All-In with Chamath, Jason, Sacks & Friedberg

Industry veterans, degenerate gamblers & besties Chamath Palihapitiya, Jason Calacanis, David Sacks & David Friedberg cover all things economic, tech, political, social & poker.

E4: Politicizing the pandemic, Police reform, Biden's ideal VP, Twitter vs. Facebook on free speech & more with David Sacks & David Friedberg

E4: Politicizing the pandemic, Police reform, Biden's ideal VP, Twitter vs. Facebook on free speech & more with David Sacks & David Friedberg

Sat, 20 Jun 2020 01:15

Follow @chamath:

Follow @jason:

0:01 Jason checks in on Chamath, Sacks & Friedberg, opening up their social circles, outdoor activities & more

9:31 Issues with politicizing matters of public health, deaths decreasing while new cases spike, masks, lockdowns & more

20:56 Viral videos, doxxing bad behavior & cancel culture

25:39 Reforming law enforcement, separating police from the military, changing police incentives

36:42 Are public unions too powerful? How a lack of leadership has led us here

41:49 Facebook vs. Twitter on free speech, Zuckerberg's relationship with Peter Thiel, valuing comfort over freedom of expression

59:24 John Bolton's book controversy

1:03:14 Movements in the COVID vaccine space

1:07:38 Trump vs. Biden: Who has the upper hand?

1:14:24 Who should Biden pick as VP?

Listen to Episode

Copyright © <> - all rights reserved

Read Episode Transcript

All right, everybody, welcome back to the all in podcast. We're here with Chamath Palihapitiya, David Friedberg and David Sacks, our usual, usual foursome. As we chop up the business news and what's going on. And just as a point of order, the frequency of the show is. Well, don't. Don't ask as we feel like it, as we feel like it. Correct? So do not ask me to advertise on the podcast because CHAMANT banned advertising. And do not ask me when the next one is. The next one is when Chamath decides he wants to go on a rant. But what? How, how are you holding up best C? Best C is doing pretty well, yeah. Uh, and the family, everything. Have you come out of quarantine in any way as well? The first question I have for people is, has your behavior changed now as we go into, I think, what most people are calling phase two, any change in what you're doing in the risk you're willing to take? Chemaf. It's a really good question. I I I I've kind of ventured out a little bit, but I just kind of put on a mask. The only place I don't wear a mask is when I walk around my house just because it's. They live in the suburbs, and so there's just so much space between people that you don't really run into anybody. But if I have to go to Walgreens or CVS or whatever, I always bring a mask and gloves. So I've got I've ventured out a little bit, but nothing. Nothing meaningful to be quite honest. And sacks? Uh, you're still out of the country in an undisclosed location. How are you feeling about what risks you're willing to take? I, you know, small groups of people. Are you going out to a restaurant? Are you seeing other people? How do you look at the risk you're willing to take personally? I've I've adjusted my risk profile I think quite a bit. So I mean the the the learning over the past few months was just that relatively that that the fatality rate for say relatively healthy people under 50 without risk factors is you know 50 times lower than say you know someone under over 60 or someone who has risk factors. And so I'm not being reckless but I'm willing to kind of reengage in social behavior among. Groups of friends and on the theory that you know all my friends have been locked down. I was I was in total lockdown for two months. Some of my friends. And so you know I I have several questions. The first is. I mean, how old are you? Look like 90, roughly. How old are you exactly? So how did how did the risk factors apply to you? Second, you have friends. These things. Well, we know there's three on this call, so, saxy poo. I love you. I miss you. Yeah. No, I mean, you raise a good point. I mean, my physical age might be 90, but my lungs are only 48 years old. And. So my, my hopefully my my lungs are you know qualify in that under 50 category. So you know I've been playing golf with friends. You know I've, I've kind of widened the the circle of people I'm willing to let into my quarantine, basically. So by a dozen by 100. How would you by about I've actually let in at not all at once but at different times probably about 20 people got it. So you feel comfortable. And those people you do ask them, have you quarantined? Have you been wearing masks? Have you been tested or you're just like you kind of. I mean I I generally know that people have. I mean now this may change over the next few months, but everyone's been kind of under shelter in place. And so if you were going to start to socializing with your friends, this would be the safest time to do it because everybody has been sort of locked down to some degree and you know, most places have been closed and so you know, if your friends haven't gotten it, they're. Probably pretty safe. Alright. Swing over to you, Dave Friedberg. Uh, tell me what you think of Sachs's position. Obviously Chamant still in quarantine. You know, venturing off to the store once in awhile, sacks opening up to, you know, 20 people or whatever in small groups playing golf outdoors. But I'm assuming he's not having like an indoor party for 50, obviously. How would you look at the risk he's taking? And what risk are you taking Friedberg personally in your life? I'm not too dissimilar. I've got about 8 buddies coming over to the pool. This afternoon we're going to do kind of like a Father's Day hang session, but we're going to be outside and I've done a lot of hiking without masks and going outside without masks. I'm not really too concerned about outdoor behavior. There was a good analysis done that showed in tracing cases where they actually found the origin of where transmission occurred, 97% occurred indoors, so generally speaking, like outdoor activity. To me, it's like pretty reasonable to do. So I'm pretty free with like doing stuff outside, meeting friends outside, hanging out by the pool. And I've had a bunch of people come by and hang out and then indoor stuff I try and avoid. So if I'm going to go into a supermarket, I'll wear a or grocery store, I'll wear a mask, and I'll be in there as short a time period as I need to be. And I'm certainly not going into restaurants and stuff like that. But you would sit outdoors at a restaurant, I would assume, if the tables were six feet apart. Would you go to a restaurant and sit in a restaurant? Yeah, I'm not rushing to do that. Yet there's just something a little bit weird about the way some of those are configured. But generally, yes, like outdoor seems fine, you know? But like the way they set it up, it's it's almost like you're exposing yourself to a bunch of people around you because they're pretty confined spaces they're setting up these tables at and that. But yeah, sunlight and wind effectively will, you know, break apart the protein that that is the virus and and you will not have this kind of infectious viral particle. And so that's a pretty, you know, well understood thing at this point. Umm and you know, but it's not spoken about as much by public health officials because they don't want to kind of mitigate the concern and they don't want people to start taking off masks and and you know, taking on very risky behaviour. But yeah, generally speaking I think kind of like outdoor behaviour is pretty pretty safe and and and non non transmissible. The risky stuff I'm doing is, you know, we we had a, you know, just having like folks come back to the house and that's where I kind of still try and draw the line, which is having people in the house and you know where they've been. And so that's a little bit concerning inside the house, the. Spittle particles with COVID-19 in of them? If they did, would. Be lingering, that is what? I'm sorry to be graphic, but that is the concern, correct freeberg is that when you're outdoors, the spittle. Would blow away and the particles are in the right. I mean it really does evaporate. So the liquid that holds the protein because the protein needs to be in a liquid to to kind of maintain its integrity. When that evaporates and it'll evaporate from wind or from sun and that protein will degrade, it becomes kind of a non infectious particle at that point. And so when you're inside and you don't have those mechanisms, that particle can just float around in the air and that's how it gets spread and that's why in in the tracing work that was done, it shows like 97% of cases happened in an indoor. Environment. Just like this. And I don't believe in the six foot thing. I think it's ********. Like if you're 6 foot away from someone in a room, people are coughing and that room gets filled with those particles over a one hour period, it doesn't matter if you're ******* 6 feet away or 20 feet away, that stuff's in the air. So this whole notion about like, hey, distance yourself in a restaurant and indoor space, it's like, no, that's actually not gonna necessarily solve a problem. Maybe if someone immediately sneezed, you'll avoid it. But I mean, certainly sats's advocacy for masks and free burgers are you? Are you. Is that an aura ring you're wearing? Yeah. Have you tried it? Yeah. I I actually just bought it a few weeks ago and I've been using it to monitor my sleep. But the there was an article that said that, you know, I think that the all the NBA players are going to be given these aura rings as well because it can apparently detect coronavirus 3 days ahead of other ways because it can see a change in your basal sort of body temperature. Yeah. So UCSF ran this beta with them and they developed this algorithm that they think is pretty predictive. So we'll see if it works in production. But yeah, that's the theory. Well, there's also this connected thermometer that if you use it, I forgot the name of it, it sends all the data to a central repository and they've been able to predict it as well. And this just when we look at how the government, I think it's called rectal temp, rectal temp, it has to go in your ******. Just whatever's going on in your active, it goes right to the government now it there and but this is an interesting thing when you think about low cost ways to deal with this. The amount of money we poured into the system. Chamath is so great that if we just sent every single person in America an aura ring or one of these thermometers and said just take your there, your temperature all the day, we would know where the outbreaks were. And that would be a lot less expensive than a lot of the stimulus we're doing to try to cure what's going on. Do you agree that we should maybe include that in some sort of approach? Look, I think that I think the basic issue is that something really odd has happened in the United States and we were talking about this in our group chat, which is that we have managed to find a way to politicize absolutely everything and, you know, some things, for example, like universal basic income or, you know, what is our national policy towards. China, those are political issues, but things of public health when they get sort of distorted and viewed through a political lens or just idiotic, you know? We view masks as a political statement. We would view these aura rings as, you know, people being afraid that the government was going to track them. So we'll find every good, we'll find a lot of excuses in order to blow up any good idea at this point, because we can politicize anything, and we do it better than any other country in the world. You know, it's an interesting point you make there. And I'm gonna. I'm gonna go to you in a second, sacks, if you pull up my computer for a second, nick, one thing I cannot. Understand, when I watch the media or I watch this discussion and we haven't seen Doctor Fauci in about 60 days. I don't know where they buried him, but he's he's been put in a bunker somewhere, but the number of deaths in the United States continues to go down. Massively now I know New York was a big outbreak and that contributes to it, but at the same time if you look and you compare debts to new cases. You know, the new cases has increased in some regions and testing has gone way up. So in trying to interpret this data, I don't understand why there's not somebody saying, listen, here's the good news, debts are going way down, testing is going way up, and here's what we should take from that. Sacks, I think, uh, you and I are might be slightly different sides of the aisle when it comes to to politics. How do you look at this in terms of leadership at a federal level and then the media and how? You know, chamath point, we've politicized this. Yeah, well, I I agree that that things get overly politicized. And mass is a is a really good example. It's just a really common sense, easy solution. You know, I wrote a blog that we covered on this pod 2 1/2 months ago saying that I thought mass should be public mask wearing should be policy, you know, should be the law. Little did I know that I was taking a left wing position. Yeah. Oops. Did you lose any friends over that? And you're still talking to you? Yeah. I mean, I know you guys have me on the show as the the token right winger, but actually I just appear at CNN just asked me to be on the show today to explain why mass should be policy. So I I just thought that was a common sense thing. You know, I'm normally very receptive to libertarian arguments, but, you know, like, like we talked about the the boundaries of libertarianism are, you know, you only have the freedom to wave your arms until your fist hits my nose. You know, and something similar is true about it. When your infectious particles hit my nose, you know, there there are reasonable boundaries to to to freedom there in the interests of other people's health and and you know that that blog, a lot of public pronouncements about COVID have not aged very well over the last couple of months. I think that blog actually is aged pretty well by comparison. And because you just look at all the countries that have been successful at fighting COVID. I mean, Japan has 135 million people. It's an old population and they've had under 1000 deaths, South Korea, 51 million people under 300 deaths. You take a a Western European nation like Czech Republic that a huge COVID outbreak spiked just like the rest of Europe. They went all in on mask wearing and they've completely controlled the virus. It's knocked out. And so it's really crazy to me that we just can't get on the same page as a country about something as obvious and easy. As mask wearing and it's because we the the the the left wants to get Trump out of office so badly. And they're so triggered by him and they hate him so much. Whether that's valid or not, we'll leave aside that they want to. And then he wants to say no mask. I don't understand his motivation. What do you what do you think Trump is thinking and who's advising him that he should be anti mask? I I think somehow it's for the right, it's become an active defiance and I understand that to some degree because I do think that the lockdowns went on too long. They with, I think with 2020 hindsight we would say that the lockdowns weren't necessary if we had just gone all in on a mass policy. That's what they did in Japan, right. And so you, you know the the problem, the problem with kind of the the politicians in charge is that, you know well backing up a second, I think the right policies to end lockdowns. To wear masks. And the problem with the politicians is half of them didn't want to end lockdowns and the other half didn't want to wear masks. And that's kind of the the weird way in which has become this political football. Trump was trying to do this as an act of defiance. What was the left trying to accomplish, do you think? What would be your cynical or charitable approach to what they their reaction to this and locking down so severely? Well, I just. I I think that what was the purpose of lockdowns, I think it was the, the, I think the initial reaction was it was based on what happened in Italy, right. And so in Italy we kind of had this worst case scenario where the hospital system got overwhelmed you know tremendous fatality rate from the virus. And then we started to see the same thing happening in New York and and I think you know locking down briefly in New York to get a handle on the situation I think was justified. I don't think it again with 2020 hindsight that we needed to do it. Anywhere else in the country, if we had instead, you know, just worn mass, do you think the left, though, perpetrated a perpetual lockdown? This is the most cynical view that I've heard, and I don't think you hear this often. And that's part of why we do this podcast, is to sort of explore these, you know, kind of takes that you hear on the inside but not, not maybe on CNN, the cynical. Interpretation was they wanted to keep lockdown, to crash the economy, to make Trump look bad, to get him out of the office. Do you think there's anything valid to that argument? I I, you know, I I don't know I it it, yeah. I mean I don't it's certainly possible. I think that it's possible though that the left just kind of under weights, you know the economic damage of of lockdowns. You know I heard a lot of arguments about from from the left that if you wanted to end lockdowns then you care more about money than lives and you can't put a price on a life, which is literally what we do all the time like insurance, healthcare. We put our price on life. Free bird but but but I but I was never in favor of doing nothing. I mean, I, you know, I was tweeting weeks ago that we should end lockdowns but wear masks. And so my argument would be, look at Japan, you do more for lives and the economy by having a mass policy instead of lockdowns, freeberg. What's your take on Sacks's take? No, I don't disagree. I mean I, you know, I'm not, I'm not a great expert on kind of the the politics and you know, I can kind of comment on policy I think in terms of what I think is reasonable or not. I certainly, you know, thought that the lockdowns were unreasonable in the extent but then the problem was they weren't followed so they were all for waste. To the worst of all, the worst of all outcomes. Yeah, but there wasn't all huge. Like, until they actually went into effect, there wasn't a huge amount of debate about this. It was just like, oh **** we better all go into lockdown. What happens? This is almost like the human conscious and unconscious mind. Like, you know, the the conscious mind rationalizes what the unconscious already decided to do. So everyone freaked out. Everyone had a great deal of fear. We shut everything down. And then the left and the right had their own rationalization after the fact about, you know, what that meant? Was it good? Was it bad? Did we overreact? Did we underreact? Should we have done more? And so I feel like the narrative. Told a little bit too late here where we all kind of like have these commentaries about left and right politics, politics after the fact. And, you know, I I don't think it's really meaningful to be honest. It's just almost like, let's let's fill in the what happened story with our own point of view based on our, our, our, our tribe or whatever we sit in. So chamath, where, where, how do we get out of this now? Because the deaths are going down, we're out, we're out, we're out the the Genies out of the bottle. Look, the reality is there is not a single country government. That can tolerate future lockdowns because I think the populations will revolt. And so we're going to have to deal with cases as they crop up, and we're going to have to deal with infection rates popping up. And, you know, we'll have to deal with these bursty economic landscape. Today, Apple just announced they're closing a bunch of stores and a few in a few states. They'll, I'm sure they'll reopen them in a few weeks, but we're gonna be in this sort of start and stop mode now for the foreseeable future. But it's just not possible to ask people now to go back into any form of quarantine or shelter in place. I just don't think they'll do it. Right. And people, people only do lockdowns until there's some activity that they that they want to engage in that they think is essential. Right. And so you saw with the protests, if you believe that the civil rights protests are essential, you believe that you're, you're you're out of lockdown. And you know and if you want to go to a Trump rally, you believe that's essential and you're out of lockdown. And so you know so everybody and you know you have the case in Texas of the woman who wanted to open a haircut salon. And so, you know, you were never gonna get good compliance with the lockdown plan in in addition to the damage and destruction it caused. It was never very effective because people weren't willing to do it. And I think the big public policy mistake here was the politicians squandering their credibility on lockdown so were never very feasible instead of just going all in on mass and it would have been a lot cheaper. By the way, the other thing is you we we need to push mask wearing. Back into a public health debate and you know Newsom. Yesterday, Gavin Newsom, the Governor of California, basically said masks are now mandatory in California. The thing is, you have to add fines. If you don't wear them where you know people can be cited and fined. And then the other thing, and David, you said this earlier, is you have to be criminally culpable at some level if you go out of your way to not wear a mask and infect somebody. And there is a bunch of case law on how this can be true. And so I think that we need to solve these things because you need to have good hygiene around mask wearing and what the consequences are if you choose to. Wear one. Well, you know, Shmat, it's interesting you bring that up. There was a there have been cases of people purposely infecting people with the HIV virus and going to jail for it and being liable for it. So there is, I think, and I'm what's the difference? What's the difference, coughing in somebody's face versus having sex with them when you know you're infected? What is the difference? Well, that I don't know if you saw this viral video of the the Karen. Which is like so many Karens these days, so many Karens. And Aunt Karen just, like got upset that somebody was calling her for not wearing a mask and a cafe and she literally coughed on the person. And did you see that video? How is this person not in jail? I mean, it's, I think that was in New York, right? And I think it was New York. And the woman didn't know she was being filmed. But Oh my Lord. I mean, the great thing about the Internet right now is, like, if anybody basically transgresses, they are identified in about a nanosecond. And I mean, I saw that because on on the Saturday morning. She coughed on this person who was complaining about her not wearing a mask and within 15 minutes they had her LinkedIn they had contacted while Medical Center where she worked and then while put out a press release basically saying we had fired her, you know, for being a dummy well before the mask thing. And so the whole thing now just gets so adjudicated and resolved so quickly. It's, it's, it's incredible. We've basically moved to Judge Dredd now. It's like. The the social media is the judge, the jury and the cops in this entire equation. The one that I loved actually that that really actually, frankly I I look forward to was the the the cyclist in Maryland. I mean, you know, you cannot. Go after kids touching another person's child and and women and like attacking them for putting up, you know, Black Lives Matter posters like and then to attack these. But then again it was the sub community on Reddit and it was amazing. It was the actual like Maryland subreddit. Who knows what's going on in the Maryland subreddit on Reddit? What could they be talking about? But they identified this guy and he was fired. He was arrested. You know, it all happened within, you know, probably 36 hours, but you got, you guys know, in that story there was another guy who was identified first and he was a police officer and then people went after him and he basically had his life ruined within those first 24 hours. And he wasn't the guy. Yeah. And he wasn't the guy. The way they got him was the Strava data, right. Like he had. They found a guy on Strava who had done that. Yeah, the stuff that's right. That's the guy was using stevia, the app that the for the bike people and they monetize that app through subscriptions, correct. Don't make fun of my dyslexia, charmap. You're bullying me. On my own podcast, you say monetize on CNBC in front of millions of people. It's unbelievable. We have tried to teach you how to pronounce that word for 15 years. I know, but I stayed on purpose now and I lean into it now. Money is slightly pornographic. Yeah, he also. He also he also ***********. I'm going to go home and most masturbate later. OK? Go back to your stevia story. What is it? Wait, so so So what happened is this guy got in trouble. And this is my point about the problem with the groupthink hive mind approach to these issues is you can end up not when you don't follow a predefined due process and you let the mob kind of rule over these moments. Bad **** can happen too. And So what? What happened? What happened to the cop? The copy? Like everyone started chasing him down. And like you know, his whole life got ruined. Everyone like death threats and ******* with him and all this sort of stuff. Now calling his employer, calling people who know by the but they found his phone number, they found his address. They don't got turned upside down. Yeah they and but basically like the fact that they found out that it was someone else doesn't resolve the fact that there are now hundreds of people after this guy and they don't pay attention to that it wasn't him. And you know due process has a role in a civilized society where you can actually create structure and resolve these things in a in a proper way as opposed to letting mob mentality kind of rule. I mean. You know, this stuff can get a pretty ugly pretty fast if we saw as this being just a really, you know, pretty lightweight example. But I'm not sure I'm a huge advocate of this. Like chased the guy down and then punish him at once and cancel. The cancel culture is a little bit ugly right now if you don't have all the facts. I mean this stuff in a lot of these cases. Yeah, there, there is definitely, it's great that you can find criminals so quickly and I'm curious what people think and obviously you just don't want to miss Target somebody. And so there's if you do find somebody's targeted like give the information to the authorities, but you may not want to dox them immediately and and try to ruin their lives before you actually know what's going on. A lot of companies now, Microsoft, IBM and others Amazon I think are saying we don't want to, we're going to take a pause on facial recognition. I'm curious what your each of your thoughts are on law enforcement and we'll get into the law enforcement discussion and and race relations here in this country and what we went through, we look we we have been, we have been, we've been arming our police force mistakenly like our military and we've been doing it for you know decades now and it makes no sense. There was this crazy tweet I saw today maybe we can find AOC tweeted out. Where she she found this announcement from some like long tailed Police Department somewhere who basically got a a free armored truck carrier and you know they're they're, they're driving it around town or whatever, pulling it out of the garage. It looks like downtown Baghdad and you're like, I mean they're in like Fargo, ND wherever they are. I mean like it's just so it makes no sense. I don't think, I don't think any of us thought that we wanted to apportion our tax dollars. To build a second Shadow Army, I think we all want an army and a Navy and an Marines and an Air Force. We want, you know, aircraft carriers and F sixteens and tanks and machine guns and all that stuff. But we want them with our military and then we want cops, I think, to be extremely well trained. I mean, half the time, you know, cops are, you know, you asked them to be mental health counselors. Other times you're asking them to be, you know, CPR givers. Other times you're asking them to be. Criminal apprehend hers. The job is too complicated. They clearly can't do it. They're poorly trained. And then you arm them on top of all of that, and you have this shitshow that we have today. Yeah. It's not like there's an IED waiting somewhere for them to drive over where they need metal plating on the bottom of the vehicle. That's not what they're dealing with every day at. At a minimum, let's like, look, I I'm a huge fan of ending qualified immunity. I think that doesn't make any sense. I think we have to stop arming our police like their military. Don't train them like the military. Train them like a different kind of service and we may need to go back to first principles to figure out how to actually train them properly to spot abuse, to deal with mental health and just to be, you know, a little bit more patient and understanding and empathetic versus trigger happy. Can I ask you, can I ask you a question on that. So a lot of the actions that police take when it comes to lethal action is defended by the notion that my life was under threat as a as a cop and that sources. And the fact that we have a Second Amendment in this country where a lot of people are, you know, are, you know, gun carriers and are allowed to to have arms. So our police force has had to respond with the fact that there are a lot of guns in this country with defensive principles and defensive mechanisms to defend themselves against the loss of life due to a gun. And that makes the United States really unique in terms of the the circumstance versus if you look at the United Kingdom where they don't have a Second Amendment right to, to to bear arms, the police aren't armed and the police behavior is significantly different. Look at this. In any country where there isn't a right to bear arms, do we not have a fundamental problem in this country that stems from the fact that the police feel or can justify that they're always under threat of loss of life due to arms being out in the in the Contra? I think it's a fabulous question. The Contra example I would say is if you look at Switzerland, where the per capita gun ownership is really High, Canada where per capita gun ownership is really high. What I would tell you is there's a different kind of psychological training that police people go through before they're put on the streets, and that is fundamentally different. Here the job as is defined to them here is different than it is in Canada or Switzerland where you know gun ownership levels are quite robust. And I think it all comes down to incentives. And the reality is, is that there is A to your point, David, this amplification of this idea that everybody is armed, which I think is fundamentally mostly not true in the day-to-day course of like living one's life. But I think police people tend to be very. Amplified around that threat. And as a result, the unions have basically written contracts that protect their use of force. The law is written in a way that protects their use of force, and so all of it comes from, to your point, a defensive posture of fear. But if you actually tried to train these people differently, I think you'd have a different outcome. Because what I can tell you is the police in Canada do behave differently. They don't reach for their gun every second. It's an interest. I think there's a very interesting example, and I know we don't wanna, like, just take one anecdotal incident and then, you know, make a a big sweeping generalization with it. But if you look at the gentleman in Atlanta who was shot in the back twice, Rashid Brooks. Rashard. Rashard Brooks, Rashard Brooks. This example to me is so illustrative of the problem. They spent 40 minutes talking with this individual who was. Absolutely not a threat. They had frisked him. They knew he was not armed. He was intoxicated. He's in a drive through of all the ways you could have dealt with the situation. And I come from a family of police officers, and I can tell you a lot of stories about cops letting people go. Obviously, white people with warnings in this situation, letting him sleep it off, taking his keys, letting him run away. You know who it is. You have his driver's license, you have his car, you have his case, let him run away. Under what circumstances would you feel justified shooting a person when there were so many other options? And I it comes exactly, I believe chamath from two things you pointed out. One, they're in a very defensive. Position into the training. They're trained to use lethal force, and if you're in a situation where you feel threatened, you just shoot. That's it. And if you shoot, you shoot to the center of the body to kill the person. And in their training they're not trained to think, how do I disarm the situation, defuse the situation, and what are the other options? This person is obviously not a threat and you knew the Taser was fired twice. I'm not saying the person should have resisted arrest, not saying the person shouldn't have aimed the Taser at the person, but they should be. Trained to protect life and diffuse situations at all costs, Jason. Like, think about the incentives. They should have been trained maybe to just walk into the Wendy's, buy this guy a coffee, and then drive him to the motel that he said that he was staying at. Yes. Or they should have been trained to just write a ticket and say, listen, here's a citation for being drunk because you did technically kind of drive and now I'm going to leave it alone. They could have done many things that they chose not to do because the incentive was to. You know, project power in that situation versus project any kind of empathy and compassion, right? And and the selection of people who go into the Police Department, and I come from a family of police officers and firefighters. Brother, Uncle, cousin, grandfather up and down the line, Irish cops and firefighters, big tradition or my family. And I can tell you that there is a contingent of people who go into the police who are power tripping or maybe didn't get wherever else they wanted to be in life. And the job of seeing people and dealing with the bad stuff that you pointed out, you know people in domestic situation, domestic violence situations people who. Are mentally ill, homeless addict, addiction problems, all of that then trains these peoples to see the worst in humanity and then they just look at their job as just this dystopian, horrible experience. And uh, they are in that defensive posture, whereas we need to train people. And and I I made this tweet where we should have a new class of police officer that is more like a Jedi Knight. You know, they get paid twice as much. They have masters degree in social work or psychology. And when that call comes in for an emotionally disturbed person? A person who's intoxicated on drugs, a domestic violence situation, you don't wanna send the average B cop to that. You want to send the Jedi. No. But Jason, make it even easier. Like when when you go in and get a 911 call and it's, you know, there could be, it's somebody who's in sort of like mental distress or you're going to do a mental health check. Why don't you send a really well trained social worker? Absolutely. And the reason is why don't we have a whole, whole force of social workers that we pay $100,000 a year? Absolutely. And and this is what these police officers make. And there is an argument to not have them armed. There's an argument for them to be armed, but maybe they're so enlightened and trained so well. I think the training in the United States is in the low hundreds of hours. In other countries, it's thousands of hours. I mean, if a person has a gun. I think police should not get their gun until they've completed maybe 2 or 3000 hours on the job. In other words, they get to the second or third year. So the first year when you're a probe, why even have a gun? Why not just have them doing things without a gun? And then when you get that gun, maybe you need to have the equivalent of a masters degree. You know, maybe you need to have a level of training and we need to go to 1st principles like you're saying mammoth, and rethink this whole thing. In any startup or any problem solving, you would look at the show me the 1000 calls, how did they break down? What were the outcomes? And if you look at the outcomes of dealing with mentally ill people or people who are addiction or domestic disputes, the the outcomes are things that police are not trained for. That's got to be a very high percentage of these situations, let alone the no knock warrant, which makes absolutely no sense. Yeah, I mean I think, I think there's there's just a lot of look there's a lot of change coming. I think that there's a lot of legislation afoot at every sort of level of government and I think the good news is that it's going to be hard for people to sit on their hands on this. I don't think it's going to be universally across the country, but I do think that people will then again self select and wanna live in places where sort of like the laws match their ideals and this is going to be an area of. Tremendous reform and change. You know, what's interesting about all of this is like, if you actually go back to the Republican ideology, it's interesting to me why Republicans aren't the first ones to try to embrace rewriting, you know, the union contracts and actually decreasing unionized power. Because that's sort of like has generally been a tent whole theme of Republican ideology. But then as it gets applied to cops, I think they kind of just abdicate responsibility. So there's a lot of reasons where you could have bipartisan agreement on a bunch of these things. But again, I think we're we're we kind of like get caught up and we refuse to see the forest from the trees and want to fix these things. But I suspect that a lot of these changes will happen just because they're so bloody obvious. And depending on your ideology, you can frame the same reason for completely different motives and get to the same answer. Nobody wants this, sacks. What do you think about the the Union issue as our token right winger? I think, yeah, I think, I think the police unions have too much power. All the public employee unions do, I think, you know, just like the teachers unions have thwarted school choice and education reform, I think we're seeing the police unions toward a lot of sensible reforms around the use of force. You know our our, our friend Bill Gurley's been tweeting a lot of great research that around police departments that are unionized. There's a lot more complaints against them. There's a lot more examples of the use of force and unwarranted use of force. And so clearly there's a connection here between. Police unions and the thwarting of common sense reforms. And I saw someone, someone tweeted this idea that, you know, the reason why I know it's taking on the police unions is because Republicans see the work police and Democrats see the word union and they're both fans of those things. And so who's who's going to take them on? I mean, and teachers unions is the same thing. And and the political system, the political power of the unions is so entrenched that in order to get in office for in most cases, you're going to need to have the support of those unions. And if you don't, they're going to tell people explicitly not to vote for you. Yeah. I mean, well, well, look, I mean, you look at the cities that have had the biggest problems here. I mean, starting with Minneapolis and these are Democrat controlled cities. These are not, you know, Republican controlled cities and the politicians are very much. You know, in cahoots with the the big Union, the unions there including the police and the teachers unions and all that. And so, you know both parties need to to to be open to reform. To your point, David, there is a there's a story that came out last or last couple of days about the DA in Atlanta who pressed charges against the two officers, but the narrative was about how the DA is being investigated for getting 140K in kickbacks. From a nonprofit tied to something. And then he was claiming that his main opponent, who's right, who could cause these, you know, district attorneys are politically elected officials, right where she had basically done a side deal with the police to not, to not go after, you know, use of force in return for their endorsement. And what a horribly messy, like complicated, gross situation, irrespective of whoever turns out to be right there. So to your point, they've become so entrenched and it's just so low. Level that, then what should be obvious? Justice basically just gets thrown away for what's expedient and convenient. Yeah. Well, you know, this is another example where, like with the mass, I felt like there were, you know, I wasn't violating conservative principles. I thought there really was a conservative principle. I think with, you know, with with this example of the overuse of force by police, you go back to what Lord Acton said, which is power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. If. There's no one standing up to the police unions politically. They have absolute power, and that's going to lead to corruption. So I do think like Republicans should be looking into this now. I think part of the reason why Republicans want to defend the police is because we've also had these examples of looting and rioting and lawlessness. You know, after the the the civil rights protests and I think that again we're we're kind of dividing up into sides and there's too much justification of bad behavior on both sides because of what the other side is doing. You know and I heard people on the left justifying the the looting and rioting on the grounds that you know it was a legitimate expression of you know of opposition is a legitimate protest is legitimate expression of opposition to to the police violence. And I I think that that is wrong and I think it's wrong for people on the right to defend this police, this excessive use of force by police on the grounds that somehow it's justified because we need to control the lawlessness and the rioting. And you know, I think both are wrong and and we, we lack a federal leadership to not make this overly political. But when Trump, then tear gas is with the military protesters to go do a photo opportunity. You know, it's sending the message that he and he wants to be the law and order President. Now you're just charging things up instead of just going on TV and just saying something to bring people back to the concept that we're all Americans, we're all in this together and we rise and fall together. It's such an easy statement. Listen, the protesters have valid concerns. We need to work on this issue. And yes, if you see people doing any vandalism you we have to stop them. Please make sure that doesn't happen because it it works against the very valid criticism and protests that are going on that need to go on. And and the fact that the president can't say that is crazy. Well, what do you guys think about what he has been saying and how Twitter and Facebook have basically taken different sides of freeberg? Go ahead. What Trump's been saying. Yeah. Should should Twitter be censoring him? Slash putting warnings on his posts when he's saying crazy stuff thing. So I yeah. Look, I mean it's such a slippery slope and there's too much room for interpretation. I'm just saying the obvious. But, you know, if you're a platform, you're a platform. You know, you let the things get built on top of you. Sure, you can have some rules around what can be built, but as soon as you start, you know, saying what is true and what is not true and you become the arbiter of truth, you're no longer a. An agnostic platform. And I think that you know that that is a big dangerous risk to take because as you guys know something maybe, and I think we saw this with the, what's that Twitter account, zero hedge, was that the name of the hedge that got banned? And then they came back because it turns out what they said wasn't necessarily as untrue as Twitter at first thought that they were saying was untrue. So, you know, it was a great example of how, you know, a point of interpretation can very quickly kind of reverse. 4th and you can look extremely biased in making that decision at that time well and so YouTube took I think Susan Wojcicki took the Jackie took the position at YouTube that we're going to allow people to talk about coronavirus if what they're saying is In Sync with. The World Health Organization, yeah. And and by the way, the World Health Organization I've had an issue with since well before COVID just from another life. They, I won't get into it, but they've said some stuff publicly that that was just flat out ******* wrong scientifically and and invalid. And it was politicized. And we we kind of got to the root of the political driver behind it. So I've long held kind of disbelief in the World Health Organization as a trusted source of of scientific fact and to sacks's previous point. Want to be able to check power and if the World Health Organization is this incredibly powerful organization who got it wrong with masks and didn't even, you know, like David Sacks is getting it right, some venture capitalists in the Bay Area gets it right about mass and the World Health Organization gets it wrong. Well, he's in Mexico, but yeah. I mean in an undisclosed location. Mexico, but OK Sacks, should they, should they be putting labels and warnings on politicians when they say things that are? Consensus wrong, yeah. I mean call me old fashioned, but I'm very much in favor of free speech and I'm against censorship and you know, fact checking your politicians you don't like is is a is basically bias. It's soft censorship. I mean they're being very selective in who they decide to Fact Check and. You know there's no good way to do it, right? I mean, there is no truth API that they can just plug in to to Fact Check people, though the way that you deal with, with bad speech is more speech. I think it's a line from Justice Brandeis. That is the way historically that we have in this country that we've dealt with speech by people we don't like, which is you have more speech. And and I I don't think censorship or warnings is is the right way to go. What do you think having worked at Facebook? Look, I think it exposes a couple of things. One is that the Twitter product is still relatively brittle. I mean, like, at least Facebook has a whole suite of emoticons. To say something is a crock of **** you know, and it makes you feel bad or makes you feel angry or thumbs down or whatever. And so Twitter's reactionary feedback mechanism to its algorithms is very brittle. And so if you were going to try to algorithmically tune down the distribution of a Trump tweet, you could see where you could balance thumbs up. Their hearts in this case with other ways of signalling that this is either wrong or hate filled or instigating and I think a little bit more self policing is probably the only scalable solution. All of that said, here's what I will say, I think basically that Facebook is becoming Middle America and Twitter is becoming sort of the coasts and Facebook is basically a product of Middle America plus. Kind of like countries outside the United States and, you know, Twitter is about, you know, rich coastal kind of people. And you can see that the the way that the content ebbs and flows and, you know, the kind of content problems. Like just, for example, what is Twitter's latest content problem? It was that Donald Trump tweeted a video from CNN that was doctored, and it only showed a clip of a black toddler running away from a white toddler. And the caption was the Chiron said something about racism. It turned out to not be wrong, blah, blah, blah. What is Facebook's issue? 2 days ago it was that, you know, the boogaloo movement, which is a bunch of people who believe in the militia and an impending civil war, principally used Facebook and Facebook groups to organize. And they found out that they were distributing and, you know, driving viewers and usage and content. So it just kind of tells you like and and if you break down the issues and you know there's there's a couple of people who tweet out the most popular tweets on Twitter versus the most popular content on Facebook. What you see is the left and right distribution. And so I think that the audiences are segregating themselves into using products that basically feed them what they want to hear. Well, let me ask you a question about the leadership. We you work directly with Zuckerberg for many years and we all know Jack. From Twitter, from various projects. What is Zuckerberg's politics? Is he a secret Trump supporter? Is does Peter Thiel, who's on the board, and you're good friends with Peter Teal and worked with Peter Thiel Sachs? I'm curious what you think goes on inside the brain of Mark Zuckerberg in terms of making these decisions. Is he scared that Facebook has become dependent on the right? And is that chamath that it is a right thing? And is he right or left? What is his politics? I don't think that's the right framing. I think that if you're running a big network like this, you have to remember that you're one of the five or six most valuable companies in the world. You yourself have 50, sixty $70 billion. Basically, the world is your oyster and what you've seen over the last five or six years is that there is an increasing regulatory headwind. And if you basically play the game theory out, these companies are gonna get regulated and they're gonna get overtaxed and they're going to get kind of slowed down. The minimum and broken up at the maximum. And so if you're running one of these companies, I think the only thing you can do is hold on. And so if you're going to hold on, there's no point in making any of these changes because it minimizes the amount of cash you can make and the amount of. Report you'll have. So you might as well pick a side as effectively by doing nothing and waiting. And I and I and I think that's that's largely what all these guys have decided to do. They've essentially said we're not going to sort of take a side here. Well no. Twitter has taken aside Twitter app because they're small enough they can survive. They're not going to get broken up. But if you're one of the top four or five, look at the position they've taken, the position they've taken is we have no position. That's Facebook's position. We have no position. We're not going to place ads. No, hold on. It's also Googles, it's also Microsoft, it's also apples and it's also amazons. And in fairness to Facebook, all big 5 tech companies have said our position is no position. And the reason is because that's the only thing they can do to keep that market cap and to hold on to the economic vibrancy of their businesses for longer. Sax, Why did Twitter and Jack actually take a position? Because this cannot happen. If Jack is not 100% supportive of it, he is the driver of it. And the person who okays it? And then what do you think? Zuckerberg didn't want to answer this, but I want you to try to answer it. What is Zuckerberg's relationship with Peter Thiel and his thinking on a political basis in your mind without, you know, giving up your relationship with Peter? But what is his politics and and what is their relationship? Well, I I don't know exactly what zuck's politics are and or not even exactly. I have no idea what his politics are, not remotely. And I do remember the time. When Peter supported Trump during the election and the rest of the board wanted to run him off the board. So clearly it's not like I highly doubt Facebook is a bastion of right wing thinking, but why would Zuckerberg keep him on the board then, in in defiance of everybody else who hates him? Maybe simply believes that supporting the Republican candidate in the presidential election is not grounds for removal from a board. Maybe he simply is not that intolerant. I think, I mean, I'm gonna actually go on a limb here and defend Zuckerberg a little bit, which is my impression of what Zuckerberg's trying to do, is simply maintain Facebook as a speech platform. And, you know, if you're going to be a speech platform, you're going to be called in the crosshairs of all these very controversial debates. And, you know, people are going to publish things that other people hate, in fact, even that the majority hates. But isn't that the type of speech that the ACLU historically defended? You know, it feels to me. Like, there's been a rise mainly on the left in terms of intolerance for speech. They don't like that. They consider to be, well, 100 insufficiently. What? Yeah. You saw that with the New York Times newsroom. I think you tweeted a tweet storm from an opinion writer. There was around the the Tom Cotton editorial, which, you know, it's not like I agreed with it, but they kind of had a, you know, they basically fired the opinion page editor because they realized they they published. And by the way, sorry, just to build on your point. The title, which wasn't even written by Tom Cotton, was, I would say, an order of magnitude worse than the article, if you read the whole article right. But the title was really offensive, wasn't even written by them. It was written, I think, by the editor that got fired. But the article itself was is kind of bad, but not nearly as bad as the title, which he didn't do this because freeberg 20 years ago, when we were all as Gen Xers coming up, we were taught to defend freedom of speech. This is a core tenant of a of a vibrant democracy and that you need to be able to read. Unpopular opinions? Uh? In fact, the KKK needs to be able to March down Main Street, and we need to protect that ugly speech in order for everybody else to have it. And here we have it, you know, an editorial, which obviously none of us agree with. It is is. Is this an existential threat to America that we are now going to say freedom of speech is not a core tenet of the of the American, uh, experiment? I'm just looking for the term that was used by, uh, what's the other New York Times opinion writer? I forgot her name. Sack. Maybe you'll help me, but she talks about like like a comfort culture or so. Basically, we used to pride ourselves on a culture that enabled freedom of speech and and and that was that was cherished and heralded. And what is cherished and heralded now is a culture that protects people from hearing offensive and scary things. That they don't want to hear. And that shift, you know, those of us who are Gen X, which I think I am, I was born in 1980 into the millennial Gen Z and beyond, kind of a generation has occurred and it is fundamentally changing the nature of how we find truth and how we find, you know, coalesce around decisions as a society and we're excluding the things that are offensive. And it's a little bit scary to think about from my point of view that you know. Can't explore all options. We can't hear all dissenting points of view. Uh, this is certainly a very deep argument about how our society and our our how our democracy operates. But it is happening and and so the point was like we are we are starting to shift towards valuing comfort over over freedom of expression and and that's that's just kind of the big. The big change that's occurring and look, we do live in a democracy, so the votes are gonna be what what ultimately decides what happens here votes in terms of who's using Facebook versus Twitter and votes in terms of who's voting for what presidential candidate and what governor and what mayor. And so we'll see, you know, it's a, it's a, it's a, it's a, it's a, it's a, it's a sea change in how this democracy operates. Yeah. I think it's a sea change going back very far because the, the, the whole principle of the Enlightenment going back hundreds of years was stated by Voltaire, which is that I may disagree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it, who today is willing to do that. I mean that was the the idea that led to political liberalization in the West. It's really a unique. Feature of Western democracies and liberalism you go to anywhere else in the world, I guarantee you people aren't defending to the death your your right to to say things they disagree with. I don't think they're, you know, I don't think Xi Jinping or Vladimir Putin is defending your right to hear things that they don't want you to. So, you know, this is a very foundational part of of American and, you know, Western political liberalism and it's being challenged now. And I think, you know, we should have more self-confidence in our ideas to worry so much about Donald Trump's tweets, which are ephemeral, be forgotten very soon that we're willing to throw out freedom of speech. Well, yeah, I mean this is the thing I don't understand about labeling his tweets is, you know, I mean, it's. Anybody not think that this guy is hopped up on Adderall or a complete moron like or any of those things like we all know he's an idiot who just tweets 50 times a day and he's a scared you know that he's not going to win his you know reelection and that he's a he's he's a literal reality star. So who do you mean by when when you say we we all because it's a different we that I think you're saying that I think other people would be saying yeah, but we represent, right. I mean that's I think the generational divide here is I don't know if it's generational. I think there's a lot of dimensions. Across which these differences of perspective occur, and I've said this for amongst our group for a long time, but there's a huge difference between a rural population and urban population in the United States in terms of what their priorities are. And I think that difference in priorities is unconscious. And that's where things really resonate that Trump says. And that really moved the needle for a lot of folks. The priority of civil rights is not as it might be in an urban center, is not a priority in a rural center and in a in a in a rural population. There's a different priority, Trump, no matter what, how he says it, the things he's saying are different than what I'm hearing from the urban population, which is where the media comes from and so on and so forth. And so Trump resonates with me. I don't care if he sounds a little bit wacky. I need wacky because it needs to be different than than standard. And there's just, there's a lot of divides here and a lot of dimensions across. I think that we absolutely should not throw the baby out with the bathwater. We should never attack this very basic principle of free speech. Because we will never forgive ourselves if we do. But then This is why I think we come back to. We should be a little bit more resilient, uh, to build products and services that allow a little bit more texture. In the discussion. So that you actually can have free speech flourish more in a more transparent way. So David, to your point, you know, how do you drown out hate speech? It's with more speech. Well, these products don't necessarily even enable that. And so I do think that we have this sort of an issue where the products and services that billions of people use to consume their information and construct a worldview today. They neither will allow things to be flagged nor will they increment the feature surface area so that you can actually have. So then that's why I think people then get into this place where everybody feels cornered and nobody likes what's happening. And so I think that's kind of what we're in. I think that if we had a little bit more ingenuity in thinking by the folks at Twitter and Facebook, it would go a long, long way. Yeah, I do think there's something, I mean, the conundrum of Twitter. Is, UM simultaneously? It's the main way I get my news information, but I also see it as a huge source of groupthink and kind of mob mentality. And so you, you know, the more time you spend on Twitter, I mean, I see a lot of people saying the more unhappy they are. And so you do wonder whether it's making you more informed or whether it's just making you buy into some sort of mass psychosis. Well, it could be both, by the way. You could be becoming more informed and you could be going into a psychosis, which we have a lot of friends who are high profile, who like their behavior on Twitter is, is, is a separate thing than who they actually are, right? Like they just lose their **** on Twitter and you know, they. The the is really a very strange place, to be sure. Can we talk by the way? Can we just talk about this Bolton book? I believe. What the ****? I mean, he he did ask Jinping to help him win the election, and he bartered by soybeans to help me win the election. I mean, this is insane, I think. I think we need to we need to. First of all, you always gotta look at the source here. So I don't know how somebody commentator who's as far right as you could go, well, who was picked by Trump himself. Well he was a very weird choice for Trump because one of the main reasons why Trump won the Republican nomination as he promised no more bushes meaning an end to these crazy Neo Neo Con wars of intervention and. This guy Bolton, like, he's right out of that playbook central. Well he yeah, he's he's the like hawk of Hawks. There's not a war he doesn't want to get us into. He wanted to get us into a war with Iran. It never made any sense for Trump to hire him in the 1st place. But do you know why he hired him? As stated in the book. I've heard, I've heard the explanation that he liked. I I think he said something like when when he sends Bolton into a room he likes, he like he thinks his strength is his negotiating position because the other side thinks that they're about to us is about to invade or something when both. And it's also Trump was like, I love hearing you talk. It's just like Fox News, like that's the quote is so he literally picks people. Based, I mean and he picked up a Ludlow, right for his you know he picks them based on being TV personalities. I just think this Bolton guy is like you know is this crazy Warhawk who also is this kind of like a weasel and I don't know how he creates a 500 something page book out of spending 17 months in the White House. I guess he's just writing down every I'm surprised it's not 5000 words that should be that should be like tokens, Lord of the Ring trilogy. I'm going to put this other if he can produce the note that Pompeo gave him. That said, Trump is so full of ****. That thing at auction, I'm telling you now, what do you each bid for it? What are you have bid $500,000. At least 500,000. If that note actually exists and he has it, it's not. I mean, it's it's. But I I just think to to me, first of all, it's a little ludicrous that this guy, he is a bit of a weasel because, like, where were you during the impeachment a. He made an economic calculation that his book was more important than the future of the country. So first of all, you kind of go **** go **** yourself with that. But the other thing, though, is that, you know, beyond his sort of like character flaws, it's just the story after story after story. It's just kind of from the bizarre to the absurd, like Finland's a part of Russia. England doesn't have nuclear weapons. Please buy soybeans. You are part of the you are part of the nuclear powers. UK. Really? the United Kingdom has nukes? Wow. What if India? That's yeah but but every every every one of these insider tell all books always makes the you know always makes the president look bad. I mean it's not it's not a hard task. Was there anything though, that was surprising to anyone? The Xi Jinping has a blockbuster the Jijin thing Ping did catch me off guard that he was that brazen and kind of sad but that's the price you. I mean like like the fact that it was said but like the motivation the intention and the the the model of like no, to your point my my expectations are so low. It's it's like teaching a kid to poop in the toilet for the first time. You know, as long as it doesn't poop on the floor. He even if he does it in his diaper, you know, everything looks like success as long as there is just not raw feces on my hardwood. If he if he sat on the the potty, it's success. It's success even if the pants weren't pulled down. If he poops his pants on everybody, tell me about, tell me about I just want to switch topics, tell me about vaccines. Because it seems to me that there's like a growing cohort of people and I'm not going to put Moderna in this camp, but like maybe they did that were very opportunistically out there generating a ton of PR. But what if you had to pick a time and a time frame and then a manufacturing time frame? Can you just tell me, give us the over under so we can make we can better line on it? So there's gonna, I think there's gonna be a stage release of vaccines that'll probably believe it or not, start in Q4 of this year. And there's been production ramp up going on in parallel to testing. So you know, to get these vaccines produced, whether you're talking about the M RNA vaccine or you're talking about a, the the viral vaccine like they did in China, which they actually do have in production, there's a bunch of different challenges with scaling up and ramping production and then, you know what's called downstream. Processing and filtering and packaging and all this stuff anyway, it's a big ******* exercise. So what's going on is there's been a parallel effort to actually scale up production of these things before we've actually completed the testing of them to make sure that they're safe and efficacious. And as a result, and some of this came out of that first or second stimulus bill, some of it came from private funding and then other governments are just straight up paying for it. And so there are a number of facilities that are actually ramping production right now if they don't, if the vaccines. Ultimately don't pass muster, just gonna be a write off of a couple billion dollars. And so theoretically we could have doses that are available for distribution to healthcare workers and frontline people in Q4 of this year is is what I would kind of set the over under at and what do you think these vaccines are like flu vaccines which is like 5060% effective at best? Yeah, I I don't really know the answer to that. I I would say that these things are probably pretty effective. I would say the flu vaccine is just a high rate of mutation and also a low rate of utilization and a high rate of infection. So we're going to have a lower rate of infection, probably a more moderate rate of mutation as a result. And so we we should be more in control if we get something that works with the current strains and the way that this. So SARS, Kobe 2, the most of the vaccines are built around the seven I think major targets around the spike protein and and different epitopes across the spike protein. And so you know if you see a great degree of mutation across that protein it's likely going to be less infected infected and less effective as a as a, as a virus. And so it'll go away. And so I think that we've got a really good shot here at what what are the odds that somebody politicizes the vaccine and America. Doesn't get it. America doesn't get it like size 100%, yeah. Yeah, I mean, look, we've politicized ******* measles. 30% of people have kids now aren't getting vaccinated for measles, which is crazy. And now there's measles outbreaks happening in the US, which is just, you know, mind boggling. So that's just happening in Marin, where you are. Easy. That's just the place with the highest percentage of graduate degrees in the country. No, but I mean it's it's inevitability that it gets politicized. But David, like how does how does the distribution of these vaccines work? Meaning like let's just let's just say that it's like Sanofi, for example, because I saw that the French government made a large investment and the Germans did as well to essentially like onshore a bunch of their, you know, companies who had promising vaccine candidates. And so if you assume that there's a distribution of these vaccines, let's just say the most efficacious ones in China, are they just going to dole this out? Whoever is willing to buy it or they're gonna decide on a political basis how to basically give these and then when they come to the United States, how do we know that it comes to Texas before it comes to Wyoming versus California versus New York. So I think the ones that are getting federal support, which all of them are pretty much at this point, are, you know, going to be federally mandated in terms of distribution. And it's probably some commercial agreement that none of us have seen in terms of like what that looks like. So Trump will sign up to the swing states where he's behind. Is what you're saying? I think this, I think it'll probably be delegated down to helping Human Services. What are the chances that there's a Trump logo on the side of the Trump? Yeah, here's your Trump vaccine. There's a Trump vaccine to save your Life OK. This is a good point for us to to kind of wrap around the horn chamath. And I think a lot of people were convinced that Trump was going to sail into office. Now everything is showing you Fox News poll, CNBC polls, SurveyMonkey polls, that Trump is very far behind. Especially in the swing states. What are the chances Trump wins the election, sax? I think he's well. I think covid's really hurt him because the sort of feather in his cap, the thing he really had going for him was the economy that's been hurt, but it's coming back. You know, the situation could look very different six months from now. Right now it looks pretty bleak because I do think that his reaction to the the crisis was seen as very inflammatory. But I think six months from now could be a very different story. Five months. So you don't think he's going to win right now, but the election today. If the election were today he would lose. But you know the economy we're seeing AV shaped recovery which I think is surprising all of us and if that holds up and we get past the civil unrest that we've had and you know he saw us being so inflammatory on those issues. I think that you know the situation could look very different in five months. You got to remember the other thing which is Biden at some point is going to have to enter into some presidential debates and. You know this woman, if he's gonna be there, what, you're saying cognitively? Yeah. I mean, that's the popular to talk about. But you actually think there's a cognitive issue, yes or no? Probably, yeah, probably, yeah. It's uncomfortable to say for some reason. Yeah, but it's. I mean, at a minimum, look, there's a problem with the way he speaks. I don't know if there's a, which is indicative of a problem with the way he thinks, but, you know, like when if they're on stage for two hours in the debate, I think we're going to find out really quick. And I and I think those debates are pretty unavoidable. I don't think Biden is going to figure out a way to get out of it. So, you know, I think a lot of people think that he gives me propped up by his staff and they can to some extent. But I think at some point, you know, we're going to take a look at Joe Biden. Chamath. Trump wins. Trump loses. Right now, I think it's sort of 7525. He loses, OK. I think that's going to get closer to 5545 as the date comes close. I think it actually comes down to two issues. Number one is who does Biden pick as a running mate? And can he lock up the? The swing states with that running mate and #2, which I think is probably going to play an enormous role if the community organizing that saw the Black Lives Matter movement get to this next level is. Avoiding and preventing voter suppression. You know, LeBron, I think, is about to start an enormous campaign with a lot of very well heeled, well known celebrities to get out the vote. But if there's a concerted effort to prevent voter suppression and get young people. And people of color to the polls, uh, it's a Biden landslide by now. We've gone from a Trump landslide just six months ago in all of our minds to a Biden landslide. Freeberg, where are you at? I still think Trump's gonna win. I'd say 70% chance Trump wins. And I'll tell you why I think there's still there's not going to be structural improvement between now and November for the majority of people that voted for Trump in the last election. There are going to be a large number of people in blue collar and rural areas that remain challenged with their life and feel like they're missing out and they're missing and and and this may even be true in inner city. Umm districts, but, but the big kind of flip vote in the rural and blue collar areas is gonna say, I still need change, I need things fixed. And Trump is the agent of change. Biden, he has always been the agent of change. And I'll tell you the other thing, he's also a master of his laying blame. And so Trump is incredible at pointing a finger at some third party and saying that's the enemy. I'm the guy who's going to go to feed him for you. And I think that's what, one in the election last time? And I think it could win the election again this time, no matter what. ****. Happens between now and November, he will find a way to make the story about how some third party or some process or some deep state is still responsible for that outcome. That's keeping you down, Mr Blue collar, factory worker. And I will be the person to Vanquish that problem. Biden is the old state. He's the old guard, he's the guy from before. And we haven't changed anything in the last four years where people feel happy and secure about their lives. I think, to saxe's point, if the economy was even stronger, it may hurt Trump's chances. Sure, it's a lot of. Folks might say great Trump's responsible. Let's give him a thumbs up. But the more people are feeling pain the more they're looking for an agent of change. And I think Trump against Biden is still gonna be that age that makes me the deciding either tie or swing vote. I believe Biden wins. I believe Trump is absolutely lost his ability to win this because he made two critical errors to saxes very astute point he he just completely blunder on wearing masks and leadership during COVID. And complete blunder in terms of dealing with the social unrest which he could have acted as and reconciliation agent and he's his own worst enemy and couldn't do those two very simple things. I think Biden wins big if he takes the following strategy, which I will call the Avenger strategy, which is it's not just about him. He gets an incredible running mate, 2 chamotte point, but not only that. He pre announces his cabinet Avenger style and they start hosting Allah uh Cuomo in New York Daily briefings where they talk about what the country needs to do with a brain trust in a roundtable with five or six people pre selected so you're not voting for Biden. Who might have cognitive issues and sex is correct. He could fumble under Trump's greatest strength, which is demolishing people in debates which we ourselves all watched. We watched Hillary get. Absolutely beat up in those debates. And that was our I remember those nights when we were watching at your house chamath and we our eyes opened right up like, holy cow, Hillary's in trouble here. He he's just really good at this type of maniac boxing that he does with little Mark Rubio and everybody else he annihilated. But if he picks the right VP candidate, and I want to know as we close here. Who is the VP candidate? That you think he should pick Amy Klobuchar? Uh just bowed out and said. A woman is not enough. You need to have a black woman. O Chamath, who is the ideal running mate? Sachs? Who scares you the most? Since you know the GOP is gonna lose this time around, who's the scariest for you? Uh and Freiburg. Who do you think he should pick? Give it some thought. Or do you not have a consensus choice? I'll, I'll, I'll leave my statement to the end. OK, saxy poo. You don't sandbag this and pick somebody you want them to pick because it helps them lose. Well, I I don't know the the backbench or Democrat politicians well enough to say exactly. I don't have a pick. I would just say I would really like for him to pick a great crisis manager. An operator, somebody who's been there, somebody who's been tested in a crisis. Because there's a very high chance that this VP pick will become the president. Given Biden's age and everything going on in the world, and we've just seen crisis after crisis this year. I think there's going to be more shoes to drop. And this person that we don't even know yet could very easily be the President of United States in the next two years. So I just hope he picks someone who is good at handling a crisis. OK? So that would mean Oprah, perhaps, or God you just picked. Far. Is that really your picture? Well, yeah, yeah, Oprah Winfrey. I mean. She would be. She would be incredible. Oh my God, what a while. Every state. Ohh, she's incredible. Oprah Winfrey for the win. I mean, if you're gonna pick somebody Biden Winfrey, it's gotta rake a slam dunk. It's a slam dunk. I'm sorry. Better than Michelle Obama. I am dunk. Better than Michelle Obama. Slam dunk. I'm gonna e-mail blinking. And Evan Ryan right now. Oprah Winfrey. OK, Freeberg, you have a better candidate who's your choice for. I don't. I I I don't have. I don't have a choice. I mean, I'm not going to make it a choice here, but I I think the challenge he's going to face is finding a black woman who can appeal to the blue collar and rural vote in these areas where he needs to kind of win. When some folks over and so he's gonna end up in these urban districts like the Atlanta mayor or like Kamala Harris and they're they're not gonna they're not going to bring that vote. So he is in a little bit of a pickle here because Amy Klobuchar helped him bridge the rural divide but you know he's got a he's got a I think there's there's going to be a a bit of a search here to find some of the idea of going with Oprah because it just becomes. She is such a reconciler now. It doesn't fit the execution in a crisis. To Sachs's desire and I and she's built a bigger business than Trump. I mean what do you? But that is what is about to get to is I think she's so successful and she's such a great leader and so charismatic she would bring in. Better operators than Trump and Pence ever could. I mean, look at the **** show of people who came in and out of the cabinet. It was one goofball and incompetent ******* after another. Sorry to get a little frisky here at the end, but I feel like we're at the poker game. Trump's cabinet was in an embarrassment. Almost universally correct sacks. Well, look, I here, here's the problem with Oprah or if you want, you know, any other Hollywood celebrity, George Clooney or what have you, they're just, they're not used to getting beat up the way that politicians in our country get beat up. You know, they're used to having people catering to them. They're used to having the star trailer and the star treatment. And, you know, they tend to have a glass jaw in politics because they've just never been put in an environment where there's constantly assaulted. Trump, I mean, was a celebrity, but he was used to. He kind of grew up in that whole New York tabloid environment and was used to punching and counterpunching embraced it. In fact, he was his own fake PR person he was calling the post. Yeah, it's, you know, it's that old saying about, you know, wrestling with a pig. You know, everyone gets dirty, but the pig likes it. I mean, Trump is kind of like the pig who likes it. You know, most of these celebrities don't like having to get beat up, you know, they're used to being very popular and and that's why they tend to be, I think, tough picks politically. Is they? Don't they tend to have a glass jaw? Alright, on that wide. Winfrey, Biden Winfrey, Biden fries. Love you. Let's play poker outside. We'll see you all next time on the all in podcast. Bye bye.