Listen to Episode

Read Episode Transcript

OK, so, Jason, you're going to send the zoom link a great. I'm gonna Make Love to that. That'll take 70 minutes. And then I'm gonna scratch and shower, have lunch. I'll be ready at 1:15. OK. Awesome. Thanks. I just puked in my coffee a little bit, but OK. I got a really. It's just that he does. He gets seconds and minutes mixed up. You know, it's a little got 7 seconds and haven't gotten every second. Thank you for tuning into the All in podcast. We got our cold open somebody that's gonna be a highlight. That's the that's that should be the cold open. That should be the cold open. That should be the second in Paradise. Oh my God. By the way, that's part of these seconds. Includes chamath brushing his teeth. **** you. What your winners? Rain Man, David. We open sources to the fans and they've just gone crazy. Love you guys. Hey everybody hey everybody it is another edition episode 34 of the All in podcast with us today. David Friedberg, the queen of Kinowa, the science sorcerer of the Pod Rain Man, David Sachs, hot off his 60th birthday Bash in Los Angeles and. Sorry, sorry. That was just going by the his looks and the dictator Chapman Polly Hypatia, fresh off of writing editorials about himself in Bloomberg. Congratulations, everybody. Thank you. Thank you. Bob, give yourself a PAT on the back for that exceptional freeberg is now my favorite bestie because he actually showed up my birthday party and like you guys. Oh, I'm sorry, David. David, how how do you expect people to react in 24 hours to fly to a different city? It was a surprise. It was a surprise. Birthday surprise to the guest. It was a surprise to all the invitees. As well, let me tell you guys what you missed out on. OK, alright, wait, let's give background. Sax is now 40 and 50 years old, 4472 and his wife 49, to throw a last minute birthday party after I bought tickets to the Knicks and the Nets and invited family members. Go ahead. And now we're the bad guys. We fly down for the birthday. They, you know, they shuttle you on the cars from the plane to the to the house. We get to the house, long driveway. Like dudes making like watermelon tequila beverages while you hang out and wait. There's some dude from America's Got Talent playing the guitar or playing the violin and the driveway. The bathrooms are nicer than the bathrooms I have at home. You know, these these porta potties they rented in the driveway and you know, we're all waiting. Of course taxes late 2 1/2 hours to his own party. We're all hanging out and starving. But then we go into the party, sit down for dinner, and then who shows up as our, you know, dinner experience. It's the guy that won America's eye. American Idol 2 nights before so no one knows who this guy is except 17 year old girls and myself. So I like pop out of my seat. I'm like, Oh my God, is that guy from American Idol? I had to rush into the backstage to get a photo with him, you know, Sax's garage and then they have like, Coolio shows up. So we're like sitting down to dinner for course 2. All of a sudden pop comes out of the woodwork. Coolio. I lose my ****. I run up on the. The dance floor I grew up, Coolio like, is like high school jams, man. I mean, that's like in the car cruising. And at this point I'm like 7 tequila watermelon tequila's in. So I'm like, Oh my God, you guys go. On the dance floor, you know, jamming out to Coolio. I think Julio thought I was sax, you know, because he's like, yeah, he's like O2, South African Jews. You guys all look the same. Coolio comes up, starts high, fiving me and hugging me and I'm like, what's up, Cooley? Oh my God, this is like a dream come true. He's he's like hugging me. His face is right next to my face. I didn't know what to say. And I like, I'm, I'm, I've had a little bit of tequila and I and I whisper and coolio's ear. Oh no, I appreciate. I appreciate you. Wanted to hear. You wow. Oh my God, I think I saw freeberg throw his panties on stage 201. Oh my God, you are such wow. What a nerd. Unbelievable to say. I mean, what do you say when clearly, clearly you don't know what to say? Can I go back to the part where you said that you were dancing and instantly the image I had was Julia Louis Dreyfus? Yeah, we have to find that security footage. Dancing Mark, Mark McGrath from Sugar Ray performing and he had that dude from Kool and the gang performing. And I'm I'm the game showed up to give sacks a birthday wish. What an the game. The rapper the game, the game came. Yeah, the game. I was supposed to do a movie together like 15 years ago and, you know, never panned out. But he still remembered me and he came by to say hi on my birthday. It was pretty incredible. Very nice. That's really nice. Have you guys ever met Zach's parents? Yeah. Of course, that is 40th. Yeah, they're so nice. Like, they're so nice. We spent so much time with them and love hanging out with them. It was a really, really cool party. I'm really sorry we missed it. 72 hours is generally a shorter window than most out of city parties, but I have a better excuse. I had a corporate offsite for my team, so I apologize. Sexy. OK, we missed you guys. It was really fun. I can't wait. Jacqueline sends out an invite for a party. You definitely want to throw a party. The party she does out there a party she knows how to make it. So how does it feel being this old and just looking so exhausted? David, tell us. I mean, you look exhausted, Jacob. Aren't you turning 50 this summer? I was. I was 50 in November. I did. Yeah, it was in quarantine. So gonna have to have, like, a post. How heavy is that? The 50th. About 194. Give or take, I wasn't actually super heavy for me. I mean, I think just you do think about, hey, we're counting down. It's the back nine. You want to make good use of the time you have left. And so, yeah, of course, it's something where you're going to consider, you know, your life. Of course. Yeah. And just make sure you make good use of the time that you have here. Yeah. I think 40 was just a party, but 50 feels a little bit heavy. It'll still be a great party, but it does feel a little bit metaphysical, I guess. Yeah, I'm not quite. You got metaphysical right now, so I'll let you know after I figure out what that word means. Well, OK, listen, we didn't get together on Friday, but here we are recording on a Saturday and lots of stuff going on. The thing I think I'm most interested in hearing from Freeburg about is the lab leak theory. And I think that this touches on a little bit of the politicization of science. I guess we there's a lab in Wuhan. I think it's more Trump derangement syndrome. It didn't allow us to see. Forest from the trees. And the same words just said by a different president all of a sudden invokes a an investigation. Yeah. So, I mean, there is a COVID laboratory in Wuhan. It is the only one in China, and that's where the virology lab where they study viruses and but specifically they've studied COVID viruses. They have, yeah, that's. I mean that's a big class of virus. So and it's the only one in China and it's funded by America and China and The Who. The Institute of Virology. I mean this is, this is, I mean this is like the Truman Institute of Virology was posting job Recs 2 years ago for specifically for researchers of bat viruses. We know they were studying bat viruses at this place and we want just happens to be the place where a novel coronavirus that seems to derive from a bat virus, you know, like emerges. I mean, what are the odds, right? I mean this was such an obvious theory, the idea that. You know, COVID might have leaked from from this particular lab and yet we were forbidden from talking about it, I guess, till Donald Trump was out of office. I mean, I think there's really two stories here. One is Chinese culpability, you know, in in the spread of the virus. The other one is the media story. Why were we not allowed to have this discussion? Why did the media brand, anybody who discussed this leak theory as being some sort of conspiracy theorist or a racist? Why were big tech companies? Censoring or removing any user generated content from their sites that we're putting forward this theory. You know what? Why was the media and big tech doing this? I mean, is it somehow I can, but but somehow they were telling us it was more racist to talk about a lab accident than to David because the person who could have explained it in a deescalated, factual way chose to escalate it and be emotional and superficial. And that was Donald Trump. And so I I don't, I don't think that you could point to us and say we could have. Changed how the narrative is exploited. All of us are just normal, average people on the ground. But there probably is. Sort of, you know, a hierarchy of like information. And there probably isn't a single individual individual beyond the president that who has access to more information. And so if he was, if he was just more moderate and normal and basically said, hey guys, there is a legitimate risk that we need to investigate because Fast forward basically 18 months later and this President who is moderate, you can like him or not like him, but he's kind of moderate and Unoffensive says basically that. And now we have this news cycle. About investigating something we should have been investigating 18 months ago, just at least to get to the bottom of it, what was going on. But Trump had to make it such a big deal and about himself. And I think that's the take away. But just because Trump says something doesn't mean it's not true. I mean, he is occasionally going to say things that are true. And and that's not what my point is. My point is as the President of the United States, you just have to have more discipline. Well, but, but I think you're right in the sense that the reason this became a forbidden topic is because the media had to act like anything Trump said is is untrue. Or crazy or racist failure on both sides, then, David, I mean the the media is failing to be independent critical thinkers and Trump is failing to be a good leader and be clear. And that means you have to be an independent critical thinker. The media's first obligation here is to the truth. They're not supposed to distort the truth or push forward a false narrative because of the political consequences and and that they didn't want to be seen as helping Trump in any way. And that's really what their motivation was. But I find it equally disturbing that big tech was censoring. The truth on this issue, the whole point of having a free marketplace of ideas is so that we can arrive at the truth. And how is that going to be possible when big tech is censoring. I I really disagree with you. I think that the the big text decision to censor this information was a was a derivative of the first two things. Like, I don't think that decision would have happened had Trump been normal. And then, you know, media would have just listened and said, OK, maybe there's a chance this guy is right, he's saying and acting in a normal way. Let's go investigate. And then big tech would have basically said, we don't know the truth one way or the other. But it seems legitimate. Sane people are on both sides of this. Donald Trump published mean tweets. It was OK for big tech, or rather the media, to basically portray the correct theory as a lie and a conspiracy, and it was OK for big tech to engage in censorship. On that basis, what I'm saying is the following. The President of the United States, Independent and whoever it is, has a very specific responsibility to be measured. To be unemotional and to be about the bigger picture, that's what the President of the United States is. Responsibility is no matter who holds the office. And then the media's job is to Fact Check that and hold that person accountable and hold that person in a transparent manner. Freeberg yes or no. Is it a viable theory? And then let's get to odds and percentages. I mean, as a scientist, do you think that this is because it came from a wet market or some accidental exposure? Somebody eating bad or some cross contamination, a bat and a pig and then somebody eats the pig? Or do you think somebody from the lot, from the lab accidentally brought it home with him? Don't know. Doesn't matter. I feel like we need to kind of recognize that biowarfare and bioterrorism is a real risk. And I think more importantly that this moment, whether or not it's proven and it will never be proven or disproven one way or the other, so it really doesn't matter. What will ultimately happen is we are going to kind of become much more cognizant of these sorts of threats to the human population. Let me be very specific. A kid in high school could write up some. Parnate code. Today on their computer, order that RNA to be delivered to them by what's called an oligo printing facility. Get this RNA booted up, turn it into a virus and they could release that thing into the wild. There are several very cheap over the counter Internet based ways that one could do this. So the fact that there's some sophisticated government run lab doing this I don't think matters as much. What's really compelling in this whole storyline is like, holy **** this is possible. It's possible that there's either an engineered or discovered virus and it shows just how if these things leak out and they are infectious and they are transmissible can become a real risk to the global population. And it's not just viruses, there are other mechanisms of biowarfare that can be printed and created using similar. Techniques of genomics. There are proteins called prions, and prions cause other proteins to fold in a mismatched way. This is actually what mad cow disease is. It's a preon. It's it's a protein that you find in the brain. And if you eat this particular protein and ends up in your brain, it causes the other proteins in your brain that match that protein to misfold, and it basically replicates and creates this cascading effect. So basically like aliens, like aliens and infect, yeah, but but but. But I I guess my point, my point is like whether it's preons or or. Viruses. There are techniques and there are capabilities and instruments now that all humans have access to that theoretically could allow for the booting or the creation and the distribution of of truly terrifying tools, biological tools. Now this comes hand in hand with the incredible optimism and opportunity that these tools present, much like chemical engineering presented in the early 20th century to humanity. We could create things like DDT and kill ourselves, or we could create things like artificial fertilizer and feed ourselves. And so there's this, this tremendous as there is with any new technology, this tremendous kind of optimism and fear. And it's going to create, I think, a very powerful debate and narrative over the coming decade on what do we do with these tools? Is it even possible to regulate them? Where is this going to go? And and what are the risk? And it's not necessarily just government agencies that we need to kind of be considering here. It's the fact that there's a democratization of this tooling, which is enabling all these great innovation. Doesn't sax? Does it matter if it was leaked or not? Freeberg is saying it doesn't matter. Picture of course you disagree with. Course it matters. And and and the only reason we don't know conclusively that it came from a lab is because the Chinese government wouldn't let they thwarted the investigation, they wouldn't let the investigators come in. And so the smoke is pouring out of the Wuhan Institute of Virology, and they will not allow the firefighters in because those firefighters come from the West. We could establish the truth of what happened if they would let us talk to the scientists who work at that lab, if they could. What would you do? Let's say that you find out that it did like, yeah, well, at a minute. Well, first of all, we're talking about a virus that killed millions of peoples, millions of people across the world. It's caused enormous damage to the economy, to our economy, to economies all over the world. You know, we have to think through carefully what the consequences would be, but it matters a lot how the Chinese Government handled this. At a minimum, at a minimum, we need to decouple ourselves from China with regard to anything that's a vital American interest. We cannot be dependent on them. For the manufacturing of our PPE, for our antibiotics, for our pharmaceuticals, it is insane. So there's nothing we're gonna do. We're not, there's nothing we're gonna do to China in terms of sanctions. If we find out they covered up a leak, if there's an accidental leak and they covered it up, we're we're not there. Yeah. It acts more as a a warning sign for us to to do better and be more independent. It's a principle of escalation. They are still the critical supplier to most of American manufacturing and industry. Every product that American companies make, most products have some sort of Chinese produced input. And so there's would start, I would start with I think the measured response that's also in our national interest is to restore any critical components that we need for our Pharmaceutical industry, so drug manufacturing. So it's not about sanctioning China, it's about getting our act together. Chamath you agree with this and what do you think if we did find out that it was in fact a covered up leak, which I think is the most reasonable assumption here, what should we do as America as a country, global reaction to China? I agree with Friedberg and David Sachs in in parts. There's nothing to do. I think we have to move on. I think it's important to get to the bottom of it. It'll maybe help eliminate some of the politicizing of science that we've seen as a result of this thing, but ultimately, what's done is done. Instead. What I think we have to learn from it is you can't elect hotheads and people who are unpredictable and unreliable to basically be our truth tellers and fact tellers and if anybody but Donald Trump was the president of the United States in that moment. We probably could have had a chance of getting to the bottom of it when it counted, and whether you support him or not, it doesn't matter the style. Made it impossible for anybody to really listen that that to me is the most important take away of that moment, which is he does have a responsibility above everybody else's. The second thing is, I think this is the most important macro investing theme that I've seen in my lifetime, which is that globalization as we know it is over. And what Saxi Pooja said is what I really believe, which is that you have to onshore and you have to move to a place where you value resiliency over just in time. And if you look at the businesses that get that need to get built in order to enable resiliency, you will see trillions of dollars of opportunity and I really, really believe in that. That's that's very exciting to me. So instead of, yeah, instead of being anti China, which I don't think is productive, I think it's better to be pro America and say, hey, let's just figure out how to build this stuff ourselves. Now here's the problem though, when the rubber meets the road, the biggest impediment to onshoring jobs into the United States. Are the same people on the left who actually claim that there is no upward mobility, and here's why. When you go and you want to basically balkanize supply chains. You are introducing inefficiency. You're also introducing some puts and takes in areas that today have been like third real issues, for example. The people on the left believe in climate change more than anybody else, but when you explain to them that in order to eliminate hydrocarbons you actually have to mine critical minerals and metals out of the ground. They're the same people that say no way. Well, you can't have one without the other. And you actually have to have a rational conversation and realize, like, listen, we're going to have to do this. And so, for example, like Biden this past week somewhat capitulated for environmental interest and said, you know what? Yes, climate change is critical, but we're going to try to get them from everywhere else. But America, it's not going to work. So that's kind of where, like, I'm a little frustrated, but those are my 2 takeaways. #1 is past. Let's just get past China and let's just focus on the United States and #2 is globalization as we know it is done and we need to focus on resiliency. Did you guys read the Wall Street Journal piece on the miners who in 2012 were the ones who, you know, were clearing essentially bat dung back down? Yeah. And so this this is a really fascinating. Turn of events that we're starting to know what this lab was doing. If you didn't see the Wall Street Journal story, we'll put it in the show notes. Yeah, we're in the show notes. But in April 2012, six miners fell sick with a mysterious illness after entering the mind to clear a bat guano, I guess, is what this bat poop, which is supposed to be a primary source of fertilizer worldwide. Yeah. So three of them died. Chinese scientists from the Wuhan Institute of Virology were called in to investigate after taking samples from bats in the mine. Identified several new coronaviruses now. Answer questions about the minor's illness. The viruses found at the site and the research done with them have elevated into the mainstream. And idea once dismissed as a conspiracy theory, that SARS Cove 2, the virus that causes COVID-19, might have leaked from the lab in Wuhan. I mean, this is just becoming more and more obvious. My my gut tells me that our government already knows this, has known it for some time, the 90 day sort of window that they've given the Chinese to kind of give us an answer as to what happened here. Is window dressing. And then we're going to start the process of becoming more independent from China because there's, I mean, it's something you could do. I mean, how could we retaliate for an accident? We're not going to get in a war over this. No one suggesting that. But I think we have to open our eyes to the regime that we're dealing with over in China. And just to late to add a layer to this analysis. Novel coronavirus coronaviruses are not the only thing coming out of Chinese labs. China is also the number one producer of fentanyl, obviously, yes. And that's another truth that we can finally talk about now that Trump is out of office. People haven't wanted to talk about it, or they thought that you were hysterical or promoting a conspiracy theory if you talked about it. But I just posted two articles in the chat, one from Brookings and one from NPR, about how China is the main source of fentanyl that's pouring into our streets. First it makes a stopover in Mexico, and then somehow it gets smuggled into the US this is a huge problem in our cities. And, you know, I I think this is not. This is not accidental, you know, this is this is deliberate. And the Chinese, your position is the Chinese government is deliberately sending a super opioid drug into the United States for profit or to destabilize the country and different cities and create more division between the left and the right because homelessness and wealth inequality is getting mixed up with a Superdrug as opposed to a homeless problem. This is getting a little, this is getting a little. I know it's getting. Experience? Yes. Well, that's what I'm reflecting back to sax. But how's it a conspiracy theory? We know that China is mass producing the fentanyl that's coming into the US we know that that fentanyl is creating a gigantic crisis of drug addiction and homelessness on the streets. We know they could stop it if they wanted to. They have total control over that country. What is the conspiracy theory? Yeah, I don't know if that's the equivalent of saying America produces all the world's cars. It's not America. There are organizations. In the United States that under under the purview of the US government, the CCP is hand picking who gets to run, bite dance and ants and they're retiring CEO's. They get to decide what is produced in that country and who produces it. You're telling me that what do you think is going on in the federal government when they say to their their counterparts at the Chinese Communist Party, hey, we need you guys to stop producing fentanyl. Do you think that conversation is happening and this was an agenda item during the Trump administration and talks between. Do you have any sense of what, what the feedback was from China? I mean, what's the counterpoint? I don't know enough, but what is the counterpoint that that China would then say like why they can't stop it or why this is still happening? I mean, my understanding is there are thousands of kind of, you know, call them under regulated factories and facilities in China, any number of which this could be your question. It just does China have a fentanyl addiction problem in their streets? We don't know. I mean, maybe they do. Answers. They round up every single person who's a Hong Kong dissident who would sell a book or if anybody goes to the Tiananmen Square protest, you're going to jail for five years. They just announced Hong Kong citizens who go to the Tiananmen Square memorial this year are getting five years. And if you tweet about it, you get one year in jail. So they can they can control anything in their country. Just to build on your control point, I tweeted this to you guys in the group chat. We can post this as well in the show notes, but there was an article in Forbes this week that said. Friends don't let friends become Chinese billionaires. That was the title and the data point, that this is an old story, by the way. It's like 8 years old, just so you know. No, no, no. This was written now that might have been. No, I think read the story. I think at the top it says the story is like 8 years old. But anyway, it is true that Chinese billionaire, Chinese billionaire dies every 40 days. Unnatural deaths have taken the lives of 72 mainland billionaires over the past eight years. 15 were murdered. It's the Wild West. Over there, man 17 committed suicide. Seven died from accidents, in 19 from illness. 14 were executed suicide accidents. But there's an execute the 14 four. Can you imagine 14 billionaires get executed? Is that story real? What is that story from Timothy? I mean, well, this this maybe is a good segue into coin Base Fact Check, but this is an article in force. All right. India versus WhatsApp, well, I'll give you the rundown on the India thing. So basically, you know, there there is a right to, you know, free speech effectively in the Indian Constitution, but then India passed the law effectively. I'll just, I'll just summarize it as traceability, which basically means that if you have an online network and you post something in the network, if an Indian sensor or an Indian regulator or authority basically says, hey, hold on, this is an issue, they have the right to basically. Have the the the network or whoever owns that network trace it down to its originating source. Now that's a really important distinction because there are certain products. So for example take WhatsApp where a feature of that product is end to end encryption, right? So it's hopping around in ways that are very difficult and near to impossible for anybody to really figure out. And now all of a sudden that that that element which used to be a feature is now a bug because if the Indian. Government says hey, hold on, that statement I have an issue with. I need you to figure out who said that. They'll essentially have to undo all their end end encryption to figure out. So then WhatsApp filed. A court case in New Delhi this week, essentially, I think, asking for an injunction. And so I think this is going to go to a head. But you, you have this now. State of affairs, which I think is really interesting, which is so. You know, we we talk about how we have an issue with Chinese sensors. Well, now, here's a different, more complicated example, because this is the largest democracy in the world. And what they are effectively saying is we need to have an equivalent red button and a set of levers so that we can figure out what's going on when we choose. And there's going to be a lot of implications because inside of India, what's different than America as a democracy is it has lower average incomes, it has lower health, it has lower literacy rates. It has more, uh, religious sort of tension. And it's got, you know, many, many more young people who are more prone theoretically to get, you know, bamboozled by misinformation and disinformation. And so, you know, India sees those facts on the ground and probably wrote this law with those intentions in mind. Right? And it's had a bunch of these issues, by the way, particularly between Muslims and Hindus. And So what do you do, you know, what is Facebook and WhatsApp supposed to do? What is Google supposed to do? What does it mean for Internet rights? I think it's a super, super complicated problem. And do you prioritize misinformation and disinformation above? The right for people's privacy. And you're going to see it unfold in the largest democracy in the world over the next couple of months. I don't really know how I feel about it, to be honest, except I do think that Indian government has a right to set the rules of their own country. Well, and and set the rules they are, I mean remember they also ban Tik T.O.K in an instance and hundreds of other apps. I think 60 apps from China have been banned permanently in India. So India obviously has a different approach to China, which is we're going to put our foot down. Now of course they're involved in some skirmishes on their border, but yeah, it does seem sex. What do you what's your thought? You have personal right to privacy, end to end encryption and then you have, you know, the ability to run back door or backdoor to it. This is another major sledgehammer to to globalization. You know, in the in the mid to late 90s we had this beautiful dream that we're going to create a single Internet for the whole world. It would create a single common market, a single place for people to interact and go, and that all of these barriers, these geographic barriers, tribal barriers would come down over time. And now what we see is the trade barriers have come up. And now instead of having one Internet for the whole world, it's fragmenting into a bunch of different internets governed by local laws. You know, it started with the the Great Firewall of China creating sort of a separate Chinese Internet. Now you're starting to see country by country regulations. And I just think it's it's sort of an inevitable reaction that the power of governments and sovereignties comes before the the power of corporations and they're reimposing their will. And I think the question for all these companies is going to be where they decide they're willing to play. And you know, I think now I, I do think it's a very different choice whether you want to play in India or whether you want to play in China. Because in China, when the government tells you to hand over information on dissidents, you really are aiding and abetting what could be political oppression. Whereas India being a democracy, I don't think the choice is quite the same at all. And so, you know, I do think these tech companies are going to decide which countries they want to sort of play ball with. And ultimately, I think they probably have to make a determination based on working with the democratic ones, and they're probably going to have to exit the ones that engage in political repression. In my first of all, I think that's really well said. What you said in my in my annual letter last year, I kind of wrote like here's the White Paper on how to dismantle big tech and there were two frames, one was around taxation, which we're also seeing. But the second was on this regulatory, regulatory point, David, that you're bringing up. That's the simplest way to sort of break these companies down, which is if you have to engineer now instead of 1 monolithic codebase, multiple instantiations where you can't even get the leverage of like cross-border data centers. I mean, by the way, there, there, there's a really interesting thing that the Biden tax bill also proposes on this dimension, right. It's gonna prevent you from sending IP, you know, into places like like Ireland and keeping it there, right. So you can't have all of a sudden, you know, code that's running in Ireland that executes something that makes money so that you can pay Irish tax versus something code that runs in America that's largely, you know, user oriented. That's not going to happen. That's not going to be allowed anymore, right? So all of these things are happening at the same time. Essentially, to reign big tech in making it almost a whack a mole problem inside these companies where you're fighting a tax thing, for example, Google's fighting antitrust in France, then you're fighting antitrust at the EU level. Then you're fighting, you know, traceability and encryption in India. Then you're fighting, you know, inversion of an IP in America. Wow. Like it's like all of a sudden the lawyers inside of these companies will outnumber the engineers. And I think a lot of this is the downstream consequences of what happened. Back in January when Twitter and all the other big tech companies deep platform Trump, remember at the time, it wasn't just, you know, conservatives or in the US who raised alarm bells. It was Angela Merkel in in Germany. It was the finance minister in France, I think India, you know, talked about. I think Modi had a statement about it. They all woke up and said, whoa, a head of state can be deep platformed by Jack Dorsey. He's more powerful than the President of the United States and countries all around the world. They're looking at the power of big tech and realize that they're subordinate to all of these tech billionaires and oligarchs. Tell me about Coin base and Fact Check. I think this thing is incredible. I mean, I have to say, by the way, the first thing I'll say about, and this is this is the exact opposite of what I said the last time Brian Armstrong wrote a memo. This memo is excellent, and if you haven't had a chance to read it, we'll put it in the show notes. But Brian's essay is super. I think there have been a couple of CEO memos in the last two months that I think honestly should be. In the Hall of Fame in the Smithsonian one is the Toby Luki memo that the internal e-mail he wrote. And the second one is this one that Brian wrote. Because I think this, this thing is probably one of the most important things in my opinion, that has been written by a CEO, which has the potential to lead to huge systemic changes. Well, he echoed. He echoed a lot of the things we, we've been saying on this part about going direct, don't let the press tell your story, go direct, get get the truth out there. Basically what the what the blog said is they're going to start using. The Coinbase blog as a forum, basically as a media publication for for crypto related things. And the Fact Check part is that when the popular press gets crypto wrong, which they do frequently in Coinbase's view, Coinbase is going to call them out and correct them. They're going to do basically. Here's what he says. The increased awareness has been great. Unfortunately we also see misinformation published frequently as well, rather in traditional media, social media, or by public figures. This doesn't always come from negative intentions. Our business and crypto can be difficult to understand and often. People are rushed to post first impressions online, making mistakes in the process, that other times misinformation comes from people publishing their own agenda or from people who have a conflict of interest. This is not unique to our business or industry, of course. So how should companies respond? One, turn the other cheek to fight and three, publish the truth. I believe there is a reasonable middle ground between these first two options, turning the other cheek and fighting, which is to simply publish the truth in a thought to affect the way. The way you fight back is you publish the truth. So that to me. That's not a choice. Those are the same. Thing is you can either remain silent, take the High Road which always results in people believing whatever you know lies are are being said, or you fight back by telling the truth. Fact Check approach is not about antagonizing or embarrassing others. This is Brian Armstrong, but simply sharing what happened through our own channels. It also means sharing the good along with the bad with radical transparency. I just want to say that I I wish him all the success in the world because I think if, if, if and. As this works with, which I think it will, because people in the crypto universe are more prone to actually get their own information and do their own diligence, I think the spillover effects to other companies can be really positive. All of this is going to the same place which is. The intermediate layer of traditional media is basically getting whittled down, right. There was a there was a different thing that happened in those last few weeks, which was the Tribune Company. I think it was basically got taken private by some hedge fund and in it they talked about what has happened in the industry. And the most incredible thing was the amount of revenue that has disappeared from newspapers and literally from the 10s of billions of dollars to basically single digit billions today over the last 20 years. Which effectively means traditional media's revenue source is going away. And if then all of a sudden, if you take that media model away and there are no more economic incentives, then it stands to reason that the overarching incentives that remain are around reputation, which is then about facts. And so the fact that Coinbase will have a place that says here are the facts and we're going to put it on chain permanently on the record, that's I think a really powerful idea, Andreessen Horowitz. Either way, same situation. They're doing it in venture capital. You know, one of the largest and most prolific and important sources of funding the future. They're on the record, on chain, in their own way, right, with their own media and and they're now helping to tell the stories of other folks through it. David Sacks, you know, Sachs has put so much content in terms of teaching people about the business that he knows really well. But at the same time, he's also been able to write about what he thinks about certain things and then eventually on behalf of his companies. We'll be able to say things and do things as well. So all of a sudden, not all of a sudden, I guess we've seen it, but if we had to put a label on this. This is the dismantling of traditional media. It is happening in real time. And it's accelerating, it turns out, you know, as a subject being interpreted as you're being through The New Yorker right now in your story jamath. And I am through my Business Insider profile. You know, all these profiles that they do, they're interpreting your life when people could just tune into the podcast and hear us talk about it. Right. And it's like you can go direct to the source and listen to 34 episodes of all in, or you could read some interpretation from somebody trying to get page views. Well, here's my, here's my observation. The thing is that people who create. Artifacts on a real time basis. So in many ways we have all collectively now started to create a weekly artifact of who we are as people. It leaves very little leftover for interpretation. And so then unfortunately what happens is journalists trying to write content have to introduce some form of flourish to stand out. Yeah, because if you're just repeating something that was said on the podcast or something that we said in a tweet, there's nothing left to talk about. It's kind of already been set and so that's what creates. Boundary conditions for lying. And it's what creates boundary conditions for mistruths. And we've seen a handful of reporters back in the day, you know, fall into that trap. We you know, there was a couple writers in the New York Times that got pinched for lying. It's going to be harder and harder to lie. So in many in some ways, I'm actually pretty optimistic that that reputation management and truth will be easier to do in the future when this intermediary layer doesn't exist. But it'll take many other companies to do what Coinbase is doing and recent us in this podcast, us with our tweets and our. Memos and our posts. I think it's it's all in the good positive direction. Yeah. And and and and Armstrong and his in this blog talks about the Gellman amnesia effect which we talked about on this pod before which I saw that. Yeah. Which is great. I love that because you know that Joe Manasia is you read the newspaper about a topic you know something about you see that 50% of it is just wrong. Then you turn the page to some other part of the newspaper say you know world affairs you don't know as much about and you just assume it's true and we all know that the. Media is maybe 50% right about everything. And so yeah, I mean so This is why we have to hear from experts directly. I think it's it's the decentralization of media. It's why I think this like heavy-handed centralized censorship by big tech is so offensive and anachronistic is to try and control what everyone can say. Especially when it later turns out that, you know, big Media gets so many things wrong like the lab leak theory. So it's it's it's this is definitely the way things are headed. I would like to invest. Money to basically freedberg a platform to explain science. Well, that's right. Here, freeberg tell us about the science of NBA games and large gatherings in the age of vaccination. I'm pretty sure you got COVID this week, Jacob. I'm pretty sure I definitely lost my voice at the Knicks games, but I have to say this was pretty stunning. To go to a Knicks game, have everybody in the arena show their VAX car to get in. I suppose somebody could photocopy one or steal. One, you know, it sounds like a lot of work, and I don't know what the if there's any penalty for doing something like that. But what when you see a full arena Madison Square Garden, everybody vaccinated freeberg do you, does it give you any pause as a scientist, that this is not a good idea or this is too soon? Or do you think, heck yes, this is what we should be doing? Proper risk assessment, finally? No, we should do what we want to do. They have it, folks. Do what you want to do. Sorry. It's moment. Way to keep the free bird ratio high. That was supposed to be the science segue. We're we're ready for a monologue. Let's go. Free bird. Come on, let's go. Freeberg. We're poking the tiger here. Friedberg. Why don't you tell? This is something I thought was incredible. Amgen this week at the end of this week got approval for this really incredible drug that basically targets K Ras mutations in lung cancer, which has been this body of cancer that has basically been somewhat intractable for a really long time. And these guys have cracked the code, it looks like. And now the drug is. 18,000 a month I think but you know that's that's for insurance to take care of but pretty incredible breakthrough that people are talking a lot about. I don't know if you if you were tracking it, no, but I think that there were several other gene therapies, there were several. Drugs that got approval in the last like month. One of which is this or actually it was about two months ago this drug that. Uses targeted car key therapy. Basically, you know, we all have T cells. And we can edit our own T cells now using this car key therapy. This is a series of techniques where you basically reprogram your T cells genetically to go after a specific target in your body. And so there are now a whole series of car key therapies that are coming to market that are actually in market. You can go down and go get treatment today for several of these CAR T therapies that you know not too long ago were really difficult to kind of understand. You know, being real. They take your T cells out of your blood. You know if you go in you get your blood drawn. Couple weeks later you come back to the doctor, they've taken the T cells out of your blood. They re engineer them the way they reengineer them, really interesting. They basically use this technique where they would. Happen with electricity, and it gets this gene editing in there and then they get edited and then they put those T cells back into your into your body. It takes about an hour to get them reinjected back into your body and then they do their job and they in in many cases are being used to target cancer cells. It's very specific receptors. So now the T cell has been programmed to go find that cancer cell receptor. They hit the cancer cell receptor, bind to it, and then eliminate that cancer cell. So essentially in in in plain English, you're putting this super T cell. Back on the body, it goes through the blood and then it finds something far in that shouldn't be there, like a virus or can't find anything. You want bacteria, whatever you want it to find, and it snipes it. But yeah, what it does, remember, it's it's looking for a specific protein. And that protein, for example, can be expressed only on the surface of specific cancer cells. So if you found certain cancer cells that you have a cancer, and we know that there's a specific protein that shows up on the surface of that cancer, which is common in many cancers because they all follow very similar. Kind of, you know mutations you can end up targeting that cancer cell and only that cancer cell and your your T cells go to work and they go and wipe it up. I think the breakthrough this week was in multiple myeloma and thyroid cancer, multiple myeloma one which was a Bluebird bioproduct and then I think it got picked up by Bristol or or someone else picked it up. So they they basically paid the fee and they run their own good manufacturing practice facility. Where your blood is shipped to them, they do all the gene editing with your own T cells in this facility and they ship it back to your doctor and it gets reinjected back into you. There are several 100 car T cell, is that what it's called? Car space T cell. So car stands for chimeric antigen receptor and that is the little cult. Think about it as like a seeker that's on the outside of your T cell. It goes in, it finds a specific thing it's trying to bind to. And so you're reprogramming your T cell to have a specific receptor and then as soon as it finds that. That that as soon as that receptor binds to the correct protein that's looking for, boom, that that cell that it binds to gets wiped out. Are we going to talk about the crazy media mergers and spin outs that are happening? Because it seems like just in the last 90 days the entire industry is rewiring itself and it's kind of a pretty significant set of transactions that are underway. Amazon is buying MGM, which owns, most importantly, James Bond. James Bond has done $20 billion in adjusted revenue for their movies. And you can obviously see many different back stories and television shows around the James Bond. So this is kind of in my mind of that eight or 9 billion, they spent 6 billions on the franchise for James Bond so that Bezos can play James Bond obviously while he retired. If you take a zoom out you know several years ago you guys may remember you know early 2000s into the mid, you know odds all the telco started freaking out because they were or sorry, all the media companies were freaking out. Because they're controlled points of distribution, which were network television, and then their cable television stations and the movie theaters were getting disintermediated by the Internet. So all these Internet companies showed up like YouTube and Netflix, and we're going direct to consumer, where consumers were not getting access to content directly without the control channels that the media companies controlled. At the same time, the telcos were freaking out because it turns out people didn't need cell phones anymore or need phone lines anymore. What they needed was Internet access, and Internet access was quickly commoditizing. So the telcos were like, holy crap, being in the business of providing Internet service, not a great business. We need to be making more value per user per year than we're going to be able to make charging them for Internet access. So the telco started buying up media companies. This is what Verizon and others did. And T and AT&T and the media account. So remember, Verizon bought AOL and Yahoo, AT&T bought Time Warner. And then the media companies, the old school media companies that were kind of like still decided not to sell and to stay on their own. They decided, well, we gotta go Internet, right? And so we gotta figure out how to be on the Internet and compete in this world where companies like Netflix and Amazon are going direct to consumers. And, you know, they all started building their own Internet services and so now you know. Max yeah, Hulu and that, you know, Hulu was a big one. And meanwhile, the tech companies that went directly to consumers, they're realizing, you know what? If these media companies are gonna play ball, we better get our own media. We gotta get Apple TV. And so then they started licensing, buying, funding and building their own media companies. And so there's a total reorientation that's underway. Now, what's interesting in the last couple of weeks is Verizon decided, you know what? We can't be in the media business. We're not very good at it. And they spun it out and they're selling AOL, Yahoo, and then meanwhile, this really interesting. Deal. It's AT&T gave up on owning Time Warner. And so it turns out that the telcos who thought that they could own the media and monetize it, you know what? It's just a pain in the ****. It's another business. We can't really figure out how to add value to our subscriber base with these products. They're going to have to exist on their own. We don't know how to run them through media guys, and they're spinning out. So now the telcos. The interesting question to ask is what are they going to do next? What's the next move for them? Because they got to keep growing meanwhile, that the tech companies and the media companies are just like this, and there's 50 subscription services, each with their own silo and vulcanization. Content. And we're all going to have to choose as consumers, do I want HBO Max or Paramount plus or you know, the the bundle I get from Comcast. And it's going to be a nasty battle for the next 10 years where you where you want content, you're going to have to go pick and choose who you want to buy content from. And so it yeah, I have a theory. I think consolidation happens when markets don't matter anymore and are getting commoditized. And what I would say about all of this, what it shows me is that we're now transferring to the phase of the market where it's all about. Cost of capital. And right now, the only person that actually understood that was Netflix. And Netflix issued billions of dollars of debt and they've started to finance every piece of content under the Sun. And being small and trying to compete against Netflix was not possible. And now we're in that part of the market where content is actually not that important because there is an enormous diversity of it. So no one single person can really corner that market. And so then it becomes how much can you make and how cheaply. When you make it and there scale matters, OI can think like what this shows me back to sort of what we talked about before on the other part about like facts and truth is this is part of a much broader, you know, media puzzle that's becoming more obvious, which is traditional outlets that push top down content is kind of yesterday's news and what it's being replaced by is more and better forms of user generated content and highly commoditized. Professional content and in all of that the economics are going away. So if you are not sure. Go and look inside of Tik T.O.K. The content that individual people create inside of tick tock is unbelievably good and they are training an entire generation of kids. To consume content. 15 seconds, 30 seconds at a time, which has huge implications, by the way, for how they consume music. So for example, if you guys like look inside a tik T.O.K and then go to YouTube and look at the most popular videos, they're the same. And same thing with Spotify. It's 15 second clips now. No, you know, these kids want to listen to the hook of a song and then they won't listen to it. I I see how my kids use it and it's crazy because, like, they get addicted to a hook on Tiktok. They try to go to YouTube to learn the lyrics. They only want to learn the lyrics for the part that's in the Tik T.O.K. That's it. And then they move on. Busted challenge, yes. Whatever it is. And so the the point of all of that is that content costs are going to continue to go down, which means the economics are going to go down. The margins are not that good. And so it's all just a commodity that almost doesn't matter. I don't know about that. I think for the top tier IP like you can't displace a Disney and they're growing portfolio of IP and those things are high margin. And you know having 250, just having 250 to 500,500 million people paying you monthly has never existed in the history of humanity. There's never been a. At scale service like this before, the closest was Verizon and AT&T when they hit 100 million members. I'm not disputing that people won't pay 999. What I'm disputing is. The denominator of what they're paying for is increasing so fast that no one piece of content matters. Jason. No idea. We agree with that. Collections matter, right? So the IP of Marvel, Disney, Pixar put together, right, like Pick Disney launched this thing with no direct to consumer relationships with when they launched Disney plus. What do they have now? 60 million subscribers or something to 100, now 100 million subscribers, which is incredible. You guys have kids. My kids watch this stuff on your we'll have it for the rest of our lives and over and over they'll put on freaking. I wanna, I cannot tell you how many times I've watched the seashore scene in Moana. They wanna watch the beginning, they wanna watch the middle part. It's just like infinitely reusable content. And so Disney's content library is so powerful for that particular demographic, basically the demographic of anyone with children, that it's an instant on kind of moment. These other guys like Paramount Plus and you know HBO's obviously got some special content, but it shows how much content matters, right? The quality of the content for the demographic is so key for this to work, all these media companies that have. Kind of a broad dithered, you know, library of half quality, half good kind of content. They're going to struggle, man, because they're not going to be able to feel like they're ringing a little too much out of it. There's too much content production. There is like 50 shows about superheroes, then there's like 50 shows that are like, you know, meta commentary on the superhero show. It's almost becoming exhausting. Like how many Homeland style shows are there going to be? How many Sopranos style shows are they going to be game of throne? I'm getting burnt out. I think you're, I think you're making my point, which is that no one piece of content matters anymore. It's all the same. So, so my big take away from Bezos buying MGM and these other, you know, M&A events is it's less about the decline of content, even though there are more and more options there ever have been and therefore more competition and it's more about the rising power and wealth and influence of big tech. I mean, if you look at throughout history, whoever is buying studios in any given era, they're the people with the money and power and they're seeking influence. It was GE NBC, it was Gulf and Western buying paramount in the 1970s and oil and gas company or they were having some stays in the picture. So that's right, Sony spying Colombia in the 1980s when you had the era of the rising sun. So whoever has the money and the power and seeking influence are the ones buying studios. That's what business is doing right now. But I think this time it is a little bit different in this sense that we're reaching an end state of digital convergence where the where, where content and the digital. Distribution are now reaching their kind of final state and so I don't expect these studios, once they're owned by big Tech, to ever go anywhere any I don't think we're going to be trading again every 10 years. I think this is the end state. Amazon wants this library for their streaming service and I think that big tech is going to gobble up the rest of these libraries and that's where they're going to state. You think all media will end up in tech? Yeah. I mean, I think I, I think, I think big Tech is going to eat Hollywood. Look, we've been on this, this path of convergence now since the mid 90s with the Internet. And the question was always, you know, we we knew that tech and Hollywood were converging and and joining just more and more. And the question would be on whose terms this final merger would take place. And I think that big tech now you look at the market caps, there's so much bigger than the market caps of these studios, that 8 billion surrounding era surrounding air for Bezos. I mean it's one days, it's one days we revenue or whatever. Or less. So obviously big tech is going to win this battle. They are going to own Hollywood. But except for the few guys that have scale to actually be successful, like Disney, right? Disney, maybe HBO to some extent. We'll see how. I mean look. Zaslav who runs the squads, and he's an incredible media guy and he gets it, but they could be like this discovery plus, slash, HBO plus. Whatever that combined business ends up looking like, that could be a competitor. And there babies, like there's two to three libraries that are deep enough and strong enough to compete and stand on their own as a tech kind of platform. But what's also really interesting is all the telcos. We're exiting and what are they going to become? Right? It's clear. What's interesting is they're not, they're not tech companies. Tests are important, right? So, so, so here's the thing with the telcos that the telecom stack is is we know that tech is taking over Hollywood, but the question is what part of the tech stack and what's happened is the part of the tech stack that has the direct relationship with the audience, Apple, Google, Amazon, who aggregate millions and millions of consumers, they're the ones who should actually own the content because they're the ones delivering up the content to the consumer and everybody else who's lower down in the stack. Who are just the pipes. They don't really have a claim on these. Libraries in this context are super valuable. The pipes are, the pipes are valuable, but they're commodity. What Elon is doing with Starlink is going to disrupt them. I'm not saying they're not valuable, but they're not in a highly leveraged position to do anything with the content. They're going to keep increasing speed in order to keep you paying 30 bucks a month because like, now that they're they realize, you know what? We cannot, we can't run media businesses and we can't monetize it. Well, what are they gonna do? They can't just focus on faster. Now, with get us to Gigabit. I mean, it doesn't matter. I mean, like, you guys are like you guys are so ******* old. Like you're just like talking about yesterday's news. Nobody cares. This is what I mean. Consolidation in markets like this should tell you it's time to move on and focus on something else. This is a dead industry with no profit. So what happens to AT&T and what happens to Verizon over the next 10 years? It doesn't matter. Well, I agree. I agree with that part that it doesn't matter what happens to these telcos. They should be dumb pipes again, they're not in a in a leveraged position to create value around content. They never should have owned it. But I do think there is major, major significance in Amazon and Apple and Google and these other big tech companies owning. Hollywood, because they have, they're gonna combine the influence they already have with the influence of Hollywood, and you already have, again, censorship on these tech platforms. Are they going to start censoring the type of content the Hollywood produces? I think these issues are going to get more and more important over time because so much control over our politics and society and culture are being concentrated in the hands of, frankly, our industry. But this is what I think about the other. The other side of that coin is what we talked about before. With respect to things like Coinbase, while that's happening, more and more people who have their own distribution are going direct. So let's just separate entertainment and facts from a fact perspective. I think we're seeing everything sort of become highly decentralized, and I think that that's constructive. Now. They'll be services that will be there to help us navigate, but I think that's what's happening with respect to entertainment. I just think like it was our generation was the last one that actually even cared about movies that cared about these tents. Productions that that cared about water cooler type conversations on a Monday morning, books, novels. Kids will not understand what the hell we're talking about. They're like, what do you mean you used to run into work on a Monday and go to the movies tomorrow. You think it's couldn't care less? Going to the movies, they love video games, yeah. By the way, they're obviously like that. You know the the combination of media attack and they're just the kind of ultimate manifestation of where it's all. And it's not just our kids, just look at the monthly active usage numbers that Roblox and Epic. It's it's nuts. And so they are voting every day with their attention and at the end of the day, the thing that has never been improved is the OR increases the number of hours in a day. Your point on the telcos? You know, as an investor, I own a bunch of Verizon and AT&T stock. If you were running that company, what would you do? I would quit. OK, you might run it for capital and then buy assets. Oh, wait, they did that. You can. So what's left to do? Right? These businesses have had horrendous capital allocation for decades. And the reason that they were allowed was that they were, they were part of a culture of insiders. There were other were other insiders said that they were important. But as it turned out to individual users who were making usage decisions every day, they were not important at all. And this is what we're learning, that the Emperor has no clothes. So while everybody was, you know, looking around themselves saying AT&T is important and hey. You know, let's go and like, you know, buy all of these crazy old school media assets. Young people were like, I use Snapchat and tick Tock and YouTube and I'm done. Thanks. Goodbye. Talk. Right and who owns those platforms? I mean you're right that professional content is being crowded out to some degree by amateur content. But now this the big tech companies own the professional content or the studios for creating them and they own the the user generated platforms that lets the amateurs create the content. So big Tech now owns everything, but you're seeing the next shooter. But because the thing that I think content creators haven't yet realized. And social media personalities and influencers haven't yet realized is how can I own my own distribution and monetize my relationship. That feature of the web will get figured out in our lifetime and that's what happened to a Patreon. And then Apple is now the Spotify is doing paid content. These people are doing stripe accounts direct with their fence. Those people are too old. They're not going to figure out what I'm saying is they're going to be. People who are teenagers today, right? Or kids who will be teenagers in a decade. 20 somethings. Who will figure this out? For whom? The idea that if you're a Charlie Demilio, right, you're tik Tok's top biggest star with 120 odd million followers. That to go through an intermediary to talk to your people will not in the future make any sense. And I think, David, that's that's where the the next thing will change. I just think it's unreliable to expect laser beam, Mr Beast, Charlie Demilio, all these people. You need to go through the no because they have, they have such guys. I think they could go direct to some of those guys could go direct now that they're huge, but it's it's no different than building a name on the New York Times and then starting your own sub stack. It's gonna happen, yeah. But you can't go viral and you can't get discovered unless you participate or not. One of these are not in or you can use the platform and you can have it. You will, you will build scale, you will build scale on a platform and then you'll go on your own because you'll want to control and monetize your own relationship. It's. It is what these folks have done, meaning like how Kylie Jenner and Kim Kardashian have built incredible scale and wealth. Yeah, is effectively through that they build scale through Instagram and Twitter and wherever TV show. Now the only thing that they haven't done is they've monetized it through offline goods. But if somebody figures out how to monetize it through an online relationship, then what you're really doing is you're learning how to build scale in an established platform and then you on ramp to something else that's also online and you go from there to think that it won't get figured out. Think is being naive, it's being it's being figured out. Right now the street is figuring out there's something called Ghost which is like an open source version of sub stack. It is an open source version of sub stack and people are building direct relationships and doing their own Patreon and if you leave sub stack you get to take your stripe account with you. You use your stripe account so now it's portable. You can go on sub stack for a year, leave and keep all your subscribers. I I think this solution will get figured out through the crypto community and the reason is because that is by definition to your point Jason. Fundamentally distributed and tied to a payment and a store of value because that's what effectively this is. It's like, where is the value of somebody's reputation and right now we don't have a way of measuring it and you can you can put that on chain in some way. I don't claim to know how, but I think people have talked about this as all these different. I hope, I hope that happens. I hope that crypto figures out a way to to create decentralized social networks and all the rest of it. But it doesn't exist yet and the only way that Mr Beast or Charlie Demilio or any of these people. Same stars as they went viral on YouTube or Tik T.O.K or Insta that on a on a big tech platform and so right now the strategy is going to be doing both you you used the word and then all the power. They have all the power right now because if they deny you access to one of these platforms you're you are not Trump. Who cares about Trump, about Trump. You're talking about Trump. You're completely lost your money woes Trump in their life but you OK you're the one who mentioned his name Trump you're the one with Trump on the on the brain. What are you talking about? We love that he's bad. You love he's bad. Or do you wanna bassing? No, I'm not missing it at all, but you my point or not, we're trying to do takeaways on these moves by big tech to buy Hollywood studios. And I'm telling you, it's about who has the power, money and influence and it's all good. I'll go out on a limb and say where where it we're in the sort of the the August of their supremacy. So and again, I would just say, David, if on the one hand it's a whack a mole problem with governments. Taxation and regulation. And on the other hand, you have a way where you can have distributed social currency and value. Wow. I mean these big tech companies are getting bombarded on every single side and I think that's just a hard place to be. One last thing for you guys on a market, check my 10 year break evens. Remember, we're now down to 242. It's been 18 days. What is he talking about? My little inflation check. My little inflation check, and it seems like things are trending in the right direction. Hmm. The markets are back, the markets back a little. There may not be inflation. Well, I think what happened Chamath is you. You put it. Well. I think a couple of pods ago the markets sent a signal to Biden that, look, this is too much taxing, too much spending, it's too inflationary. And I don't know if Biden heard the message, but several Democratic senators did, and they pumped, put on the brakes. They reduced the size of the package. They're now talking about maybe the capital gains. They go into 25, the infrastructure bill is, you know, been chopped in half. So I think there's less inflationary pressure coming out of Washington hopefully. Yeah. What I, what I heard last week, I, I spoke to some folks in Washington. What they said was exactly what you said, David. They're not going to at best they're going to get the cap gains. Sorry, no movement on cap gains. They don't think it can happen at all. So that's not going to move #1 #2 is that corporate will go to 25 but not to 28 and then #3 they're going to really tighten the IP loophole. Uh, which will prevent American companies from shipping IP to places like Ireland to not pay tax. They're going to make it impossible to do things like inversions, all this kind of stuff and then scope that down. That's actually, to your point, a very, very good outcome for the markets. So this was actually productive. If this happens, if the infrastructure bill gets, I think the Republicans now they they first McConnell said 600 to 800 billion. Now I think they're, they're at 900 billion. I think the Democrats started at 2.3 billion now. I think they're at 1.7. So hopefully it's being brought down to a more reasonable number that's not gonna bust the the budget .21 point 3 and everybody will have something. But here's the crazy thing. I mean, the US government debt is now at 100% of GDP. We owe our entire economy. It's pretty crazy. And there's still the countries that are 1.5 right and double like Japan and others. Yeah, it's not president, but Biden, Biden $6 trillion budget would increase our budget, debt, our debt from 100% of GDP. 117% If he gets his way too much. It's a World War Two level of spending. But what is the benefit equivalent to World War Two that we're getting out of this thing? Well, also, we have a surplus in so many states that we're doing lotteries. Thank you. Queen of Quinoa, Rain Man and the dictator. I'm Jason calacanis. We'll see you next time on the all in podcast. Bye bye. To let your winners ride. Rain Man David sack. We open sources to the fans and they've just gone crazy with it. Best. That is my dog taking out your driveway setbacks. Ohh man. We should all just get a room and just have one big huge order because they're always useless. It's like this, like sexual tension that they just need to release them out. Your beat beat your feet. Where did you get merchandise?