work. By the way, J. Cal, I just posted an image
SPEAKER_04: for Nick to put up here. Just to- Don't tell me it's a code 13 at Saks again. No, this is not a
SPEAKER_04: code 13. To reinforce your point about the virtue of capitalism, this kind of dates back to... These are three images, three charts from the year 1500 to today. And- Energy use has grown 115
SPEAKER_02: times? Well, so this is basically a measure of population consumption and production, right? And
SPEAKER_04: so the capitalist incentive has driven the ability while population has grown 14x over the last 500 years, it's driven a nearly 10x increment in what is available for humans to consume per capita during that period of time. I mean, think about that. That was driven entirely by industry. And so industry has enabled and production has increased by 240x. So we have a surplus of goods on planet earth and a surplus of access to goods because of the capitalist incentive over the last 500 years. And who's right is it to say that that was wrong? And all of the people that are employed
SPEAKER_03: by it and live within that- And who are no longer living in poverty, who are no longer slaves. All of a sudden 50,000 people convert you signal because they're sitting in their warm homes in America telling everybody else to fuck off. I mean, I find it kind of a joke. I would like you to go and live where I was supposed to live before I emigrated. Sri Lanka. No heater, no roof, no
SPEAKER_04: food, et cetera. They should go to North Korea. Come to Sri Lanka. I can show you. You go to an
SPEAKER_03: outhouse. You sit there, you squat to go to the bathroom. There's no fucking three ply bamboo, pet press free toilet paper to deal with. You literally clean yourself with your hand. You brush your teeth with coal. I remember we used to brush our teeth with fucking coal. We have a well for water. And so you have all these people in these situations where all we wanted was to just give a chance to run the race. And the people that were born with a silver spoon in their mouth who had the chance to run the race turns around and tells guys like me, no, you can't. And it fucking infuriates me. Yeah. I want to blow up the racetrack, by the way. I want to just get rid of
SPEAKER_02: the entire. I mean, honestly, fuck you. It's a serious fuck you to these, to these like they were profited and they benefited from democracy and capitalism. And now they want to revert back to a system where everybody who's in that system is trying to get into this system. They don't
SPEAKER_03: understand what feudalism is because there are so many layers removed through their fucking filtered lenses and, you know, country clubs and bullshit vacations and all this crap that they have no idea what it's like. And I'm telling you, I am first generation of having escaped that shit. And I don't want anything to do with it. But the point is capitalism has allowed not just the US,
SPEAKER_04: but many other countries to change their course in life. Steven Pickner is for all of the controversy he creates his books on, you know, what humans have really achieved during this great kind of era of capitalism and industrialism and how we've changed our course on planet Earth, improved human health, improved longevity, improved calorie access to calories, improved access to shelter to medicine. It's all because of a, an incentive, a market based incentive system. And it is very, very powerful. It is the most powerful force we know as a species. And it's allowed this incredible acceleration, exponential acceleration of possibility for our species. Also from the article, a great quote, Elizabeth Baldwin, a 34 year old democratic
SPEAKER_02: socialist from Cambridge, Massachusetts. She plans to keep enough of her inheritance to buy an apartment and raise a family enjoying the sort of pleasant middle class existence denied to many people of color in the United States. What does that mean? That's just, I don't know.
SPEAKER_03: I just, I don't know. Let's just move on. Let's talk about Brian. It's so dumb. They see, they see the world in a zero sum way where, you know, anything they have
SPEAKER_05: means that somebody else must've, it must've been taken away from somebody else. They don't really understand the way that value is created by an exchange and by people creating new things. And, you know, and that's what technology is all about. You know, it's creating new things. I mean, there was a time when everybody didn't have access to clean water. Now we take that for
SPEAKER_02: granted. There's a time when everybody didn't have access to affordable food and electricity. And by the way, look at how we started. All of this is driven by capitalism. Look at how we started the conversation today. Alpha fold, I think is the realization of one
SPEAKER_04: of the greatest capitalist enterprises in history, if not the greatest alphabet. And they're still getting started. And the output of that is going to be an incredible new tool for drug discovery that is going to extend human lifespan in an incredible way. There was a window of time where folks who are really, really good at bitching and complaining
SPEAKER_03: had a window of opportunity to bitch and complain. And what happened was they were not able to seize power. And then just in the last few months, literally, I think we are nailing that coffin shut. Because as you said, David, you're going to have to all of a sudden, like look at companies like Google and look at things like Alpha fold and reject them. And I don't know how people do, because everyone will need something that that company will create now. And that Alpha fold will be responsible for, we are all going to need a vaccine. These are all coming from for profit companies wrote that thrived on top of R&D. You know, all of it was funded by past drug profits from other things. And so, you know, we're gonna have to really look at ourselves in the mirror and say, did we not want that? Did we want to just die on the street to prove a point? And I don't think anybody actually wants that. I mean, what is your what is the ultimate criticism of Amazon?
SPEAKER_02: They made, you know, iPhone chargers $5. Well, the point is you can't have your cake and eat it too.
SPEAKER_03: You can't actually, you know, complain about Amazon on the one hand, complain about no action on climate change on the other complain about this complain about that complain about the other thing, then you're just a fucking whiner. And nobody wants a whiner around because they're not additive. They're not useful. You don't learn anything from a whiner. All right, so looking
SPEAKER_02: at the New York Times versus Coinbase, the failed New York Times fake news. Sorry, I'm just channeling Trump. Okay, failed New York Times fake news.
SPEAKER_05: Well, talk about whining. This is more virtue signaling whining by the New York Times. And actually, look, this was clearly a hit piece because they don't like Brian Armstrong's decision to make Coinbase an apolitical workplace. If any workplace has chosen to be political, it's the New York Times. There's a lot of examples of that. The fact that they... They ran Barry Weiss out of there. They found him. They ran Barry Weiss out of the newsroom. I mean, these are the most... They ran the editor page out. That's right. I mean, they ran James Bennett out of there for publishing an op-ed by Tom Cotton. Remember that? He got kicked out. He got forced to resign because he published one op-ed by a Republican senator. Okay. This is the most closed-minded group, the most closed-minded political workplace. And here they are lecturing a Silicon Valley company that, in their view, isn't tolerant enough. I mean, it's ridiculous. And it was obvious that it was a hit piece. The stories, the examples in the article were years old. They weren't even reported to HR as violations at the time. So it's people cooking up things that weren't reported as problems at the time. But the really interesting thing about the story, I think, is the way Coinbase reacted to it by preemptively announcing that it was coming, which really made the New York Times reporters really irate. They called it extremely unprofessional. All of the reporters were upset
SPEAKER_02: and they threatened that they would no longer... The journalist said, if you guys are going to front-run our stories, we are not going to call you when we have a story.
SPEAKER_02: And I responded to that and I was like, are you serious? You're literally going to lose what little integrity you have left about fact-checking because somebody wrote a preemptive blog post about it. I'll say this about Brian Armstrong. I have a lot of respect
SPEAKER_03: for him for making a stand. I think every CEO has that, right? And I'm glad that at the end of the day, the employees at Coinbase were given a humane way of making a decision to be on the same page with him or not. I will also say that I thought that essay was not well-written and that given the chance, I could have rewritten that for him in a much better way. I've maintained this the whole time, but I think he's in the right here. Wrap it up, David. Tell us what you think.
SPEAKER_05: Well, okay. That's interesting that Chamath is... It's interesting to hear your support for Brian. This has become a recurring topic on the pod. But anyway, I think the important thing is the way that I think the tech community fought back against this hit piece. And it was, like you said, Jason, the front-running of the story. A wag on Twitter had a great comment saying, basically said, I agree with the New York Times on this. I try to walk up to somebody and kick them in the nuts. And they covered their groin. How dare they? Here it comes. It was a slow motion kick to the nuts. Yeah, exactly. It's coming Sunday. It's Wednesday, but on Sunday, we're kicking you on the nuts.
SPEAKER_01: So yeah, the New York Times... The Coinbase just covered his groin, so the New York Times can
SPEAKER_05: kick him in the nuts. And of course, the reporters all went hysterical about that. But it was a really brilliant PR tactic by Coinbase because what it did is it almost released a spike protein. By sort of a pre-announcing New York Times story, it created this spike protein that trained the immune system of Silicon Valley to be ready for this pathogenic New York Times story. And the story just really fell flat and didn't go anywhere. Yeah, and they did the same thing with the away CEO. She was too hard on people in Slack.
SPEAKER_02: All of these stories to go full circle involve some leak from a Slack room. So if you're a CEO or you're managing anybody, don't have any difficult or legal issues discussed on Slack. Go for a walk with somebody, talk to them face to face because you're going to get destroyed. All right, listen, everybody. This has been another amazing episode. We had 10 more stories we wanted to get to that we weren't able to get to. But while we were doing this, I asked my crack team, sorry, at the syndicate. Whoa, what was that? To set up the syndicate.com slash all in.
SPEAKER_02: So I'm not saying we're doing a syndicate. Yes, we are. We're going to figure out how to do
SPEAKER_03: something. We're going to do something to let the people who listen invest alongside us. We're going to figure it out in 2021 at some point. But you have to write a review on iTunes. No, you just got to sign up. Just got to sign up at the syndicate.com slash all in.
SPEAKER_02: If we do a folding protein company or a unicorn in the ISA space, maybe everybody who listens to the all in podcast gets to wet their beak for the rain. Wet the beak. Wet the beak. Wet your beak.
SPEAKER_05: Wet your beak. We need to get merch. I can't wet my beak. It's like the merch.
SPEAKER_01: Hey, the t-shirt guy that listens to us, we love you. There's a code 13 odyssey.
SPEAKER_03: But wet your beak or wet the beak. We have to figure out which one's better.
SPEAKER_05: I think we have a new tagline for the pod. Wet your beak. Wet your beak. Wet your beak and code 13. These are great merch opportunities for anybody who
SPEAKER_01: wants to go do merch. You can go do merch on your own. We don't care. We're not in the merch business.
SPEAKER_02: Put it up on your own website. Love you besties. Love you besties. So for bestie Rain Man, the dictator, Chumath Palihapitiya, and the queen of quinoa himself, Metro Mile founder, spacker, piper, laying pipe and spax everywhere. I'm Jason Calacanis for the besties. We'll see you next time, which could be in a week or a month. Who knows? On the all in podcast. Love you besties.
