德桑蒂斯的推特空间、债务上限、英伟达狂飙、风投与创业现状

Jason Calacanis (00:00:00): Look at John Quincy Adams here. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:00:01): Yeah. Hey. Hey, Quincy. How you doing? Jason Calacanis (00:00:04): That hair. Look at that hair. David Sacks (00:00:06): John Quincy Adams need awake to achieve this look? David Friedberg (00:00:09): He did. He did. That's true. David Sacks (00:00:10): I did it all natural. Jason Calacanis (00:00:11): I mean, it's a lot. It's a it's a look. You're like some movie star from the 19 seventies who still work Do me a favor. Pull up a picture of Grading Carter for a second and then put that side by side with Saxx. Let's see. Just say I zoom in on that. Facts, this is where you're headed, by the way. You're headed to crazy town. This is where you're headed. You can just poof it out on the sides and you get a little woof scoop on the top. This is where you're headed. Accentriq Sax. Pull up a picture of Steve Bannon's hair. David Friedberg (00:00:41): He's a wise statesman. Jason Calacanis (00:00:42): I think this is what happens. When you get too close to power, you get more eccentric with your hair. So, like, too much power equals crazy hair. Now look. This is my theory. Great and Carter, too much power of Vanity Fair. He went hair crazy. Now you look at Bannon. You get me a Bannon photo here. You start to see. They go longer. They go lofty. They just they get volume, and they're just like, fuck it. I'm just I'm not gonna cut it. I'm gonna let it go wild. And, of course, the the old I mean, he's the penultimate, but you look at Trump's hair, this is where it gets truly crazy. This is where you're headed, Sax. You keep getting this close to power. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:01:17): This is where your hair is headed. David Friedberg (00:01:19): I'm so glad this podcast never broke up because where would we get this amazing site for Jay Cal. If not for keeping this all together, this makes it all worth it. Jason Calacanis (00:01:28): It's -- Very true. It is true. You get, like, a centric and you get crazy hair. This is men get too close to power, and the hair gets wild. Unchecked power. Unchecked hair. David Friedberg (00:01:38): We had a good meeting last night. Jason Calacanis (00:01:39): We had an all in summit meeting. I said, Friedberg, give me a call. Let's catch up on this stuff. He's like, I'm in the bath right now with my candles. And I'm like, yeah. Okay. Whatever. That's cool. He's like, no. No. And he presses the video button. And then I'm exposed I kid you not to the most bubbles I've ever seen in a bubble bath. David Friedberg (00:01:57): I like bubbles. Jason Calacanis (00:01:58): And he is peeking his head out from over the bubbles. And he's like, look. David Sacks (00:02:03): Which hat? Jason Calacanis (00:02:04): Exactly. And then he flips he flips the camera around. And I got his toes pointing out, and I kid you're not 6 candles around the bathtub. I'm like, this is, like, the prince of panic attacks he had to come down for his phone call with me So now when he has a phone call with me, it's so intense and everything's getting so intense with the summit that he has to do self care. David Friedberg (00:02:24): Yeah. That could be emotion emotionally ready. He's self caring. David Sacks (00:02:28): Your wife wasn't anywhere to be found to sit with you in the bathtub with the candles? David Friedberg (00:02:32): I take a bath every night. David Sacks (00:02:33): Who are you romancing? yourself or what? Yeah. Jason Calacanis (00:02:35): I think he was romantic in the spreadsheet with the profit life of all in summits. I have David Friedberg (00:02:40): about 18 minutes of self care every day. Jason Calacanis (00:02:42): 18 seconds a minute. Alright. Let's get the show started in. 3, 2. The weather winner died. Rainman, David Saxon. Speaker 5 (00:02:55): We open source it to the fans and they've just got a reasonable Jason Calacanis (00:02:59): -- Chamath Palihapitiya (00:02:59): Love you. Jason Calacanis (00:03:03): Hey, everybody. Welcome to episode 130 maybe of the all in podcast. We're still here. cook it with oil. With me, of course, the dictator himself, Chamath, Pauley Hapitiya, principal panic attacks Sultan of Science, the queen of Kinois, David Friedberg, and the power broker himself, the emperor, He's been sacked, the emperor of his new republic. Anybody have any interest anything going on interesting this week? Any interesting moments for people on the national stage? No? Okay. Well, let's get right back to the docket. First, around the docket. Ron DeSantis, governor Ron DeSantis announced his bid on the Internet on something called Twitter Spaces. And It looks like almost 10,000,000 viewers have seen it so far across all the different spaces and Donald Trump wasn't too pleased. He said, Rob, my big red button is bigger, better, stronger, and it's working truth because When Elon fired up the Twitter Spaces, it went to 650,000 viewers in under 5 minutes and then blew up everybody's phones. My phone was melting. I could've cooked an egg on the back of it. The Twitter out crashed so many times. But then Sax with his meager following of a half million people or something, then restarted the stream. And so 15 minutes of technical snafus were relieved, and then there was a announcement and I'll let you take it from there, Saxx. David Sacks (00:04:38): You want me to take you behind the scenes? Jason Calacanis (00:04:40): Take us behind the scenes. Take us behind the scenes. David Friedberg (00:04:43): How did it come together, Sex? Jason Calacanis (00:04:44): Oh, yeah. Even better. David Sacks (00:04:46): Yeah. The way it came together is I think the DeSantis team were interested in potentially, you know, doing something different for their announcement. He also did an appearance on Fox News afterwards, and I think he did a town hall. But I think they saw an opportunity to break new ground here in terms of presidential announcements. by doing it on Twitter Spaces. And so the DeSantis campaign connected with Twitter and Elon and I agreed to kinda Cohost the space with him, and he did his announcement. Now you're right. We had about 15 minutes of technical difficulties because the interest was so intense. At the time the the room crashed, it had over 700,000 people in it, and there were it crashed. There's so many people who are trying to get in it. I think there was well over a million people trying to get in it. So you normally don't have this kind of interest. I think this is by far the biggest Twitter space. The the engineers there told me that the previous order of magnitude was more like a 100,000, not a Jason Calacanis (00:05:42): 1,000,000. David Sacks (00:05:42): And then you combine that with the fact that Elon's account has over a 100 followers and that basically led to a new level of scale. And you guys understand that when you get to a new level of scale as a platform, there's always gonna be some Jason Calacanis (00:05:55): -- David Sacks (00:05:55): Yeah. -- some challenges. So in any event, the engineers were there trying to figure out how do we, you know, solve this and we realized the simplest thing to do would be to restart the room. on my account instead of Elan's. And then Elan joins the coast and we brought Santa Santa in and it all worked perfectly at that point. The audio was pressed. We had over three hundred thousand people in the room. There was also another room that had been set up by Mario Nawal, who's like a big Twitter Spaces host. And he had hundreds of thousands of people in there, and then he had live commentary from people he invited. And so this ability to fork Twitter spaces into Many different rooms and each room gets to decide who they want to be their host and their speakers allows you to do live commentary and in a way that you can never have done before. So it was really innovative, I think. Jason Calacanis (00:06:43): Super innovative. And for people who don't know, Twitter Spaces was really a rushed job at Twitter. They did that and reacted to Clubhouse. They it's just it's still basically a beta product that predates Elon being there. And it doesn't have yet the infrastructure or scale of the code base. I don't think, like YouTube and Twitch do, which, you know, have been working on this problem for, I don't know, 15 years. maybe the live products? How many reservations? Yeah. Go ahead. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:07:11): The first is I thought DeSantis did a really good job just rolling with the punches. Okay. Because I think whether he wins you're not gonna look back on this moment as the defining moment of the campaign, nor whether he loses, will you say that this was where it was at all the beginning of the end? Instead, what this was was a really seminal moment, I think, in further divorcing ourselves away from the mainstream media And you know that it was that important because Biden tried to troll the whole thing. Nick, you can show this link. this link works. And I actually think this is a really terrible idea by the Biden team because -- Never response. -- basically acknowledges how important the moment was. Yeah. And the fact that even the president of the United States was grinding the link and couldn't get in because there was so much interest is really important. And I think what it speaks to is the fact that we are now showing credibly that you don't need to listen to 4 channels to shape your consciousness. And you can just go straight to the source and what Saks said is right. If you now have a moderated forum that then gets put out to 50 or 60 different splitter spaces all at the same time framing and reframing, it gives people a chance to come to their own conclusion in a totally unique way. So I think it was really, really an important moment for citizen journalism and podcasting and audio formats and all of the things that I think we've been a small part of, but I think that It's really must have tilted the mainstream media, and it tilted the establishment, and you can see that in Biden's tweet. Jason Calacanis (00:09:07): Yeah. Going direct. David Sacks (00:09:09): Yeah. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:09:09): that was the first thing. 2nd thing. Mhmm. I think DeSantis did a really decent job enrolling with the whole thing and being super cool and just being committed to the process. And I think that says a lot about him as well which was again, it's a question mark and I've said this before. The big money guys got close and then took a step back. So this could be a very good moment for them to reevaluate because I thought he did a very good job. David Sacks (00:09:34): so I agree. So, you know, I was there. I was live. I was seeing what was happening behind the scenes. When DeSantis came on after we, you know, had 15 minutes of technical difficulties, there wasn't a hint of anger. There wasn't a trace of irritation. There wasn't any freaking out that we were potentially ruining his presidential announcement. The guy was completely calm. And more than that, he was in good spirits. I mean, if you listen to the recording, you know, he's happy. He's Jason Calacanis (00:10:00): -- Chamath Palihapitiya (00:10:00): His tone was great. His tone Jason Calacanis (00:10:02): was great. -- David Sacks (00:10:02): was really good. I mean and then, of course, it was very substantive. He spoke in a very articulate way about all the issues. When congressman Thomas Massey came on to make a a comment or question, he was telling a kind of amusing anecdote about when they were in Congress together and Massey was one of the only members of Congress who had a Tesla, but he comes from Kentucky. So I think his license plate set Kentucky Cole on it ky coal. So anyway, you know, the guy was in good spirits. And so I think it does say a lot about what he would be like as a president, cool under fire, doesn't get thrown off his game, you know, again, not an angry guy, you know, which I think will be a real contrast with, let's say, some of the other people in the race, you know, Trump was sort of angrily truthing during the whole thing. You know? So I think it was a pretty strong contrast. Jason Calacanis (00:10:50): The act of posting to truth social. David Sacks (00:10:52): Exactly. So the contrast between the personalities could not have been stronger. Now to the other point that Chamath about the traditional media, you're right about what they were saying. If you look at the the headlines this morning from traditional media outlets that really started Within minutes of the the technical difficulties, The New York Times called the announcement of fiasco. NBC News called it a meltdown. POLitico called it horrendous. And, you know, why? I mean, if you Jason Calacanis (00:11:22): He's already called that? Winning. I mean, If they are losing their cool, that's clearly they feel threatened by the fact that a major presidential candidate chose to go direct. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:11:33): Oh, even the Wall Street Journal. The Wall Street Journal headline is DeSantis looks to rebound after botched Twitter announcement. But, again, what they failed to acknowledge is And I'm not a DeSantis supporter per se. I'm open minded to him, but I haven't decided one way or the other. But this is a guy that managed to get millions of people in a nanosecond to be activated to hear what he had to say. That is different than basically giving talking points and having surrogates blathered through Fox or CNBC or CNN to hundreds of thousands of people. This is a really important moment, I think, what happened. Jason Calacanis (00:12:06): Okay. We got all the positive David Sacks (00:12:07): just to finish that point. So if this was a political rally, a traditional political rally that had started 20 minutes late, would anybody that was a disaster. That happens all the time. No. Jason Calacanis (00:12:17): It was the crashing that made people be like, oh, my phone crashed. Do you know? David Sacks (00:12:20): I was using the app. I got crash out of the app, but I my phone did not crash. So -- No. Jason Calacanis (00:12:24): No. Yeah. That's what I'm saying. The app crashed a couple of times because of David Sacks (00:12:27): the screen. Your phone did not crash. Yeah. But any event look. this was at the end of the day, this was a an event that started 20 minutes late. Once we started it on my Twitter account, in my Twitter space, it worked perfectly. There was no problem. And that's the recording that you can go on Twitter now and listen to. We had about 300,000 people contemporaneously in my Twitter space. I think Mario had a couple 100,000. But if you look the numbers today, there's already 10,000,000 views for this thing. By the way, that's exactly what I Jason Calacanis (00:12:55): predicted. 3 to 10,000,000 -- Yeah. -- on the replay. that's what you have to look as replay because the world has moved to asynchronous. Like, this was 3 o'clock in the afternoon in Silicon Valley in 6 o'clock. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:13:07): Wait. Just when was it? In the afternoon? Jason Calacanis (00:13:09): In the afternoon? David Sacks (00:13:10): So you have a hysterical overreaction by the traditional media that's simply don't like, a, that Elon is disremediating them by letting Jason Calacanis (00:13:18): -- David Sacks (00:13:18): Yep. -- the politicians go direct. And then b, he's restored the platform being a free speech platform. So they jumped on this. The first second they could -- Yeah. Jason Calacanis (00:13:25): -- David Sacks (00:13:25): to try and portray as a disaster. But, you know, there was an article in political this this morning and they were asking voters in Iowa what they think about it and they're what, you know Jason Calacanis (00:13:34): -- It's not yet. It's an elite thing. David Sacks (00:13:36): It's not. Yeah. Jason Calacanis (00:13:36): It's not even on the radar. Friedberg, we we heard all the positive here, and he thought constructive feedback on it or thoughts on it generally? David Friedberg (00:13:44): No. Look, I mean, I would love to see all the political candidates engaged in long form discussion like this so that an audience can really get a sense of who they are and what they think in a direct way and an uninterrupted way. And in a deeper way, sort of like the conversation we all had with RFK last week and Saksed with DeSantis yesterday. And I would love for the voters who engage in that content to better understand the candidates rather than tear off of short talking points and short ads. I think one of the saddest commentaries on modern democracy is that you can spend a dollar to buy a vote. that all of these campaigns functionally try and raise capital to go and do advertising and that the advertising creates these little 32nd sound bites that actually change people's opinions. And it's a really sad it will they that otherwise, they wouldn't spend the money. And I think it's a really sad state of affairs that we spend money to change people's opinions by shortening everything to a sound bite instead of doing what maybe would have happened a long time ago, you know, we often talk about the town square. If you lived in a village with sixty people and someone was gonna run for the mayor of that village, You'd all go to the town square. You'd hear that person have a debate, have a discussion. You'd talk with them, and that dialogue would inform your decision about who you're gonna vote for. But, you know, with 300,000,000 people in this country and, you know, short attention spans and jumping around from one thing to another, There aren't a lot of great forums for any of us to really engage with candidates particularly on the national level and make a better informed decision hearing from that person directly. Instead, everything is about driving narrative and chopping things up and getting the sound bite and driving the emotional reaction. And I think one of the the the greatest things that's happening right now that you know, could be a great benefit for this modern democracy is the sort of stuff that we've been doing on our podcast and RFK coming on board. like, last week and what Saks did with Twitter, and I really hope that more politicians do that and that more people engage and consume that sort of content. David Friedberg (00:15:49): to make their decision and ignore the idiotic sound bites and the stupid 32nd adds and the nonsense that, you know, third parties use to try and drive narrative. So yeah. Look. I mean, I think that's generally the positive trend that that I took away from it. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:16:04): Jake, how would you think? Jason Calacanis (00:16:04): I have some notes for Saks. I'm always you know, careful not to be too critical, you know, in the moment because I don't people will weaponize them and say, oh, Jason said this because, David Friedberg (00:16:14): you know, Jason Calacanis (00:16:14): it's Elon and he's team Elon or He's friends with Saxx. But I think everything's said so far, this tweaked the media, a great start, The thing that I think was there were probably 1 or 2 misses here that I think you can build on Saks since you were very involved in the campaign. with DeSantis. I think it wasn't the free for all that Elon had said it would have been. Right? So he pitched it as like, hey. This is gonna be uncensored, and everybody's gonna get to ask hard questions. And that didn't happen. And, you know, I think that is in stark contrast to what Trump did because I was doing the media analysis of this. And so I think the follow-up needs to be where he actually takes questions, not from fans, not from people who are already voting for him. But really, you know, a little bit more of the cantankerous people the people who maybe are voting for Trump, the people who are maybe in the Biden camp. And that's what was the masterstroke of Trump's CNN town hall. He went into the, you know, the Lions then or what most people perceive was gonna be the Lions then, and he took on all comers. He fought hard And that one was, I think, a bigger win. I don't think DeSantis -- -- David Sacks (00:17:25): not a presidential announcement. So just to be clear -- Yes. Jason Calacanis (00:17:28): -- David Sacks (00:17:28): this was a launch event declaring that he's running. Jason Calacanis (00:17:31): So in that context -- David Friedberg (00:17:32): Yeah. David Sacks (00:17:32): So you wanna compare it to what these things usually are, which is a guy standing at a podium Jason Calacanis (00:17:37): -- Yes. -- David Sacks (00:17:38): in front of his supporters. Compared to that, this was much more interesting dynamic and engaging. I agree with you that at some point, he's gonna step into the lion's den. do a town hall on a place like CNN. And I think he probably will. In fact, I think he yeah. I think he did a town hall. Jason Calacanis (00:17:52): We're here. David Sacks (00:17:52): I think he actually did a town hall in Florida later that night. So, yeah, I I agree with you. It just wasn't that kind of event. Now to the point about involving more people, you know, one of the things I learned hosting this thing, is there are literally thousands of people raising their hands? Jason Calacanis (00:18:07): Yes. You can't sort that in -- -- David Sacks (00:18:08): scrolling through this in real time in the app. I wanted to call on more people, but it was just there was no way to do it. Jason Calacanis (00:18:15): This is something at scale they need to add to the interface, which is maybe prepopulating a list sorting it by the number of followers, whatever. And this is my second point about this. So I agree with you. As an announcement, this was light speed ahead as, like, a full court, you know, like, sharp elbow thing. It didn't hit that note. But it can, and that's why I think the follow-up, you know, having if if DeSantis wants to come here and have, like, a 2 hour discussion, we get into it a little more. That would be, I think, really good for him. Because I think he's got the potential to win over moderates. And I don't think this won over moderates didn't win over anybody who was in, you know, the left or in the, you know, moderate left. And that was one of the things I noticed, is my second point about it, is what a great group of listeners. If you look at who showed up to listen, Bill Ackman, Michael Dell, could be what you source it. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:19:03): You no. You you source by your followers. So Jason Calacanis (00:19:05): -- But I think it sorts it by the number of followers they have. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:19:08): It sorts it by your followers who then have the most followers you're gonna see -- Exactly. Jason Calacanis (00:19:12): -- Chamath Palihapitiya (00:19:12): it's a bit of a echo chamber that way. Jason Calacanis (00:19:14): Just that feature. Okay. Sure. But there were still very prominent people Chamath Palihapitiya (00:19:19): in the world. Because prominent people follow you. Jason Calacanis (00:19:22): Okay. But they weren't coming to follow me. They were coming to listen to this. My point is still the same. Michael Dow Ackman were coming. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:19:28): So -- But that's why you saw them because they're your followers. Jason Calacanis (00:19:30): I we all understand that. They still showed up for this in the middle of the day. I think that is really interesting and that -- Yeah. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:19:36): Yeah. Yeah. That's yeah. Jason Calacanis (00:19:37): That that's all my point. It's it's really interesting that powerful people showed up for it full stop. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:19:41): Saks, I have a question for you. Sorry, Jason. Whenever you're yeah. Jason Calacanis (00:19:44): And then I just had a a couple of other ones. Elon was a bit underutilized in this format, and that's, you know, a challenge when you have Elon in the room because people want to Elon question. So this is something I think he's gonna have to, you know, contend with. People wanted to hear Elon ask questions. then the people who are were asking the questions wanted to ask Elon questions. So you do get, like, a little bit of how to utilize Elon in this format. I heard a lot back channel from important people. Like, I wanted to Elon ask a question or maybe the 2 of them get into it. So for a follow-up one, getting some people, you know, who maybe don't traditionally get to ask questions because let's face it in traditional media. The only people who get to ask questions are these anchors on news channels. I wanna hear Michael Dow where Bill Ackman ask a question. That's the opportunity in Twitter Spaces. Maybe letting Elon ask a tough question then a follow-up. Or, you know, like we did here with RFK, David Sacks (00:20:34): would've been totally open to that. I just couldn't manage it. There was just so many people in the room. I didn't see Actman actually. I mean, I totally believe he was there, but I didn't Jason Calacanis (00:20:41): see people had of Usaxes. You're a major donor, and you stack the deck with the most cynical version of it with, like, five people who are just super effusive. But this is his launch party. So I think in that context, you can tell us. David Sacks (00:20:54): I I would've called on Bill Ackman if I known he wanted to speak, but I can see whether he raised his hand or not. Jason Calacanis (00:20:58): I didn't David Sacks (00:20:58): even see him in the room. So what am I supposed to do? Call on Bill in these, like, guys, I don't wanna talk. I don't wanna put him in that spot. Speaker 5 (00:21:04): Can we Jason Calacanis (00:21:05): get him on this pod so David Friedberg (00:21:05): we can grill him about abortion and fiscal policy? Chamath Palihapitiya (00:21:09): Who? Bill Ackman? David Sacks (00:21:09): I don't know. Look. I don't speak for the campaign, but I can put in the request Speaker 5 (00:21:13): for sure. Jason Calacanis (00:21:13): You put a hundred fifty dimes in. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:21:16): Get them on. Hold on. Can you you tell us the actual TikTok of how this whole thing came to be? David Sacks (00:21:20): The campaign within the last week or Jason Calacanis (00:21:23): 2 David Sacks (00:21:24): had the idea of should we explore doing it on Twitter Spaces? And I think they were open to doing it. And Jason Calacanis (00:21:30): -- Sacks didn't know about it. When I put it in our group chat, Sacks was like, he is. Yeah. You found out about it. I was David Sacks (00:21:35): being facetious. I was being facetious. David Friedberg (00:21:37): He was joking. Jason Calacanis (00:21:38): I thought you didn't. Good. No. Sometimes Elon will just tweet something without telling anybody. David Sacks (00:21:41): Are you gonna just go direct? No. I mean, I I help Look, the the Santa's people reached out to Elon and Twitter. They also reached out to me about it, and we discussed it. And they were excited breaking the ground to swing different. and I think they deserve credit for that. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:21:54): Can I ask a follow-up question? Just on the DeSantis thing himself because you've seen him up close. Do you know why Schwartzman Griffin, pedophry, stepped in, took a half step back. And do you know what it's gonna take for them to just lean in and just make this effect a complete so that he's really well financed to beat Trump. David Sacks (00:22:12): I don't know what their issues are, but I did see I I I don't know this. What's the name? pedophry or whatever? Yeah. I don't I don't know him, but I did see a press article, and he was referencing book beginnings. So that to me just showed that he was buying into some you know, crazy left wing Jason Calacanis (00:22:28): person narratives. That was the best part of discussion. David Sacks (00:22:31): I asked the sense about that. So by the way, Jason Calacanis (00:22:33): for people David Friedberg (00:22:33): who sit behind Chamath Palihapitiya (00:22:33): it -- That was Jason Calacanis (00:22:34): the one thing that was new news, and for a lot of people was the book banning. Can you explain the issue and the spin and the clarification on book banning in Florida? David Sacks (00:22:43): It's very simple. They haven't banned any books in Florida. Okay. The question is, what books are taught in the curriculum and what's in the school library? And some of these books were positively pornographic. I mean, they had someone just had an event where somebody was actually reading what was in these books. And the the mere reading of what was in the books actually got labeled on social media by the algorithms. So there was a lot of stuff that's just not appropriate for kids. No one is restricting your ability to buy or read whatever books you want in the state of Florida. It's ridiculous. there's a legitimate question about what's in the curriculum. By the way, I remember when we had debates on campus, about this is back a long time ago. Like, the late eighties, early nineties when they were throwing dead white males out of the curriculum. You know, Plato, Aristotle, Shakespeare, people like that. the people on the right who were opposing that never made the argument that this was censorship. Everybody understands that when you're dealing with a curriculum, You have to make choices. You can't teach everything. So the question is, what are you gonna limit it to? And I think that when people actually dug into some of these books, they realized that they're not appropriate. So in any event, his answer was along those lines that, you know, you should go listen to it. for yourself. But I think that he did address that issue. I think he's kind of exposed it as a, you know, left wing media narrative And I think he deconstructed it. And I think that was helpful because I think there are a lot of centrist who all they've heard about DeSantis is that he's banning books or you know, or the Disney issue which we also asked them about, and we covered that, I think. So Jason Calacanis (00:24:22): -- David Sacks (00:24:22): Yeah. The -- Yeah. We talked about some of these controversies. Jason Calacanis (00:24:25): The issue here, just to summarize it is, the left is framing the banning quote unquote, but just the not inclusion of certain books, which are graphic that have sex in them from certain age groups in schools as part of a curriculum. So they're saying these books are banned in Florida. The more accurate way to say it is these books are not being used in curriculum you know, for these age groups, parents if they want to buy them, can buy them, and then can read them. So this is where this conversation is kinda breaking down I think is a complete waste of time. All parents want control over at what age or what stuff their kids are exposed to so there is a thoughtful discussion to be had there, and maybe the discussion is this is something Perry should decide. Right? David Sacks (00:25:11): Yeah. Of course. But it's not in the conversation. It's a hoax. It's a it's a fake media narrative trying to pin on him. And DeSantis has been the the subject and victim of these types of fake media narratives, which are deliberate. The media is not trying to have a conversation. They're trying to disqualify the guy. And they did this. This goes all the way back to COVID when he opposed lockdowns and kept schools open. And they called him Death Santos. So the media has had it in it for this guy since the beginning because he refuses to go along with their narratives on things. This is the same reason they hate Elon is Elon is defying their narrative control. So you put you put these two guys together. Okay? Hold on. Even before the technical difficulties, Let's be clear. The media's heads were exploding. That DeSantis and Elon were gonna be in the room together. Look at the Vanity Fair article. The headline was DeSantis announcing with Elon because David Duke wasn't available. Okay? The Atlantic was saying that this whole Twitter space was a hate group. I mean, literally, So these people were losing their minds before we even got into the technical difficulties. And then they passed on that that there was a Jason Calacanis (00:26:16): 20 David Sacks (00:26:16): minute delay, they pounce on that as some sort of fiasco, which it wasn't. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:26:20): Will DeSantis cut spending and cutter taxes? David Friedberg (00:26:25): We cut spending. David Sacks (00:26:26): We didn't get into that. So -- Have David Friedberg (00:26:27): you have you ever had a conversation with him about balancing the budget in federal debt? Chamath Palihapitiya (00:26:31): Do you know his position on cutting, like, long term capital gains and taxes? I don't David Sacks (00:26:35): know his position on that. Jason Calacanis (00:26:36): I can't talk to him, but -- David Sacks (00:26:38): Let me give you the the elevator pitch. I mean, the shelver DeSantis as he calls it the Florida blueprint. He's saying, look at what we've done in Florida. Look at what we've achieved at Florida. Let's take Florida nationwide. Florida has had a great economy. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:26:50): Florida has David Sacks (00:26:50): had a Jason Calacanis (00:26:50): 0 David Sacks (00:26:51): tax budget. Zero tax. No. Because I I don't that's a state that's state tax. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:26:55): You you if you have zero tax, you have my vote. David Friedberg (00:26:59): Well, they ran a bunch Jason Calacanis (00:27:00): of journalists. Dictator has spoken. If people wanna look up this issue, there's a a book called Genderqueer, and there's a story about it in The New York Times. And It's, you know, it's a graphic novel about coming of age for a non binary person, which is fine. Great. But it's it's very graphic. It's a graphic graphic novel. It has explicit scenes. And these kind of books, most parents would say, I would like to wait for my graphics novel. -- Chamath Palihapitiya (00:27:23): on cutting my tats to Zoom. Okay. There you go. It's called the Decatur's got -- -- just to write it. Come on, guys. Jason Calacanis (00:27:31): Overall, great job. And, yeah, get him on the pod here, and we'll have a great discussion with him -- Yes. That'll reach Chamath Palihapitiya (00:27:36): out to Axipu. Yeah. David Friedberg (00:27:38): Great job. Please invite him to to our pod. I think you know, we each have our own issues. We'd love to Jason Calacanis (00:27:42): -- David Friedberg (00:27:43): Or else, Jason Calacanis (00:27:43): we're just gonna go with the other Republican candidates. Nicky Halle. I'm I'm Chamath Palihapitiya (00:27:47): proud of you. David Friedberg (00:27:47): We're also voting for Yes. I don't know. I mean -- Alright. David Sacks (00:27:50): Well, thanks, guys. Yeah. Well, I I think I think it'd be great to get Nikki Haley. David Friedberg (00:27:54): Oh, that's a no. That's a no. Just say no. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:27:55): Just say David Friedberg (00:27:56): no. You cannot have the Santa. David Sacks (00:27:57): gonna put in the ass to DeSantis for sure. Jason Calacanis (00:27:59): Alright. Well, that's great. Yeah. It would be great. People wanna hear from more folks. So a lot of other news going on. I think a good place for us to go to next. Maybe, do we wanna do the debt ceiling, defense spending or NVIDIA -- I think David Friedberg (00:28:14): let's go let's go together in my opinion. Jason Calacanis (00:28:16): Okay. Great. We'll go with the Sultan of Science, US debt ceiling, is at 31,400,000,000,000 currently. Treasury Department recently warned the federal government could be unable to pay its bills as soon as June first Fitch put the US credit rating, which is the highest rank of triple a, on negative watch. So negative watch means It's trending towards bad and that it's imminent that they might lower it due to this debt limit, deadline It seems like we're not making much progress every couple of days. We seem to swing one way or the other. The stock market has kinda shrugged it off. And the last time the US credit was downgraded within 2011, but we avoided that. Shamal, what's going on here? What do you think the eventual outcome in? Is there a chance that these knuckleheads, who represent us, are going to default and cause chaos? Or do you think this is all Kabuki Theater, and we're gonna wind up in the same place, which is they raise it and make some modest concessions. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:29:16): August Jason Calacanis (00:29:17): 5 2011. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:29:19): The SMP downgraded the United States from triple a to double a plus. You know what happened? absolutely fucking nothing. Jason Calacanis (00:29:29): Okay. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:29:30): So I do think that this is another opportunity for the little red riding hoods to get their panties at a bunch. But these downgrades don't need much of it. Jason Calacanis (00:29:42): -- David Sacks (00:29:42): to there. You talking about Freeport? David Friedberg (00:29:44): So what are you talking Chamath Palihapitiya (00:29:45): about talking about all Speaker 5 (00:29:46): the guys? Jason Calacanis (00:29:47): -- second. Is that Biden? Talking about the guys. Yeah. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:29:51): I think that these 3rd party credit rating agencies are not particularly that accurate and sophisticated. They don't know anything that you don't know. they're not getting access to Jason Calacanis (00:30:02): -- David Sacks (00:30:03): Moody's gave s vbna rating the week before it went into receivership. Jason Calacanis (00:30:06): This is my -- Wow. Well done, Nana. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:30:09): This is my exact point. None of these companies know what they're doing. These companies are in the business of putting a letter on a document and then selling access to that document. So if you're going to trust these guys to know what they're saying, either right or wrong independent of what side you are outsourcing your decision making to the wrong body. So whether it's S And P, Fitch, or Moody's, I would tell you to ignore it and come to your own conclusion. I think that this budget ceiling thing is happening now every couple of years. And it seems like the real thing we should be talking about is whether Biden's gonna use the 14th amendment and just ram a budget through. And I Jason Calacanis (00:30:50): think if Chamath Palihapitiya (00:30:50): that's Yeah. So under the 14th amendment, the president of the United States has in their discretion the ability to make sure that the United States can pay their debts. And that wasn't necessarily thought of as a way to work around the debt ceiling impasse. But because Congress refuses to pass any structural laws that allow The budget to ebb and flow with tax receipts, we get caught on in this situation. Again, roughly every handful of years. So what Biden could do is he could say the 14th amendment gives me the right. I'm going to pass a budget via executive order. From a game theory perspective, what that does is it forces Republicans to sue Biden, take him to the Supreme Court and say this is unconstitutional. The problem with that is that that probably really does tank the economy in the way that it creates enough uncertainty where capital markets freeze up and Liquidity just absolutely goes away. And, again, liquidity has been shrinking for the last 18 months anyways, so it get even worse. So I think the brinkmanship right now between McCarthy and Biden is basically that veiled threat. If Biden effectively isn't gonna get something done, I think he's gonna test the 14th amendment. Now, if the 14th amendment turns out to be a reasonable way in order to pass a budget, the good news is Not just for Biden, but for any future president, including Republican presidents, will not have to be held hostage by Congress. They will, in the 11th hour, be able to pass a budget that works. The implications of that though is that now you will not get consensus. And whatever is happening in that moment, you'll see more of. So if you have a spending president, they'll just continue to spend. And If you have an austerity president, they'll continue to cut. And that'll have implications on either side. Jason Calacanis (00:32:36): Sachs, you think this is over ratios of 14th amendment, or do you think It's a valid use of it. David Sacks (00:32:42): No. I it's not gonna fly. I mean, it's true that the 14th amendment has some language about the full faith and credit of the US shall not be compromised. However, it's never been tested or or tried, so no one exactly knows what it means. Progresses are now saying that the language means that Biden could keep spending without the debt limit being raised. But buying himself through cold water on this, he said that he didn't think he had that authority. And even Lawrence O'Donnell the other night, who's a big progressive on the media. He was saying that the dems were gonna take this tack. They needed to do it months ago before they started negotiating on a debt limit increase. So it's too late now. In other words, if you're gonna take that position, why would you have negotiated that you're you're you, the president, are effectively conceding you don't have that authority when you start negotiating. So I think it's too late to invoke the 14th amendment. They're gonna have to raise the debt ceiling. That being said, I think they're gonna be able to. Reuters had a report this morning that they're only Jason Calacanis (00:33:37): 70 72,000,000,000 David Sacks (00:33:39): apart now in their positions, which is a relatively small amount So my guess is they're gonna they're gonna work this out. Now what should the fate of the debt limit be moving forward? I mean, the the thing that's so stupid about our budget process is we spend the money and then argue about whether we're gonna pay the credit card bill. The way that the debt limit should work is you raise the debt before you spend it. Congress should have to vote first on whether they want a deficit or debt spend. Then you decide how much you're gonna spend. So this thing this vote needs to be moved up before they spend it. And I think if you did that, it'd be a lot harder for the politicians to spend money because, you know, if you had an up or down vote very early on saying, Should we even be in deficit? I think a lot of people would say, no. We're not in we're not in a war. So why why would you deficit spend? Jason Calacanis (00:34:27): If we bring any thoughts in the debt ceiling, if not, we'll go on to the government accountability vis a vis the defense spending. David Friedberg (00:34:34): I mean, look. We're running a Jason Calacanis (00:34:36): $2,000,000,000,000 David Friedberg (00:34:37): a year deficit and it's forecast to continue to be at that level for several years, and it's gonna take pretty radical changes in how we caps and spend to make up that gap So, you know, this is a problem that is gonna continue and repeat. And it does beg the question, you know, would you want to buy bonds from an entity that's generating $4,000,000,000,000 in revenue and spending $6,000,000,000,000 and has a plan to do that for the foreseeable future, and it's only you know, seeing its economy or its underlying revenue base grow by 2% a year, it seems like, you know, that would be a very hard start up to fund. And it would be a very difficult growth investment to make particularly in an environment like this. So I'm just pointing out that this is becoming a more kind of systemically risky situation for the US that, you know, we spend the way we do, and we have to keep coming back to having these debates about its appropriate or not. And now they've narrowed down the way that the Republicans seem to be kinda going about getting this done. This deal done is they're only focusing on the roughly 15% of the overall federal budget. And they're saying, we'll we'll kinda make some tweaks in in that in that little range there and save some save some pennies, save some nickels. But we've got a much more fundamental problem to deal with, which is how do we stop running these deficits and running the data? But, I mean, I'm gonna sound like David Sacks (00:36:07): you're I'm David Friedberg (00:36:07): gonna sound like a frigging Jason Calacanis (00:36:09): -- David Sacks (00:36:09): No. I think you're right. Jason Calacanis (00:36:10): -- David Friedberg (00:36:10): clock at some point. I'm just like Jason Calacanis (00:36:12): I I David Sacks (00:36:12): yeah. The inflation is here and the crowding out of private investment and private borrowing is now occurring because the government borrowing is so big. I mean, our our treasury, our government debt of what? 32,000,000,000,000. that has to be financed somehow, and all that money is gonna finance government instead of being put to other uses. So I think the the downside's already here. You can't run $1,000,000,000,000 deficits every year. That's unsustainable. Now I think that you guys referenced what happened in 2011. That's worth just discussing for a second because I actually think that what was agreed to in 2011 was excellent. Obama and the Republicans of congress agreed to a thing called the sequester. where they agreed that they would freeze both defense and nondefense discretionary spending until they could get their act together and agree on what the budget should like. And so the theory was the Republicans agreed to the pain of freezing defense. Democrats agreed to the pain of freezing non entitlement social spending, and that's how the deal was cut. I actually think that made a lot of sense. And I think we should have kept operating under the sequester until we got to a balanced budget. But the reason that broke, quite frankly, is because the lobbying power of the military industrial complex is so great in both the Republican and Democratic parties that they basically wanted the sequester over 60. Keep raising the defense budget. David Friedberg (00:37:32): I think it's just there's never been a degree of accountability for the spending that's being done because of this assumption that we'll always be able to pay our debt and we'll always be able to take on more debt. And I think that you see the other conversation, the other topic that we were gonna talk about was this lack of accountability and defense spending that, you know, we should play the John Stewart clip, you know, where I think it who does he interview under secretary of defense or something? What what is her title? Jason Calacanis (00:38:01): Secretary secretary of defense Kathleen Hicks was discussing the defense budget. Speaker 6 (00:38:06): When I see a state department get a certain amount of money and a military budget be ten times that, and I see a struggle within government to get people like more basic services. I mean, we got out of 20 years of war, and the Pentagon got a $50,000,000,000 raise. Like, that's shocking to me. Now I may not understand exactly the ins and outs and and the incredible magic of an audit. but I'm a human being who lives on the earth and can't figure out how Jason Calacanis (00:38:34): $850,000,000,000 Speaker 6 (00:38:36): to a department means that the rank and files still have to be on food stamps. Like, to me, that's fucking corruption. I'm sorry. Jason Calacanis (00:38:46): And then there was a story that came out this week, according to Bloomberg, the government accountability office disclosed that the Pentagon is currently unable to account for 100 of 1000 of spare parts for the F-thirty 5 jets. David Sacks (00:38:57): The Pentagon's never passed Jason Calacanis (00:38:58): an audit. David Friedberg (00:38:58): The Pentagon's never passed an audit and it's accepted. And it's acceptable in the same way that it's acceptable to never balance the budget, to always spend and give everyone what they want, And to find ourselves in, you know, this kind of late stage problem where we've gotten away with it for so long, that both of those factors, whether it's the downgrade on the rating, whether it's the fact that we end up in these battles over whether to raise the debt sealing every couple of years or whether we can't pass an audit, all of these factors are symptoms of the same underlying problem, which is that there is no accountability for, you know, how we operate the, you know, the kind of fiscal condition of the the federal government. David Sacks (00:39:42): You know, the other thing it leads to is all these optional wars. let me give you an example. So all of these wars are always Jason Calacanis (00:39:48): -- David Sacks (00:39:48): They're all tough. David Friedberg (00:39:49): They're they're all free? David Sacks (00:39:49): Yeah. They're all off book. So take Ukraine. We've appropriated, what, a 130,000,000,000. That's not part of the defense budget. We have 8 or a Jason Calacanis (00:39:57): 1,000,000,000 David Sacks (00:39:57): in the defense budget, but then we just stack the 100,000,000,000 or so for Ukraine on top of that, and it's off book. Now if we said the reason we're funding Ukraine is because it improves the national defense of the United States, why wouldn't that just come out of the defense budget? if you force people to make actual choices, actual decisions, and they could say, okay, we could spend a 100,000,000,000 on Ukraine or we could spend a 100,000,000,000 on stockpiling tanks or f Thirty fives or whatever for the United States, now you actually force some prioritization decisions. But because the wars are always off book, they're just additive. You just tack them on. And we did that within Afghanistan. We did that in Iraq. We spent something like $8,000,000,000,000 and that was just added to the national debt. Jason Calacanis (00:40:39): Yeah. We can't afford these anymore. It's becoming clear to everybody that there has to be some accountability. And Shamal, I guess, is Seems like there's a couple of unpopular stances to take when you're running for office. One of them is social security retirement age. As we saw it in other countries like France, where people are arguing over 62, sixty four years old, whatever it is. David Friedberg (00:40:58): Yeah. Jason Calacanis (00:40:59): And so these entitlements, job require impairments, if you wanna get unemployment. And then, of course, defense spending, you seem un American. If you don't wanna take care of old people, you seem un American. and, you know, weak if you don't wanna support. The government is there a path towards celebrating an administrator as CEO, an executive who tells honest truth to the American people, which is, hey, we we've been on a binge. We've been going on vacation. Nobody's looking at the the bills. And we need to have a staycation We need to cut costs. We need some austerity here. Is there a path for somebody, Ron DeSantis, Chris Christie, RFK, whoever it is? to win over the American public, to win over moderates with an austerity, and they balance the budget message. or is it just too unpopular to even bring that up? Chamath Palihapitiya (00:41:49): I just think that you guys don't psychologically understand how to get what you want. I think the best way to get what you want which I would want to which is a healthy economy where there's accountability for spending is to not look at expenses. And all of this talk is always about expenses, but to look at revenue and limit revenue more drastically. And I think the best way to limit revenue dramatically at the federal and state level is to just minimize taxation as much as possible. And I think that is something that Democrats and Republicans have a hard time fighting. Nobody wants to raise their hand and say I want new tax nobody says that. Right? And I think that if you attach that to some sort of spending guidelines, like what David says with a sensible foreign policy. You just end up spending a lot less. You want to fight a foreign war? Okay, great. you know what? It's part of the existing budget. Let's go figure out why we wanna do it. We wanna have more accountability in defense spending. Okay. Well, look. The defense budget is a half of what it used to be. because we just have half the revenue. I think that if you start to go and talk about austerity and cutting social security and health care benefits, it's literally a nonstarter People close their eyes, they plug their ears, and you get nowhere. Now separately, I think the step even 4, you look at taxation. So minimizing government revenue is to figure out how to refinance. So if you're a homeowner and you got a mortgage in the eighties, you were paying Jason Calacanis (00:43:23): 12, 14, 15, 16%. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:43:26): If when rates kept going down, you or the people around you didn't have the common sense to refinance that. That was negligence. Similarly we're in a position today to refinance our debt wall and push out these maturities past 100 plus years. We are the only country that has a viable, stable economy that looks like it can still continue to thrive at scale. Take advantage of that. You lose nothing by giving us the optionality, generating some 100 year debt, refinancing a bunch of this short term stuff. And then second, Inflation helps us. And it helps us because it allows us to inflate the value of these dollars that allows us to pay off our short term maturities. So These are Jason Calacanis (00:44:11): 2 Chamath Palihapitiya (00:44:12): practical simple things that are uncontroversial that should happen today. And then separately, I think you need to look at minimizing revenue. And then you can cut expenses. But if you flip them around, I'm just telling you, it's not like I want any of this to happen, but I'm telling you nothing will change, and you guys will still be crying wolf. In 5 years, it'll still be the same. It'll just be a different debt to GDP number that gives Jason Calacanis (00:44:36): you anxiety. speaking of anxiety, Friedberg, your response. I don't agree. I think we David Friedberg (00:44:40): need to balance the budget. And I think that if we don't, we continue. Jason Calacanis (00:44:44): -- Chamath Palihapitiya (00:44:44): agree with? financing, pushing out 100 year? David Friedberg (00:44:47): No. No. I don't have re reducing revenue solves the problem. I think that and by the way, one of the problems with a democracy Chamath is that you speak about it as if everyone benefits from a tax cut Generally, there's some disproportionate benefit to a tax cut. And that's why it's less likely to happen because the majority will benefit by keeping taxes high for a minority. Whether that's some corporate minority or whether it's some wealthy individual minority, And that's why I think the opposite is more likely to happen, which is where more likely to see taxes go up in order to bridge the gap to continue to fund programs that everyone wants everyone wants an and. They don't want an or. And as a result, they'll kinda continue to seek revenue because there are other places to get revenue that don't affect me, meaning it doesn't affect the majority. And I don't mean me personally. I'm just speaking about a voter, and a voter would say if there's a way to tax other people for me to get the things I want, they will vote yes for that. And that's ultimately what the system ends up finding. And I think that's what's more likely to end up happening. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:45:50): That's all. Sacks. David Sacks (00:45:53): Yeah. Look. I mean, I I agree with part of both of what you're saying, which is I agree with Friedberg that we need to balance the budget. There's no excuse for running Peace time deficit this large. We're really gonna regret this one day. On the other hand, I agree with Chamath that if you just try to solve the problem by raising taxes, the politicians will just keep spending. I mean, you have to starve the beast, I think, in order to control it. at least that's been a view, I think, for a long time. Jason Calacanis (00:46:17): So you you agree with David Friedberg (00:46:18): Timoth on that point? David Sacks (00:46:19): Here's the thing. You cannot solve this problem by raising up 70% tax rates like we had in the 19 seventies, and I can prove it. Pull up this chart. David Friedberg (00:46:28): France is a good example of this too. David Sacks (00:46:30): So what you see in this chart here is this is Federal receives a percentage of a GDP. What I see when I eyeball this is if you were to put a regression line on that, it'd be at around 17% with a plus or minus of 2%. And the times when you get up to 19% or a little bit close to 20% are when we have great economic conditions. or money printing. So the Clinton era from was a 92 to 2000 was an economic boom, and we got up to almost 20%. but we've never ever been able to get more than 20 percent of GDP in federal tax receipts even during the 19 seventies when the top marginal rate was 70%. What David Friedberg (00:47:08): happens, Saxx? Jason Calacanis (00:47:09): Yeah. What yeah. Why is that? The people -- Okay. -- start doing economic activity. curtails investment in economic activity. This is -- Yeah. That's what I that was my guess. -- Chamath Palihapitiya (00:47:18): for 100 years. Taxation doesn't solve this problem. don't disagree. Jason Calacanis (00:47:22): They she don't disagree. I just David Sacks (00:47:23): You can only get so much blood from a stone. And the and the reality is is that when you try to tack rich people in a confiscatory way. They spend a lot more on lawyers and accountants to figure out how to structure their income in a way that yeah. Where they leave. Yeah. Jason Calacanis (00:47:37): Or they tap out? You know? Like, if you're paying 50, 60 percent taxes, like, what's the incentive to go to work? And if you're sitting on a big nut, you could just be like, no. You know what? I'll just just enjoy my life a little bit more because each incremental dollar 50, 60% is going to taxes, and then I have to pay my team, and you just sort of get through the leasing returns. David Friedberg (00:47:54): I I asked a question on Twitter, you know, because we all talked in our group chat about the the concept of passing a balanced budget amendment, which would be an amendment to the US constitution that says, the Congress has an obligation, and the executive branch has an obligation to generate a budget surplus you know, every year. And you could have a balanced budget amendment that provides certain Jason Calacanis (00:48:17): exemptions to this, like in in David Friedberg (00:48:17): a year of of war for example, where congress declares an emergency or declares a war. And in those cases, theoretically, like, if there's some sort of emergency that we have to address and and and over fund, you can kinda resolve to this. But, man, I still might Jason Calacanis (00:48:36): -- David Sacks (00:48:36): But should we know we've been we've been at war for something like Jason Calacanis (00:48:39): 2 David Sacks (00:48:40): out of every 3 years since the cold war ended. Jason Calacanis (00:48:42): How many of those more sacks were voted on by Congress is the other issue? You know? David Sacks (00:48:46): Well, what happened is we did the the authorization for the use of force, I think, goes all the way back to was it, like, 2001? whereas basically we declare a war on terrorism in response to 911, and they use that authorization to go into Afghanistan, which I think was understandable. Then they use same one to go into Iraq, then they use it to go into Syria. And only recently, only a few months ago, did they actually repeal that use of force as a way to keep authorizing new wars. So they really should go back to congress for every new war. But the problem is, you know, Freeport, I agree with you that we need to have a balanced budget amendment. But is gonna contain a caveat or exception for war. And -- Sure. Jason Calacanis (00:49:26): -- David Sacks (00:49:26): we're just in war all the time now. David Friedberg (00:49:28): Sure. But I think that there's ways to create some mechanism that forces that issue to actually come front and center as opposed to being what you're arguing, which is, hey. It's always on the back burner. Therefore, it's always bubbling over. And maybe you draft it that way, what was surprising to me was just the incredible negative sentiment I got from so many people who were so deep have this deeply held belief that the only way to support growth in our economy is through federal spending, and that that has become the driver that has become the handicap of our country. It has become the handicap of our economy. It has become the handicap of our people. And that's a result. Jason Calacanis (00:50:00): Why is Chamath Palihapitiya (00:50:00): it a handicap? Jason Calacanis (00:50:01): Because it means that David Friedberg (00:50:02): we now have this instead of having an incentive to drive productivity through private commercial and economic activity through innovation, through productivity gains, through business building, it's now dependent on what we have now identified as a highly unaccountable system of spending. And that unaccountable system of spending ends up putting a lot of dollars into the pockets of cronies and the pockets of folks that aren't actually driving job growth or aren't driving productivity, there are certainly programs that work. But overall, there's no level or degree of accountability that asks the question, did that program work? Did we spend a dollar and get more than a dollar back for what we spent? There's no assessment of that whether it's a war or whether it's defense spending. There's always some kind of intellectual argument that says -- Is Jason Calacanis (00:50:45): that true? I don't think that's true. I think Chamath Palihapitiya (00:50:46): the OMB releases report after reports saying that all of this stuff sucks and doesn't do anything. Just nobody actions. David Friedberg (00:50:52): No one cares. David Sacks (00:50:53): Yeah. You're right. You're right. I don't care. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:50:55): I think what you're saying is inaccurate. This is my point. I think it's important to get the facts right. What you are saying is not true. They do do an accounting. That accounting sucks. It shows that there's tons of waste. nothing changes. So now what do you wanna do, David? It's the real question. What do you wanna do knowing that? David Friedberg (00:51:09): We shouldn't spend on things that don't have a positive return. This is my point. That's why we're now in this very difficult situation. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:51:15): That's not happening. Now what would you like to do? David Sacks (00:51:17): Well, the reason it doesn't happen is because the way that politics decides things has nothing to do with the merits of it. It has to do with special interests Chamath Palihapitiya (00:51:25): and lobbying. -- that. I agree. I'm just saying. What do you guys wanna do now? just reality for a second. David Sacks (00:51:30): What do you guys want? Jason Calacanis (00:51:31): -- David Sacks (00:51:31): education system is, like, fundamentally betrayed the country because we just keep teaching people that somehow the government's gonna solve all these problems. When really, it's just a product of special interest lobbying for things. And that's why we perpetuate these programs that don't work. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:51:43): I think the best way to think about government spending is that in every There's probably 15 or Jason Calacanis (00:51:48): 20¢ Chamath Palihapitiya (00:51:49): that actually does some good. There's probably 15 to Jason Calacanis (00:51:52): 20¢ Chamath Palihapitiya (00:51:53): that's like on the margins breakeven. And then the rest of it, which is half of it, is wasted. That's probably roughly accurate. Right? You get things like TARP, which turned out to be a pretty decent program. there were things like the DOE loans that, you know, got things like Tesla into the marketplace. Right? There's things like the IR rate today that'll delever ourselves and create a peace dividend because we won't need to fight over resources and oil from other countries. But the problem is that that represents a minority of the dollars. Okay. Now that we know that that's true and we've known that true for decades. I guess, again, I'm just asking a practical question. What do you guys want to do now? Play the ball where it lies. What do we do today? David Friedberg (00:52:33): There's a couple things you can do. First of all, one of the points I'd make is I think you you're probably right in your assessment that 50¢, that's what you're calling wasted, that money does end up somewhere. It ends up in someone's pocket. probably the pockets of the shareholders of some contractor or the part Jason Calacanis (00:52:48): -- -- David Friedberg (00:52:48): of individuals or employees. Jason Calacanis (00:52:50): -- David Sacks (00:52:50): class. David Friedberg (00:52:51): Well, there's also there's individuals that that benefit. But, functionally, what's going on is it's a system of wealth transfer, and that's not necessarily bad. The question is is the transfer of wealth happening to the right groups that we intend to support with these social programs? Or is it not? And I think Saks's point I think we could all probably align on if it's not. And I think that's probably a set of standards for accountability that we should probably try and create Chamath Palihapitiya (00:53:15): and enforce. But where where does that where that money end up? It ends up buying homes, feeding people. You're going to restaurants, you're buying cars. It's not like there's like a fleet of mega yachts in America. Well, I guess what I'm asking is where where even that leakage of 50%, doesn't that just end up in the normal economy? David Friedberg (00:53:31): Yeah. It ends up supporting individuals, and maybe -- Yeah. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:53:33): It trickles the furniture. Yeah. Jason Calacanis (00:53:35): So why Chamath Palihapitiya (00:53:35): is that so back. Jason Calacanis (00:53:36): Here is what I'll send. David Friedberg (00:53:37): Well, that's what I'm saying. It is a wealth transfer. It is a system of wealth where it ends up in people's pockets and that that system ultimately benefits a lot of people in need and a lot of people that we as a society intend to support here in the US. David Sacks (00:53:48): I don't think it just goes to poor people. But that's my only point. But, sadly, right, it's not David Friedberg (00:53:53): shippers. Yes. David Sacks (00:53:55): There's so much corporate welfare. I mean, come on. It it's not all just going to needy people. It's going to special interests. Jason Calacanis (00:54:01): on some level, we can accept the inefficiency of government. I like your idea of constraining how much the canvas they have to paint with and how men how how much revenue they bring in. And I think what we have to accept is that the reason this country gets bailed out is because we have tremendous entrepreneurs, an amazing capital allocation system, a very fluid market for building corporate corporations and capitalism is so vibrant here that no matter what happens, we always seem to make the next Google Uber NVIDIA, whatever it is, Airbnb. And I can tell you, you know, I've been spending a lot of time traveling, meeting with people in Japan. in UAE, etcetera, they're all looking at the massive entrepreneurial drive that we have in the United States to build global companies and how we do it over and over and over again. And the only countries that seem to be able to do this at scale, you know, maybe Sweden and and some of the Nordic obviously, China. But other countries have not figured out how to build global corporations, and and that is what bails us out every time is entrepreneurs to capital allocators. David Sacks (00:55:08): the deficit's getting so big that we can't bail out that way. Think about it. We have 2,000,000,000,000 in deficit every year. That is 2 Googles Jason Calacanis (00:55:16): Yeah. It's an Apple. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:55:17): And we're just spending David Sacks (00:55:18): we're spending an Apple every year. Jason Calacanis (00:55:19): We have to we have to address it, but the point is that's how we have bailed ourselves out historically is massive capital allocation and entrepreneurship. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:55:27): I wanna remind you guys what happened at the end of the seventies. We had all these inflationary problems. We had all of these taxation problems where people thought all of a sudden, 70% tax rates were gonna solve the problem, what you guys talked about. And instead the exact opposite thing happened, which was the guy that got elected Ronald Reagan, and I just wanna remind you what the Electoral College was between him and Jimmy Carter. Jason Calacanis (00:55:49): 489 Chamath Palihapitiya (00:55:50): to 49. Like a bigger just shellacking, I don't think we've seen in modern US politics, to the guy that basically said enough with this. We're gonna tone it all down and we're gonna cut revenues. So I do think that people have an appetite for them. And I think David Sacks (00:56:07): that people You know, the the debt to GDP in 1988 was only Jason Calacanis (00:56:09): 30%. David Sacks (00:56:10): So we just have a lot less dry powder. We have a Jason Calacanis (00:56:12): lot of work to do. We've got a lot of work to do. David Sacks (00:56:13): But let me say this. Look, Chamath, I actually agree with what you're saying in this sense. Okay? If you look at my simple chart of federal tax receipts as percent of GDP, okay, the highest it's ever been in the history of the United States is 19.75 percent in 2000, we had the dot com bubble. Okay? That's the highest it's ever been. And we had periods of high tax rates and low tax rates. It never went above Jason Calacanis (00:56:36): 20%. David Sacks (00:56:36): So the simple math here is you do a forecast of what do you think GDP is gonna be over the next year? You get independent economists to do it. And you say the federal government can't spend more than 20% of GDP. because we've never extracted that we've never figured out a way to extract. Jason Calacanis (00:56:52): It's perfect. Yes. More than 20%. Your logic is perfect. David Sacks (00:56:55): Out of the economy. Jason Calacanis (00:56:55): The logic is perfect there. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:56:57): Your aggression is so it's very important because what your aggression says is we're actually spending a lot of energy fighting over 200 to 300 basis points at any given time. Right. David Sacks (00:57:05): Yeah. Jason Calacanis (00:57:05): And what we should be focusing on is more important -- Why are Chamath Palihapitiya (00:57:09): we doing that? Why are we spending so much time getting our pennies in a bunch Jason Calacanis (00:57:12): over 2 to 300 basis points? And we need to stop wars increase our education system. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:57:17): Stop the worst. By the way, Jason Calacanis (00:57:18): and inspire people to start companies and make it easy to start companies. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:57:22): The BIL, the IRA, and the chipset. All three, the biggest components in all three bills this is Biden's signature legislation is creating energy independence for America which will have an enormous peace dividend. You will not fight these stupid endless wars. Jason Calacanis (00:57:38): Every single one of them goes back to oil. Right? Like, with the exception of -- It's always about resources. Yeah. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:57:44): Exactly. -- never been about resources in modern history? Jason Calacanis (00:57:46): But and now it's gonna be chips is the modern resource. NVIDIA shares jumped as much as 30% after reporting huge revenue guidance due to AI demand, q 1 revenue, 7.2 bill, up 19% quarter over quarter, not year over year, quarter over quarter. Revenue beat analyst estimates by more than 6 100,000,000. For people who don't know, NVIDIA is working on GPUs as opposed to CPUs, the graphic processing units, that are being leveraged in AI. And there is a massive cycle going on. There's a line out the door to buy these when you see Twitter going into AI, Facebook, Google, and, obviously, Microsoft. All the cloud infrastructure is moving from CPU to GPU. Yes, Friedberg? David Friedberg (00:58:32): Well, I mean, I was talking with the CEO and CFO of a major dataset of REIT, and they shared with me that they're seeing more demand in the last couple of months than they've seen in the prior 10 years almost all of that data center build out demand. So it'll build data centers for software companies for Internet companies. is coming from, you know, GPU racks. And these GPU racks are much more energy intensive, much more costly, but it's a pretty kind of significant shift underway that businesses that historically didn't even operate their own day centers are now building out their own data centers to have their own training systems, to have their own infrastructure to be able to run AI applications and tools. So it's a it's a pretty significant shift underway. All of the growth that NVIDIA is projecting and highlighted in this earnings report yesterday is coming from their data center line of products and it's a pretty significant. I mean, I don't know. People have said they've never seen a beat like this or never seen an up a guidance update like this of the scale where I think the the Street was looking for maybe a $7,000,000,000 guide and on revenue for this. And they they they came out and said, they're gonna guide to $11,000,000,000 next quarter, which is just an insane bump. for a a 90 day outlook. Jason Calacanis (00:59:51): I was told from one of their major customers that they had to beg. Like, he's a beg for 1000 of GPUs. And, like, the lobbying effort, he said there's a line around the corner to buy these. And you you you need only use chat APT or any stable diffusion, etcetera. And you see how long it takes to do generative AI to use these products. It's like we're back to dial up modem, Saks. We're literally, we're waiting for a computer to give us an answer. When's the last time that happened that we had to sit there and wait for it to do its job. And and I think this is the great renewal for America, another amazing American company. It's only 3 decades old. it's it's best years. It's best decades or in front of it, obviously. This is gonna be a massive boon David Sacks (01:00:37): for -- Yeah. Jason Calacanis (01:00:37): And -- -- not only NVIDIA, but for America Or as I say, America. David Sacks (01:00:41): Yeah. NVIDIA has basically joined the $1,000,000,000,000 club now in terms of market cap companies. This is really amazing. I mean, I'm kinda kicking myself because this was the easiest buy ever. ChatGBT launched on November 30th, we all saw that that immediately ushered in a whole new era in Silicon Valley. There's a ton of VC funding that's poured into AI startups. They all need to train models, and those models need to use GPUs. So we all saw this coming, and yeah, I'm kind of annoyed with myself at invoicing video, but Jason Calacanis (01:01:09): -- David Friedberg (01:01:09): Let me ask you a question. So you say that you kicked yourself, obviously, the general statement that, you know, AI coming, and NVIDIA is gonna be a beneficiary, or NVIDIA's products are gonna see a boom make sense. But when you look at the valuation of the business, they are currently trading at seventy times the next 12 months EBITDA. So how do you think about valuation even at a $1,000,000,000,000 market at a $1,000,000,000 mark out, they're trading at 70 times next 12 months EBITDA. You know, this seems like They're Jason Calacanis (01:01:38): doubling revenue every months, though, dude. They're doubling year. David Sacks (01:01:41): I I if I ask a big question here. David Friedberg (01:01:43): How high does it go? because at a $1,000,000,000,000, what's the right EBITDA level for business to be worth a $1,000,000,000. Is it a 100,000,000,000? Right. Is it a 100 but, I mean, what's the number? And then the question is if it's a Jason Calacanis (01:01:53): 100,000,000,000, David Friedberg (01:01:54): how many years does it take them to grow into that? And, you know, are you really paying the right price or are you paying a premium to get, Chamath Palihapitiya (01:02:00): you know -- It's a it's a momentum to stop now, and Jason Calacanis (01:02:03): we'll be determined if they have competition So is is there competition for this company, Shamak? Do you think there's a competitor that will emerge that, you know? Chamath Palihapitiya (01:02:10): Yeah. I mean, it's important to understand what a GPU is maybe. So Sure. Intel had the run of the place for the 1st 40 years of compute because it turned out that most of the things that we used it for Excel Microsoft Word, a browser, operated well on a CPU, which essentially think about it as like a factory that takes in the first order and then puts it out first and first out. And the great thing about GPUs is that it can take multiple streams of work at the same time and work on them at the same time. Right? So it's very parallel, and it has this level of parallelism. that makes it very well suited for AI applications. I think the thing to keep in mind is that It is a byproduct of a GPU that tries to also do other things. And so as a result of that, you are now seeing a lot of companies building their own silicon. And most importantly, all the big tech companies now have some pretty well evolved efforts underway. A lot of these companies have figured out how to do custom ASICs that can do this massively parallel processing. And what you're now seeing is chips that are designed against specific models that are optimized for them. The other thing that you're also seeing is that some people are saying, well you know what? for these massive models, actually, you should just run it all in memory. And so you're having folks that are doing it in in massive arrays of FPGAs. That's what Microsoft first attempt at all of this. So what is the point of me telling you this? I think that, again, we talked about this last week the biggest cheerleaders of this first point of value creation has really been Wall Street And Family Offices that wanted to front run where the value creation was gonna initially go, and they've been right which is around chips. But there was a tweet and Nick I posted it maybe you can throw it up here that shows that if you compare this to the mobile Internet, there's always this phased approach in terms of value creation where, let's just say, initially in a new market, mobile a decade ago in AI today, the first dollar of profits tends to go to the chip companies. Chamath Palihapitiya (01:04:15): That makes a lot of sense. Right? Because they're the ones that are in the bowels of making the elemental capabilities possible. And then you transition that value. And what Friedberg says is people realize, hey, hold on. The profit dollars are not going to accrue there because, again, this beautiful principle of capitalism is that you can only over earn for a certain amount of time because then competitors emerge and say, hold on. I wanna steal those profit dollars from you and take them for myself. So margins compressed. Right? So in the end, NVIDIA's gains today will be then spread across NVIDIA Facebook will have their own chip. Amazon will have their own chip. Google already does. Apple will have their own chip. All the memory companies will be in this space. Right? So then the profits gets smeared their multiples compress. Then where does the value grow to the device companies in the mobile Internet? Here, I think we still have to debate what is a device company in the world of AI. But the most important thing I think to remember is that where the real value gets accrued is Jason Calacanis (01:05:18): 5, 6, 7 Chamath Palihapitiya (01:05:19): years later when the software and services companies show up and create a huge moat. And those are the Googles and the Facebooks and the Apples of the world. And so It's a really dynamic moment. I think it's wonderful for NVIDIA. It's an amazing story for Jensen who's been really at this game for a very long time. By the way, there's a Jensen has a law of his own that is a sort of companion to Moore's law called Wang's law named after himself, which you can read about. which just talks about the variability of the compute capabilities of GPUs versus CPUs. So if you wanna know that, he should get some credit for that. But I think it's great. I think we're in the And by the way, Jason Calacanis (01:05:57): Apple is also making their own GPUs. That's why when you hear the m 2, that has GPUs in it. So Yeah. You're absolutely correct. We're in 81. Chamath Palihapitiya (01:06:04): We're gonna we're gonna have Jason Calacanis (01:06:05): a few year we're gonna Chamath Palihapitiya (01:06:06): have a few quarters for sure of this hype. Mhmm. And then the smart money will probably figure out where the next Lily pad is, and then they'll go to the next Beautifully send. Jason Calacanis (01:06:15): Beautifully send. Any other thoughts, Friedberg breakups, we're up up on that. I wanted to show this AI demo from Adobe Photoshop. You know, every week or so, we see something that's insane. Chamath Palihapitiya (01:06:26): It's incredible. Jason Calacanis (01:06:27): And this one was we shared in the Chamath Palihapitiya (01:06:28): group chat, but for those watching -- -- put this out. Shut up. Jason Calacanis (01:06:32): Yeah. So what we see here, if you're listening, is, you know, taking a photoshop, creating an area. And then instead of, like, cutting in paces pasting it or refining it, you're putting in a text prompt and saying, oh, put expand the and make this widescreen or let me grab this deer out of a forest and then put it on a wet alley at night. And then, you know, let me highlight this wall over here and put a sign and put a red arrow sign. And it just generates it. And it's doing this. They made specific note when they launched this that all of this is done with stop photography they have the complete license to so they can monetize this without getting sued like Microsoft is currently being sued and Microsoft, actually, in addition to the GitHub lawsuit. It turns out Twitter sent a a letter over to Microsoft as well. So incredible demo. The producers here are all in as our production team grows. producer Brian made a little video here. Here's Chemoffin before the Laura Pionna days. Chamath Palihapitiya (01:07:41): That's that's Tom Ford. Yeah. Jason Calacanis (01:07:42): That's -- It's Tom Ford. This is when -- Bad hair. Chamath Palihapitiya (01:07:44): Look at that. Terrible. Jason Calacanis (01:07:45): The hair's terrible. You look tired. The watch David Friedberg (01:07:48): is great. The watch is great. Chamath Palihapitiya (01:07:50): No. I had a warm night that night. My god, I played poker. Literally, I walked into that to that CNBC. Hot Broker. Jason Calacanis (01:07:57): -- which straight from the poker table Chamath Palihapitiya (01:07:59): to the -- Brutal. Jason Calacanis (01:07:59): -- Chamath Palihapitiya (01:07:59): to the s guac? Hucks deck. Brutal. Jason Calacanis (01:08:02): Woah. Woah. Woah. Woah. Woah. Woah. No tie. But he's wearing a tie at all. Chamath Palihapitiya (01:08:06): Is it Tom Ford? Yeah. Yeah. He said to you he said Chmuth, try this without the without a tie. I said, okay. Jason Calacanis (01:08:10): Oh, you were talking to Tom Ford? Great. What a flex. Chamath Palihapitiya (01:08:13): Yeah. You know, Tom Ford has taught me twice in my life. I can tell you both stories. Okay. Jason Calacanis (01:08:16): Well, hold on a second. He so with degenerative AI, add make a yellow sweater is the prompt here. Let's see if he goes to Burt from Ernie to Burt. There he is. Sri Lankan Bert. as we call him in the -- Not that. -- poker group. Chamath Palihapitiya (01:08:29): Not that -- Yeah. David Sacks (01:08:29): And these don't quite get the borders right, Jason Calacanis (01:08:31): but it's terrible. It looks like a worries jersey. David Sacks (01:08:33): Oh, there you go. Right. Jason Calacanis (01:08:34): Pretty bad. Yeah. Look. They put it all up. David Friedberg (01:08:37): Yeah. Change my hair. Jason Calacanis (01:08:39): Change my hair. David Friedberg (01:08:39): I think the demo was bullshit. Jason Calacanis (01:08:40): Can we change his hair? Can we can we have the hair be less in sync less Hassan Manoj and more. David Sacks (01:08:48): I understand why they call you a a z's. I'm sorry. I think the you had the hair going there. Jason Calacanis (01:08:53): The hair. Yeah. It's a lot of lift. Chamath Palihapitiya (01:08:55): And what was that? David Sacks (01:08:56): Is it putty? Chamath Palihapitiya (01:08:57): What is that? Is it putty? This is like 8 years ago. Jason Calacanis (01:09:01): Is that what are you using clay or putty? What are you what are you what Chamath Palihapitiya (01:09:04): are you putting? It's like it's like a stiff it's like a stiff hair wax. I think it's called Jason Calacanis (01:09:07): a hair wax. Chamath Palihapitiya (01:09:08): Oh, got it. Yeah. I've come such a long way since. Jason Calacanis (01:09:11): Much more stylish. Much more stylish. I mean, look at Saxx's crazy hair as we as we probably did in the Cold Open. Chamath Palihapitiya (01:09:17): My thought on the Adobe thing for what it's worth is, like, I mean, do they want a mulligan on this $20,000,000,000 Figma thing Jason Calacanis (01:09:23): or do Chamath Palihapitiya (01:09:25): do they get to see the ongoing revenues that Figma is generating. And you can be sure Jason Calacanis (01:09:31): as they were making to Linocon, all kinds of stuff. David Friedberg (01:09:33): It's a different product, though. I mean, the AI stuff certainly has had an impact I mean, so much of a benefit of Figma is it's web based. It's collaborative. It's like people kind of use it online to make stuff together. little different than the other tools that they offer today. Chamath Palihapitiya (01:09:46): So you don't you don't think it from September to now, like, nothing changes. They should just close this thing at 20,000,000,000 or David Friedberg (01:09:56): or they're half they're half paying. Do you Chamath Palihapitiya (01:09:57): think that they should pay a 1,000,000,000? break it up and then redo the deal at 10, and then it costs 11. They David Friedberg (01:10:02): say 9. Remember, not all breakup fees mean that you can break up for any reason. So there's only there's limited outs on what you can pay a breakup fee to get out of. It one of which could be antitrust or regulatory. But otherwise, you made be forced to close in court if you don't have a valid reason for terminating the deal. Chamath Palihapitiya (01:10:21): Their only hope is to get Lena Conte muck it up. Yeah. Some leaks come down. David Sacks (01:10:26): Is is your argument more that they bought Figma top of market pricing, which no longer sense, or is your argument that they're innovating so well that they don't need it? Chamath Palihapitiya (01:10:35): I think it's a little bit of both, but it's it's more that I think this generative AI stuff allows you to refresh. I tweeted this out, so Nick, maybe you can put it up there. But I think the first thing is that your feature set can catch up pretty quickly. So even if you set out a team and said, just copy exactly what Figma has with a copilot, enabling Jason Calacanis (01:10:56): 50 Chamath Palihapitiya (01:10:57): engineers, that's like 500 engineers cranking on something. I would be surprised if they couldn't just replicate the product end to end. the first thing. Then the second thing is I think that you've seen VC funding basically crawl to a halt. And so the question there is how many of those companies are just gonna stop spending because they're just not gonna exist? And then the third thing is if we're sort of hashtag austerity, people are gonna look at everything they're spending money on and try to be really disciplined about it. If you roll all those things together Saxx, my thought is maybe the deal still makes sense, but does it make sense at 20,000,000,000 and does it then just create a whole suite of shareholder lawsuits after the fact that are just gonna save these 3 things and regurgitate them ad nauseam. That's the curiosity I had. Jason Calacanis (01:11:43): Well, so we're here. Let's talk a little bit about the state of Silicon Valley, Sachs. We were talking offline after the show last week. You've slowed down investment your firm craft, you're being thoughtful, you're working on the existing portfolios. How would you describe your activity so far in the first half of twenty twenty three as a firm if if you're so unwilling to Sure. David Sacks (01:12:06): My take on what's happening in Silicon Valley right now or Techmore generally is it's a tale of Two cities. It's the best of times for AI start ups and the worst of times for everybody else. the AI startups, there's a lot of interesting things happening in there, and money is being pushed at them by VCs. It's very frothy, arguably bubbly. But then at the same time, if you're a pre AI company, maybe the one that raised a lot of money at a big valuation in 2020 or 2021, it's a pretty tough time. I don't know of any start up, especially like later stage start ups who are hitting their numbers. Everyone is re forecasting down. Everyone's missing, I think that speaks to the larger economy is not doing that well. I think the economists a year from now may say that their recession had already begun. Jason Calacanis (01:12:51): certainly feels like that. David Sacks (01:12:52): Yeah. That's what Druks said at the Stone conference. And I think that starts are absolutely seeing that in their sales right now. Sales are slipping. It's taking longer. buyers are sharpening their pencils. It's a really tough environment, I think, for software startups that are actually trying to make sales. AI starts are a little bit exempt for that because people are still investing based on the dream, not based on the metrics. And I would say that we're very interest did in AI, and we're starting to make some investments. But we also like to invest based on metrics, not just on a dream. And so we're being somewhat cautious about how we approach it. Jason Calacanis (01:13:27): So you make a small seed bet in somebody who has a dream if I can translate here. But if you're gonna make a bigger bet at series a series b, you're gonna wanna some numbers on the board. You're gonna wanna see some product and marketing. -- David Sacks (01:13:36): a really good way of putting it because I think the standards change at each round. And then at the seat stage, you can absolutely just make a bet based on the dream or just based on a founder. Jason Calacanis (01:13:46): Sure. David Sacks (01:13:46): Great founder going after the AI space, idea still a little bit to be flushed out. You can make that bet. Jason Calacanis (01:13:53): But -- 500 k, 750. David Sacks (01:13:55): Yeah. Or even even like 3,000,000 will do as a big sea ground. But but then when you get to series a and you want us to write a 10, 12, $50,000,000 check, we kinda wanna see some revenue. Jason Calacanis (01:14:04): Yeah. David Sacks (01:14:05): And, certainly, by the time you get to series b, your series see, we wanna see, like, all the standard metrics. We wanna see net dollar retention expansion, all that kind of stuff. Jason Calacanis (01:14:14): Yeah. It's it's really hard for the stage start ups because they raised and this is the lesson. If you're raising at 3, 4, 500,000,000, Saks correct me if I'm wrong here. Mhmm. You're not you have to build into that valuation. And let's face it. That valuation, a, was never realistic. It was overpriced. And then b, You got the headwinds, and your customers are saying, oh, you want 40,000 a year for the SaaS product. We'll give you 12. And what position are you in to turn down the 12? You gotta take the 12. because you got 3 competitors who who are gonna roll up and take the 12. So it it's hard. David Sacks (01:14:45): Actually, can I give you an update? Remember I mentioned there was a start up in my portfolio actually, my my angel portfolio Jason Calacanis (01:14:51): -- Yes. -- David Sacks (01:14:52): that the consumer made a play around, the crackdown. And I think it's absolutely tragic because of what I learned, which is the founders got crammed down too. Because a year ago, they brought in a professional CEO. Yeah. And I think as a result of this, they're probably gonna get nothing for 10 years of work, whereas if they had just cut costs Jason Calacanis (01:15:09): -- Damn it. -- David Sacks (01:15:11): and, you know, the the company has 32,000,000 of ARR. So imagine if they cut their OpEx to a 1,000,000 a month, they could've run $20,000,000 of EBITDA, pivot to basically private equity model, sell that company for a 150,000,000, half would have gone to pay off the investors, and the other half would have gone a lot of would have gone to the common. They probably would have made $10,000,000 each. And now they're gonna get 0 because they burned too much money, didn't wanna cut costs. They bought into the dream of bringing in the professional CEO is gonna reaccelerate growth Jason Calacanis (01:15:38): to never been out. David Sacks (01:15:39): never does. And so it's like so frustrating to me because I, like, feel so bad for these founders. I wish they had called me a year ago, and I would've been one of the guys pounding on the table just cut costs Jason Calacanis (01:15:49): -- And then control your destiny. David Sacks (01:15:51): Listen. Yes. And here's the thing is if you're only growing 10, 15, 20%, or even 50% a you're not a VC back able startup. You are a private equity place. You gotta pivot to that model of making your business work as a cash flow positive business. Jason Calacanis (01:16:06): That's David Sacks (01:16:06): how you're gonna get an exit. And, you know, if you're growing a 100% plus a year, you can continue to be VC back. So it's so important for founders to understand whether there are even eligible for venture capital anymore. If they're not, you have to make a different kind of model work if you wanna see a return. Jason Calacanis (01:16:21): Yeah. And when this happens a crackdown round, Those founders, if they want a refresh, they have to prove their worth. They're not just gonna get a refresh to keep the relationship going. This is $30,000,000 in revenue. They don't need the founders anymore. David Sacks (01:16:36): Look. These guys have been working for 10 years. So even if they got a refresh, they had to put in 4 more years of work. And the other thing is this crackdown round, I think, was way too big. They raised 25,000,000 with a 3 x lick pref. 3 x lick pref. Jason Calacanis (01:16:49): 75,000,000 off the top. David Sacks (01:16:51): Off the top. Then you gotta repay back. Jason Calacanis (01:16:53): The big is triple? David Sacks (01:16:55): Yep. Jason Calacanis (01:16:56): Oh my god. Who this is where board governance is so important, Shamatha? Like, I mean, who is on the board of these companies? We told -- Unfortunately, David Sacks (01:17:04): I was not on I was not on the board Chamath Palihapitiya (01:17:06): idiots are on the boards of these companies. These are people who've never had to build a company, and they may be educated where they may have been an exec at a company and then some VC who was feverishly raising funds just hired some dope, put him on the board of this company. and then just the stupidity compounds and trickles down. David Sacks (01:17:27): It's so frustrating. Jason Calacanis (01:17:27): Compounding stupidity, Chamath Palihapitiya (01:17:29): this is the beginning of the beginning. All of these people who have zero judgment are gonna fuck so many companies up. It is the beginning of the beginning. David Sacks (01:17:37): And, it's it's not just the the bad board members. It's the view for so many years that who you put on your board didn't matter. And remember, there was all these VCs who had a model where it's like, well, we don't take a board seat. And they were selling that to founders as a positive. Jason Calacanis (01:17:52): As a feature. David Sacks (01:17:53): As a feature, not a bug. And the reality is for a lot of VCs actually not being on the board probably is the best they can offer. But, you know, that that model works. That that model works when everything is up into the right where, like, this model of board seats don't matter. Chamath Palihapitiya (01:18:08): Governance doesn't matter. David Sacks (01:18:10): That is a model in a boom where everything just keeps going up into the right. But when you had a tough time, That is when you need a board member who's seen this movie before, who knows what a crackdown round is, who knows what's gonna happen to you a year hence Jason Calacanis (01:18:24): -- David Sacks (01:18:24): Yep. -- when you get, you know, screwed into taking a Jason Calacanis (01:18:27): 3 Chamath Palihapitiya (01:18:27): extra press. Jason Calacanis (01:18:27): You want the gray haired pilot, you know, in the right team to say, hey, listen. We're going into some You want the sexier. You want the sexier. Alright. Friedberg, you are always candid about your own journey. You've had huge wins, climate.com, for a belly, raising funds. But, you know, sometimes things don't work out. What what do you what's your take on some of these hard lessons of great ideas, you know, spun up during this really hard market? David Friedberg (01:18:51): I mean, I think just to echo the point you guys are making in the last Jason Calacanis (01:18:56): 15 David Friedberg (01:18:57): years, we've been in a call it structurally inflated environment because of the 0 interest rate policy since the 08 financial crisis. And everything's been up into the right or so much. It's been so easy to kind of inflate things, fill up hot air balloons, and go up into the right. And, unfortunately, most folks who are working in the investor community that are sitting on boards weren't around for the dot com crash the last time this happened. And I think, you know, just to kinda echo your point why it's so challenging, I think, right now to figure out a way out. There are there's a lot of failure going on in Silicon Valley right now. You know, Saks, you talk a little bit about having pads for exit and options for SaaS companies, but there are many sectors and start up land that don't have those sorts of options in biotech, in Syn Bio, in FinTech, and direct to consumer. e commerce, there's a lot of markets that and a lot of types of businesses that feel like there isn't a great way out. And it's having a deep psychological poll on entrepreneurs, on founders, on CEOs, and everyone is experiencing some degree of failure in this environment, there are very few folks who aren't feeling this acute pressure and this acute pain. You know, I heard some pretty horrific stories this week from a friend and someone who ended up in the hospital because of the pressure he was under. And it's really trying. And, you know, even within our friend group, I mean, not not our direct friend group within our broader community of investor friends. There are very few people who aren't feeling this extraordinary pressure that they've got a book that is declining in value and they don't know how to get out of the hole. And, you know, that pressure is like is generates deep questions about one's ability and generates deep existential thought for entrepreneurs and investors about what the hell am I good at? And no one's really talking about this out loud, but it is a happening across the valley. David Friedberg (01:20:51): We all have these thoughts. We all have these dialogues. As the failure begins to set in in the slow motion train wreck of a market that we've all been talking about for weeks months. Jason Calacanis (01:21:01): How do you deal with it? Look, I mean, David Friedberg (01:21:03): I just think that number 1 worth acknowledging, and it's worth having the conversation that no one is alone going through this pain. It is not a one off that these companies are failing. It is that we are all dealing with failure right now. And we are all trying to figure out what is the best path forward. And it is the kind of thing that you just to work your way through and you have to persist through this pain. But this existential question of, am I good enough? Do I have the skill set I thought I had? am I just an idiot? Did I blow it up? Emperor has no clothes. All the kind of interfere and turmoil that everyone's dealing with, you're not alone going through it. A lot of entrepreneurs, a lot of investors are in the exact same place. Now, with respect to going forward, I think having integrity with respect to how you handle these situations and having thoughtfulness about, you know, your reputation because this is not a 1 and done environment here in Silicon Valley. Failure is part of the process. and how you deal your deal deal with people, deal with investors, deal with entrepreneurs, deal with each other, deal with your employees, during these difficult times says a lot about your character and your ability that when you do this the next time, it will set you up for success. And, you know, as any great athlete will tell you, you build muscle during the times that you're failing, and then you're ready to go and execute the next time around. So, you know, let's save it for the quarter, but let's play well as best we can right now through this quarter. Jason Calacanis (01:22:27): Shamov, clearly, you wanna jump in here. what are your thoughts on separating your identity from your start up, from your work, and having a more balanced view of yourself so that when things go wrong, Maybe you're not as devastated. You don't wind up in Chamath Palihapitiya (01:22:42): a hospital bed. When things go wrong, they go wrong in bunches. just like when things go right, they tend to go right in bunches. I called Friedberg last week, and I was telling him a story. About 2 or Jason Calacanis (01:22:59): 3 Chamath Palihapitiya (01:23:00): of my businesses, just all just pounding, eating dirt. And what I said to him was and then we have a mutual investment that's doing pretty well. And I needed to use the one that was doing well to make myself feel better about the trick that we're eating dirt And I said to him something to be effective. It's just like nothing is working. I feel like Jason Calacanis (01:23:25): -- Chamath Palihapitiya (01:23:26): Mhmm. -- literally nothing is working. Jason Calacanis (01:23:27): It's a tough place Chamath Palihapitiya (01:23:28): to be. The only thing that you can do in those moments is just realize it would be so much worse to just beat on the sidelines. Jason Calacanis (01:23:37): Oh, I like it. Chamath Palihapitiya (01:23:38): And I think that's all you can do. Then you go and hang out with your friends. Go hang out with your family. kiss your wife, have as good of a time as possible outside the context of work and then you just start the grind again. But -- Yeah. Jason Calacanis (01:23:52): -- Chamath Palihapitiya (01:23:52): we are in a moment where in most companies, there is something pretty wrong. It's either your burn -- Product Jason Calacanis (01:24:01): of your contract customers team. David Friedberg (01:24:03): cap structure. Jason Calacanis (01:24:04): RIFF, cap table. Yeah. Chamath Palihapitiya (01:24:06): And by the way, that's always the problem. But it tends to be balanced by a few things in your portfolio that are always going well so that as an investor you can maintain some equanimity through the whole process. But Friedberg is right. When there aren't enough of these positives and there's just a parade of terribals, you're just like, wow, this whole portfolio Is it all about to fail? And then I get a massive wave of impostor syndrome of, like, what am I doing here? And then I have to recognize, holy shit. This is my 24th year take a deep breath, and it's great that it's ex that that exhilarating where I think it's back to 2000, and I just emigrated here. That's the David Friedberg (01:24:45): con the conversation, Chamath and I had is beautiful. We're talking about, like, a string of difficult things we're all dealing with. You know, a couple weeks ago, we announced that we returned all the money to all our customers at Cana which was this molecular beverage printer company I've been working on for a few years I plowed north of $30,000,000 of our capital into building this business. We had 2 term sheets last year, both of which vaporized. as the markets that degraded. It was really a brutal experience for me, and these were at very high valuations. And we were we needed funding to get the production line stood up to manufacture that device. So we were that close. Jason Calacanis (01:25:19): Right, man. David Friedberg (01:25:20): And as the the market went south, pre revenue hardware companies became less fundable and despite our reputation and a great working product and a and a manufacturing ready prototype, we couldn't get it done. It was a really kind of brutal experience to go through the nodes, even after you've had a lot of success in your life, believe it or not, you still get a lot of freaking nodes Jason Calacanis (01:25:39): -- David Friedberg (01:25:39): Mhmm. -- and you get a lot of, I don't believe you. then to just have to get to a point with this one was really difficult. And there's, you know, been other kind of frustrating experiences of late. And then, you know, you kinda have a call one day with another investment and you're like, oh my god. This thing could be a home run. And that just comes out of nowhere. And, you know, as long as we kind of stay in it, as an investor and you keep, you know, as a builder and you kinda keep building, you don't know when that good knock on the door is gonna come. Jason Calacanis (01:26:07): Yep. You gotta stay in the game. You gotta stay in the game. Chamath Palihapitiya (01:26:09): If you're David Friedberg (01:26:09): building a business and one day you just nail a sale that you just weren't expecting or a partnership or an M and A inbound or something that happens that you weren't expecting. It pays for all the pain and all the loss and all the turmoil and all the downside. I always used to tell people For every, you know, 4 days, I'd be failing. I'd have one day of success, but that one day of success will get me slightly ahead of where I was at the start of the week. But 80% of it was failing. I mean, right now, it's like 19 days of failure and one day of success. But that one day of success, the goal is you used to have a couple of those punctuated moments that are big enough that make up for all this stuff. Just fill your bucket. Yeah. If you just keep grinding. And if you just keep grinding as an entrepreneur, you keep grinding as an investor and stay in the game. Living with the power law. Jason Calacanis (01:26:51): You're describing living with the power law. Chamath Palihapitiya (01:26:53): Yeah. There's a very relatable poker analogy in this. There's a there's a guy that may poker content. His name is Jonathan Little. Jason Calacanis (01:26:58): He's great. He'll be at the angel summit here. Chamath Palihapitiya (01:27:00): He's wonderful. I've been thinking about hopping into one tournament at the WSP this year. it's one of the big buying tournaments. So I'm like, let me just take a little tournament refresher. And I was just looking for any content and I found his and he had this beautiful slide which he said, if you are a mid level poker player, you should expect the final table every one in a 100 tournaments roughly. And I thought about that for a second, and I was but that's a 1% success rate. Now if that is your 99th tournament, you have to be pretty resilient to go through 98 losses where you don't cash. You don't make the money. And you're just putting money out. You're deep in a j curve and you're like, is this ever gonna work out for me? And so it's a really, really good reminder that it is the grind. David Friedberg (01:27:53): Yep. Chamath Palihapitiya (01:27:54): And I thought that was really Interesting. Jason Calacanis (01:27:56): You had a you had a a single or double, I guess, with call in. Maybe you could talk a little bit about that experience and and what decision you made there. We were obviously investors. So where I'd David Sacks (01:28:05): be conflicted. But I'd love Jason Calacanis (01:28:07): to hear your candid thoughts on why you decided to sell. David Sacks (01:28:09): Yeah. We put together a great team, and they built an amazing product. I think it's by far the best sort of social audio product. And then actually, they added video to it as well and podcasting features. So it's kind of the synthesis of video and audio podcasting with social audio. We got acquired by Rumble. It's sort of like a base hit type acquisition. It's it's a small deal, real specifically speaking. But the team wanted to do it. And then the main reason is because we got to hundreds of thousands of users, but in the consumer space, you really need to get to millions. And frankly, tens of millions is what it takes to have a successful consumer product. Rumble does have tens of millions of of users. So the team wanted to find a home, and there's a lot of synergy with Rumble. Both companies have a mission that's aligned around free speech. rumble sort of the call it free speech alternative to YouTube. It's a video platform. And what Colin will do is give Rumble's studio capabilities. So it'll be very synergistic for all their creators to be able to create content in call and and and then post it in rumble. So it's not, you know, a huge outcome for anyone. It's sort of a push for the investors depending on where Rumble's stock ends up. But, look, it's just you can build a really great product and a great team, but unless you hit that lighting, a bottle of distribution, you know, you won't get to the next level. So I'm I'm happy about the deal. I think the team's happy about the deal. And it's a good outcome for for everybody involved, but it's not, you know, it's not a home run. It's just it's more of a base hit, and that's what most these things are. Jason Calacanis (01:29:38): Yeah. Getting used to a high failure rate and living inside the power law where one investment out of 30 or 40 or 50 results in 90% of your funds' returns for, you know, that specific fund or so or maybe 2 wins represent 95%. That's a hard thing for the human brain to handle as is the j curve, s Jamath, you know, points out correctly. Man, you invest for 2 or 3 years, and then you watch those things go down in value for 2 or 3 years or the value, I'm sorry, of the portfolio go down for 2 or 3 years before it actually rebounds and goes back up. I remember Man, I had a run where everything I touched turned to gold, and then Mahalo hit 10,000,000 in revenue and then boom, panned update. And it just goes up and smoking. You're like, what what just happened? I I saw web logs 18 months after starting it. I, you know, had the slogan I report. I just Uber investment. Everything I touched went to the moon. Chamath Palihapitiya (01:30:28): It was working. Yeah. Yeah. Jason Calacanis (01:30:29): And then it's just a very frustrating experience where you can't make something work and you know, like, I should be able to make this work. Why isn't it working? David Friedberg (01:30:36): there's a very heavy blanket of humility setting over Silicon Valley right now. And I think all of us who have had strings of successes and repeat successes and, you know, things that we touch have worked. And we do all the same things, and we do the right things, and we do them the same way and the right way. And it doesn't work it doesn't work again. And then it doesn't work again. It creates a very different psyche. Whether you're an entrepreneur building a business or an investor investing in businesses, that what used to be the case isn't the case anymore as the tides have shifted. It's a daunting challenge to work your way psychologically through this moment. But, you know, progress doesn't change. Innovation isn't gonna stop. Technology isn't gonna keep shifting forward. And the opportunities to continue to build and innovate are not going away. So I, for one, am deeply optimistic and excited about future holds. But, man, you gotta put your freaking game face on right now to get through this. Yeah. David Sacks (01:31:32): For sure. Well yeah. And I I would say there there's one other exogenous variable here, which is I don't think any of us realized how much our sentiment was affected by one guy's decision at the fed Yeah. Like, what interest rates are gonna be? Speaker 5 (01:31:47): Because -- -- the Chamath Palihapitiya (01:31:47): intangible end. Yeah. David Sacks (01:31:48): Because you know what? When there's a lot of money in the system, everyone feels great. Jason Calacanis (01:31:52): Totally. And David Sacks (01:31:52): all the portfolios look great. And when the money is being sucked out of the system -- The David Friedberg (01:31:56): buyers are buying and yeah. David Sacks (01:31:57): Oh my god. Like, when the money is being sucked out of the system, everyone's results look terrible. Jason Calacanis (01:32:01): Yep. It's you know what it's like? Before a tsunami, the the Chamath Palihapitiya (01:32:04): big wave gets pulled out, and then this tsunami comes in -- Yeah. Jason Calacanis (01:32:07): -- David Sacks (01:32:07): is literally getting pulled out. the money is being sucked out of the system like the tie before tsunami and the tsunami is gonna be all the failures and bankruptcies. But What I would say is just in the same way that things weren't as good as they appear to be during the asset bubble, they're probably not as bad as they appear to be now. However, you have to give yourself time to get through this Jason Calacanis (01:32:29): -- Yeah. Sure. -- David Sacks (01:32:30): recessionary cycle. And it's so frustrating to me when founders don't wanna cut Their burn -- Surround. The burn is the one thing they totally control, and they have all these excuses for why they can't cut to an earlier level of spending than they were the company was working fine at. And we can't get them to go back to cut back to some earlier state of being. Jason Calacanis (01:32:50): Zuckerberg and Zuckerberg can do it. They can do it. David Sacks (01:32:52): And, you know, after seeing what Elon did at Twitter where he reduced the staff by 80%, I'm like, I realize there's no good excuse anymore Jason Calacanis (01:32:59): -- Chamath Palihapitiya (01:33:00): Yep. Jason Calacanis (01:33:00): -- David Sacks (01:33:00): for not giving yourself the maximum chance of survival. Jason Calacanis (01:33:03): And if you over cut, like, he admits he probably did. He literally, in the the Dave Farber, great interview he did with him, He said, you know, like, we probably overcut. We we cut people who are great, and we hopefully can welcome them back to Twitter as we thing on stable footing, but we're gonna make mistakes because we had an existential crisis. Elon Musk cut too many people and admits it and says he's gonna bring them back. It's no fall of theirs, and he said he's going back into growth mode. So, you know, like, sometimes you cut you you might cut too deep is the point. And and, you know, that sets you up for growth in the future, Shamap, you had something you wanted to add. Chamath Palihapitiya (01:33:36): I have 2 shout outs. Jason Calacanis (01:33:37): Okay. Here we Chamath Palihapitiya (01:33:38): go. The first is to one of our besties. Got a text from Jason Kuhn. He binked the main event at the Triton for two and a half 1,000,000. Yeah. Incredible. Who? I mean, he's so strong. He's a guy's a beast. So he's got a spoon. It's so great to have Jason Calacanis (01:33:51): a professional poker player our circle finally. Like, somebody who's won consistently over time -- Chamath Palihapitiya (01:33:56): Where we can learn from. Yeah. Like and but he's so open and he Jason Calacanis (01:33:58): teaches social just to be around him, you know, rationally stable, rational, humble -- Chamath Palihapitiya (01:34:04): Humble. -- professional poker player. Like, Happens to basically be the best poker player in the world, but you could you would never know it. You'd never know. He'd never bring it up. Like, he Jason Calacanis (01:34:12): is literally the greatest, and he won the Triton 2.5 Milli Yeah. The second the second shout out is -- Okay. Chamath Palihapitiya (01:34:18): Here we go. -- to the Model Y team at Tesla. I have been a die hard Model x user from the beginning. Speaker 5 (01:34:27): Right? Chamath Palihapitiya (01:34:27): I think I had -- Here we go. -- number 13. So I've been I've been I've had Jason Calacanis (01:34:32): 3 Chamath Palihapitiya (01:34:32): or 4 of these things. And I was like, wait a minute, maybe this why is really all is cracked up to be. And I'm a bit of a curmudgeon, and I have high expectations. But I just want to say, That car kicks absolute ass. Jason Calacanis (01:34:44): It is -- Perfect. -- Chamath Palihapitiya (01:34:45): in no. It is incredible. That model y It's going to be the best selling car. Jason Calacanis (01:34:50): It's Chamath Palihapitiya (01:34:51): going to be the best selling car in America. If you get the base level, it's actually cheaper than the average car in America now with incentives. David Sacks (01:34:58): Yep. Chamath Palihapitiya (01:34:58): It's so so good. So huge shout out to Jason Calacanis (01:35:02): the model y team, Etcetera. You guys Chamath Palihapitiya (01:35:08): nailed it. Yeah. It's it's my daily -- -- incredible product. And we Jason Calacanis (01:35:11): -- I love it. I don't wanna diminish the ax. Chamath Palihapitiya (01:35:14): I don't wanna diminish the balance But Jason Calacanis (01:35:16): the why is is so snappy. It looks the best car ever made. David Sacks (01:35:20): It is. It is the best. Yeah. Jason Calacanis (01:35:21): It's a great car. It's a great, great car. A great car. A great car. I can't wait for cyber truck. That thing looks like a beast. I can't wait Chamath Palihapitiya (01:35:27): to pick that up on top. -- the roadster. I love the roadster. Jason Calacanis (01:35:30): You know what? I've been taking my twelve year old roadster app. And my kids love going for ice cream in the the original roadster 1.0. So I've been taking it out every weekend or 2. Chamath Palihapitiya (01:35:41): What do you have? Number Jason Calacanis (01:35:42): 1? I have number 16 of the Roadster, which somebody offered me $40,000,000 for. I paid a 160 for it. I have number 1 of the model s signature series. So I have Signature 16 of Roadster. They did a 100 signatures, and they did a 1000 signatures of the model s, and I have number 1 of that. And somebody offered me a $1,000,000 for that. Chamath Palihapitiya (01:35:59): I have number of the founders edition number 13 of the x. Yeah. That's pretty special. Yeah. I'd hold on to that. Yeah. Jason Calacanis (01:36:06): There it's a special vehicle. Alright. Listen, everybody. All in Summit is basically sold out. Chamath Palihapitiya (01:36:12): How's the all in Summit doing, guys? David Friedberg (01:36:14): We're starting to do our outreach and to figure out speakers. Yes. Yeah. So it's exciting. Jason Calacanis (01:36:19): Alright, everybody. For the Sultan of Science, the dictator. And Steve Bannon, 2.0. David Sachs, the architect. Chamath Palihapitiya (01:36:28): The architect. The architect. I like that. Jason Calacanis (01:36:30): I remain even after Saks's triumph at Spaces. I remained the world's greatest moderator. Chamath Palihapitiya (01:36:37): So excited for this weekend, boys. See you tomorrow at the tarmac on the tarmac. David Friedberg (01:36:41): Bye bye. Chamath Palihapitiya (01:36:42): Love you, bud. Speaker 5 (01:36:44): We'll let your winner slide. Jason Calacanis (01:36:47): Rainman David Sanders. Speaker 5 (01:36:51): And I said -- We open source it to the fans, and they've just gone crazy with Chamath Palihapitiya (01:36:55): it. the Jason Calacanis (01:37:04): these are gone. Chamath Palihapitiya (01:37:14): You should all just get a room and just have one big huge door because they're all just useless. It's like this, like, sexual tension, and they just need to release her now. David Friedberg (01:37:23): You're the beep beep. What? David Sacks (01:37:25): You're a beep. Beep beep. Speaker 5 (01:37:27): What? That's gonna beep. Jason Calacanis (01:37:28): Where did you get Mercies on that? Oh, no. alien.