麦卡锡被罢免、边境乱局、Cruise 无人出租车「事故」

Chamath Palihapitiya (00:00:00): How was your colonoscopy by the way? Jason Calacanis (00:00:01): Oh, well, that was, David Sacks (00:00:03): Talk about your anus. Jason Calacanis (00:00:05): Talk about my anus. Have you guys had yours recently? Who's had a colonoscopy? Chamath Palihapitiya (00:00:09): I have mine in December. My first one. Yeah. My first one. Jason Calacanis (00:00:12): Yeah. I was delinquent online too. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:00:14): They it used to be 50, and they moved the age down to 45. Jason Calacanis (00:00:17): Yeah. They didn't move the age down. Freebrook, have you had one yet? That's a yes. We got a yes. David Sacks (00:00:22): I'm due. Jason Calacanis (00:00:23): Sachs, have you had yours? David Sacks (00:00:24): I'm due. Jason Calacanis (00:00:24): By the way, I got a report because actually Saks, you did have 1, and they found, a bunch of DeSantis merchandise up there. You found a DeSantis had a DeSantis in tons of desantis stuff right off your edge. At our age, we should be 4 for 4 on the colonoscopies. We're 1 for 4. We gotta get that stat up. Every week, I wanna checking here. Propofall, shout out Michael Jackson is the greatest drug ever. I counted 15 seconds. I was knocked out. I woke up. And the next thing I know, I was in the recovery area. Were you groggy? I was not groggy. No. I was fine. You literally don't remember anything. No pain. No suffering. I did have Chamath Palihapitiya (00:00:59): Were you able to have a regular schedule the rest of the day? Jason Calacanis (00:01:02): Not really. So, I don't wanna dissuade anybody from having this, but you do have to take a drink called prep. Which clears you out. And when I say clears you out oh, I love that. Oh, I love that. It clears you out. Yeah. I would hit a record low weight. I'm 168 now. So that was the one benefit. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:01:17): How much weight did you lose? £3 maybe? Come on. Jason Calacanis (00:01:21): Oh, yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:01:22): Were you working when you were prepping? No. Jason Calacanis (00:01:24): I was working when I was prepping. So Monday when I was prepping, but then literally Do you take this prep stuff an hour later? You're you need to be ready to evacuate at any time. David Sacks (00:01:34): Normally, the diarrhea is coming out of your mouth. Jason Calacanis (00:01:36): Absolutely. Absolutely. Oh, well, buddy. Hey, there you're coming up and focused. What winter's ride. Rainman, David Sachs. David Sacks (00:01:50): Open source it to the fans and name discovery. Jason Calacanis (00:01:57): Alright, everybody. Welcome to another amazing episode of the All in podcast episode. 1 for 8. The docket is absurd the number of lawsuits and the amount of news that has happened in just the last week has been in saying, but we wanna, at the top of the show, do a quick correction. Right? It's an all in correction. If we make a mistake here, we don't hide it in the show notes. We just talk about it right up front, Saks, you are touch with the Airtable CEO, Howie Lou, who's been a guest on this weekend start ups. I'm gonna have him on again, actually, soon. Maybe you could just discuss what we got wrong and how we got it wrong and then what the correct facts are about Airtable just quickly. I hear at the top of the Yeah. David Sacks (00:02:38): Well, we had a segment a couple weeks ago. We were talking about these high priced late stage unicorn rounds needing to get revalued And the IPO of Instacart was a good example of this where, yes, it IPO ed at about 10,000,000,000, but the last private round was at 39,000,000,000. So there is a big wave of revaluations or down rounds coming, and we cited some numbers off the internet regarding irritate as it turns out, not everything on the internet is true. Jason Calacanis (00:03:07): And you're talking about specific journalists. Might have gotten it wrong. We would say Well, it was actually David Sacks (00:03:11): a a tweet storm on X that from a financial account that, you know, appeared on the surface to be correct. And in fact, it did have some correct information, but it was outdated. It was stale. So just the the quick correction here is that the the amount of ARR that we cited I think was around a 150,000,000 was accurate as of the time they did the last round, but that was, like, 3 years ago. Furthermore, the growth rate that was cited, which I think was around 15%. That was off. That was off by about a a 3 x, multiple. So when you put all these things together, I wasn't able to get the exact numbers. But if you just do a little bit of napkin math here, My guess is that Airtable is somewhere in the half a billion of ARR club. With pretty decent growth. And if you look at the public comps for that, I think the public comps would be something like a a Monday, you know, which is doing Sure. 5 to 600,000,000 of ARR coming off of 50% growth rate, maybe forecasting. 30% for the next year. That company has been hovering around the 7 or $8,000,000,000 valuation range. Jason Calacanis (00:04:22): 12 x. David Sacks (00:04:23): Yeah. The claim that was made on X was that Airtable was even worth the 1,400,000,000 that is raised in VC money. I think that's way off. I mean Yeah. And furthermore, you know, what we heard is that Airtable still has something like 2 thirds of the money that is raised in the bank. So, look, is Airtable worth the 11,000,000,000 that it was valued at at the peak? Probably that's not what the public comps indicate. Would I be a buyer personally at roughly half that price for sure? Jason Calacanis (00:04:51): For sure. David Sacks (00:04:51): And I think it'll have a nice IPO at some point when they decide they wanna do Jason Calacanis (00:04:55): So just an important reminder for everybody is, you know, listen. If information's on the interwebs, it may not be correct. But the top news story in the country is, unequivocally Kevin McCarthy being out as speaker of the house. On Tuesday, he was voted out in a 2 16 to 210 vote with 8 far right Republicans, joining all of the Democrats so those 8 GOP members include or led by Matt Gates, obviously, a group of, I guess, what would be best describe, Sachs, as Tea Party esque members of, the the GOP contingent. They they care mostly about spending and curtailing spending. Am I correct? Chamath Palihapitiya (00:05:38): Don't don't forget all the Democrats. Jason Calacanis (00:05:40): Well, yeah, I'm putting the Democrats on where we're trying them. I'm just talking about the 8 who made this tip over. David Sacks (00:05:44): The media is trying to portray them as these far right you know, wingers. And I don't think you can initially say that because I don't think Nancy Mace fits in that group. I think she does care about spending, but she's not Was this far right to care Jason Calacanis (00:05:55): about spending? I mean, far right to me would be a market. David Sacks (00:05:57): Right. I mean, anything that the media doesn't like, could they label far right? But I think, you know, Nancy Mason is a good example of somebody who is very concerned about spending discipline, but is not like a MAGA type Republican. Jason Calacanis (00:06:11): But what is the and just to to just refine this one more time before I keep going, those 8 would the comment thread would be control spending. We have out of control spending is is the reason they're voting a no vote for Kevin McCarthy. David Sacks (00:06:25): I think there were a couple other pieces of this. If you listen to Nancy Mason, some of the other people, that were involved here, a lot of the issue comes down to trust. They felt like they could no longer trust Kevin McCarthy. They felt like the things that he had told them in private were not matching up with the things that he would then later do or that he would say in public or that he would tell the Biden administration So I think that Jason Calacanis (00:06:49): main issues were David Sacks (00:06:50): Well, I think there's a couple. One was on spending. He had promised that he would stop doing these giant omnibus spending bills where everything would be lumped into one bill. You get, like, 24 hours to read it, and then you gotta vote up or down on whether you pass this giant spending bill or shut down the government, everyone feels forced to vote for it, he had promised to do single subject spending bills. Jason Calacanis (00:07:11): So military education, welfare, whatever. David Sacks (00:07:14): Yeah. That goes through a regular budget process. So they felt like he had broke his promise on that. I think also on the issue of Ukraine, There were some trust issues there because what he was telling Republicans in private was not what he was telling the Biden administration. In private where he was telling the Biden administration, don't worry. We're gonna get the Ukraine funding through, but then he was sounding different notes with various Republicans. And I think his true feelings on the matter came out in this press conference he did after he was ousted in which he goes on this long rant about how Putin's the second coming of Adolf Hitler. And if we don't stop him now, he's gonna be, you know, marching into Paris. And, I mean, it was sort of this, like, unhinged 2nd grade American history style a view of of the war, which regards of what your your view is on it. I think it expressed his true feelings on the matter, which is that when push came to shove, he's more hawkish than Joe Biden on the issue of Ukraine. He feels that Biden has not done enough. It's safe to say that that position is now very out of step with the Republican caucus. So he is pushing a view on Ukraine that is now very out of step. Moreover, I think that if he had just acted as an honest broker on the issue, which is listen, I'm just gonna represent the views of my caucus. My caucus is divided on the issue. I'm just gonna let them have an up or down vote on it. Then I think he could have survived on that issue, but instead, again, I think he was trying to manipulate things in a direction of continuing Ukraine funding regards of the views of his caucus. Jason Calacanis (00:08:48): Gates wants to and CR's continuing resolutions, those extend the funding deadline from October 1st of holidays. Claiming the Spice Congress time to lump all those individual from Russian bills into the Omnimus bill as you correctly pointed out. Gates wants to end that practice in return to regular order. Passage of individual annual spending bills, not the omnibus. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:09:08): The context that I think is important, that I think is that the American public should understand is How is this actually supposed to work so that we don't normalize what these CRs are? So the way that it's supposed to work is that Congress is authorized by law to create 12 spending bills a year. And each of those bills have to map to the large parts of the government. So there's a military bill, there's an education bill, there's a, you know, HHS bill, etcetera, etcetera. And those are all supposed to be negotiated on the house floor and passed. The Senate is allowed to do a version of the same. If those two things are different, meaning the Senate doesn't take the house bill and creates their own, The law says that you have to create what's called a conference. And a group of people have senators and have Congress people sit in a room, hash out, and mediate a resolution, and that is what goes to the president's desk to be signed. That's how it used to be done. But about a decade ago, all of that broke down. And now what happens is you have this thing that Saks mentioned, which is called the CR, which is essentially a backdoor. It's this release valve that is supposed to be a in emergency break glass type measure. That has become fundamentally normalized. And I think what's important to call out is what happened here isn't getting the just attention because it's being characterized on party lines and not actually being characterized with how America is legally supposed to work as defined in the Constitution. So the Congress is supposed to pass 12 spending bills a year. It's then supposed to get negotiated or approved by the Senate, and then it should go to the president. When you override that with these continuing resolutions, this is the issue that Freebrook has been talking about. You balloon the deficit. You balloon the debt. You have all kinds of pork barrels spending. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:11:07): There's zero accountability. The bullets cost $6000. The umbrella holders cost 15,000. All of this nonsense that just brings us closer and closer to some sort of default or economic contagion. So I actually look at this issue, not as Republican versus Democrat, the far right wing. I think that's misguided interpretation by the mainstream media. I think what this is is the first chance in a while where you're not allowed to pass a continuing resolution where you will have to propose 12 bills the way the law says you're supposed to. And what that'll mean is that you'll have to negotiate a compromise to get those 12 bills passed. Now what's crazy is the Senate actually has 6 of those bills on their desk, and they haven't even negotiated it. And I think the reason is because they know that the CR is always in the offing. But if this continuing resolution is not allowed because you fired the speaker Then they'll have to negotiate those bills. And part of what McCarthy did to get elected was say we will return to the law. And not use the in emergency break class. And I think that's what's not it's not understood well. I think by Americans, as that is the actual process, We haven't been doing it for a decade, and I'm not a fan of Gates, but I'm glad that somebody did this because somebody has to draw a line in this end. The Republicans and Democrats equally have been responsible for breaking the way the American government spends money. And so this is the best way to fix it. Jason Calacanis (00:12:37): Friedberg, you agree with what's gone down here. And that the and that this is worth shutting the government down, etcetera, or Do you think this is like, where to make the stand? Because you've been very pro controlling spending, SFI. And so do you think that this is the the best way to do it, I guess. David Friedberg (00:12:55): It's more about the United States is facing a fiscal emergency. National Debt reported by the Treasury Department increased by $275,000,000,000 in a one day report yesterday, $275,000,000,000 in a day. The entire TARP program during 08 was $400,000,000,000. That's how out of control our fiscal condition is. And this is a function of rising rates, a function of spending, And, you know, as we talked about many times over, there's an arithmetic to this that at some point, it becomes ever escalating until you step in and do something dramatic about it. So I'm hopeful. And I'm I mean, there's a lot of rhetoric. You can watch all the news channels and see a lot of these congress people get on camera and talk about different things. I think we're seeing more frequently now people talking about the fiscal crisis that the US is facing. And that this action provides a mechanism as Shamoff points out for forcing everyone to the table to figure out how do we reduce the impact? How do we chart a path to a solution because right now, if you ask anyone in Congress, what's the strategic plan here? There is not gonna be an answer from anyone. Everyone's got a different point of view and everyone's fighting over the deck chairs on the Titanic, and we've got a more significant problem. We're hitting an iceberg. So, yeah, I'm hopeful that this causes hopefully a turning point in the never ending spending spree where everyone gets elected and everyone promises to the folks that they're representing and the folks that funded their political campaigns some amount of money back out from the government and everyone gets that free money. And at some point, something's gotta turn around or the whole thing kinda goes down. So, hopefully, this is that moment. I don't know. Jason Calacanis (00:14:43): Saks, you think that David Friedberg (00:14:44): this is. By the way, if the government shut down for weeks months to try and figure this out and for everyone to get aligned here is the long range strategic plan presented to the American people on how we prevent the US from either inflation or bankruptcy, then I think everyone will feel like it was worth it. Jason Calacanis (00:15:02): Sachs has been tons of speculation about what this is what's what this is actually about? Is it about Ukraine? Is it about out of control spending? Is it about Matt Gates and Kevin McCarthy having some sort of personal grudge against each other? What do you what do you think is that the core of this, sex? David Sacks (00:15:17): Well, probably all of the above, but I think it's fundamentally a rejection of the status quo. Kevin McCarthy, if nothing else, is a figure of the status quo. I mean, he's worked for 20 years through the system. He's a great fundraiser. I actually attended an event for him down the street here, and, of course, all the donors love him. And look, I like Kevin McCarthy. I've contributed to Kevin McCarthy, but at the end of the day, I'm not sure that Kevin McCarthy is a guy He's gonna get us out of this mess. And the fundamental problem is he's just too conciliatory. And the idea that you're gonna impose spending discipline and get us out of the budgetary mess that we're in. The idea that you're gonna make that omelette without breaking a few eggs, I think, is just kind of silly. So I think we need a tougher speaker who's gonna actually live up to the promises of stopping these ominous bills going back to single subject bills, who is going to represent the views of the majority of the Republican caucus on you know, indefinite, infinite Ukraine spending because he's kind of off center of the Republican party on that. Jason Calacanis (00:16:19): Why can't the Republican party being unison on this, is is explain what the what's the rift inside the the GOP right now? David Sacks (00:16:28): Well, the the GMP actually has debates in this party. What you see is the Democrats are in total lockstep, and they just support whatever is the status quo. But the Republicans actually have debates inside their party. And there is a big debate right now on how we handle Ukraine. And I think there is growing opposition to a blank check as long as it takes policy towards Ukraine. We've already appropriated over a 100,000,000,000. What's the return on investment of that? The counter sets Jason Calacanis (00:16:53): of sale. The key. You think that's the key, not the the CRs? David Sacks (00:16:57): I think it's both of those issues combined with the fact that increasingly McCarthy was not seen as an honest broker. Listen, I think McCarthy could have had whatever reviews he wanted to if he was perceived as somebody who actually represented a majority of the Republican caucus, but what Nancy Mays, what Matt Yates, what These others who rebelled were saying is, listen, what Kevin told us is not what he did. And I personally witnessed this aspect to McCarthy. Okay. So when I went to this event down the street here, I heard him gave this whole Putler rant. And then afterwards, I came up to him and said, Kevin, what are you talking about? Or do you really wanna cause war or 3. And all of a sudden, he backpedaled, and he started saying these conciliatory things. And I was like, okay. Maybe he just went on this, like, to where, you know, it was kind of off topic. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:17:45): He tuted? Did you retude it? David Sacks (00:17:50): But after after I kinda had this, like, sidebar with him, I'm like, okay. Maybe it's not so bad. Maybe, you know, I think he he prom said he would impose. Jason Calacanis (00:17:58): You're saying he's in the pocket of special interests. Let's be clear. David Sacks (00:18:01): Well, I think he Chamath Palihapitiya (00:18:02): Well, no. Not quite, Jason, because he didn't quote 2 to He's just got a Jason Calacanis (00:18:05): quote to it and he just tweeted. He he retuned it. David Sacks (00:18:08): But what I would say is that he was really good in any particular meeting at saying conciliatory things Jason Calacanis (00:18:15): Mhmm. David Sacks (00:18:16): To get somebody to like him and to get him off their backs. Jason Calacanis (00:18:19): Is what you're saying. Well, David Sacks (00:18:20): tell me nothing. A lot of politicians are. Right? And so he told me what I wanted to hear. I think he promised that he would get an accountant. Jason Calacanis (00:18:26): Would you have been with the 8 or with the rest? You have voted with the aid, or would you voted with the rest as if you were David Sacks (00:18:33): I think I would have voted with the aid. I mean, even though I like look, I like McCarthy. He's a likable guy. But again, I think that press conference he held revealed the truth of it, which is Okay. He was bs ing me his real view is that we need to support Ukraine for as long as it takes, and he told me something different. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:18:50): His grand bargain was that he would stop these continuing resolution pork barrel bills. That was the grand bargain. That was the thing that said. And if I don't do it, you guys can vote me out. Do you guys remember this? Yeah. You know, that was his negotiation. So This really was kind of like a fact that complete the minute he decided to pass an yet another pork barrel bill. Jason Calacanis (00:19:08): He also seemed kind of frustrated that he just He seemed like he was spent in dealing with all this. So I didn't know Chamath Palihapitiya (00:19:14): why the Republican party allowed Matt Katz to get all of the attention and to be like the organizing principle because he's such a loathsome individual to so many people, both in the Republican Party and outside. The guy, the guy broke a fundamental promise, and that promise wasn't that provocative. It's just like, yeah, we're gonna pass 12 bills. We're just gonna follow the law. And he couldn't follow the law. And so why doesn't anybody else stand up? Why does it have to take these 8 kind of coalescing with with the dens? It's it's really nutty, actually. Jason Calacanis (00:19:44): Yeah. It's a very strange series of events. And David Sacks (00:19:47): by the way, I think you make just your last point there. This would not have happened if Hakim Jeffries didn't send down word that all the Democrats were supposed to vote with Matt Gates. I think that this is a vote against their long term interest because the fact the matter is that Kevin McCarthy ultimately was a very client speaker, and he was giving the Democrats what they wanted on spending on keeping government funded and open forever at higher and higher rates of spending. And on Ukraine, they're never gonna get somebody who is more compliant. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:20:19): To your point, I think what what is really interesting and hopefully beneficial for America is we've broken the seal on unseating the speaker, interterm, if they kind of like violate a handful of these defined things, and I hope one of these things is The best thing we could do for America is just force all of these folks in Congress to negotiate fall bills a year. Keep them busy. Focus on those bills, get to a, like a compromise, get it to the senate, get it voted, get it to the president, sign it. That's it. If they if they just did that, we would probably spend a third to half of less than we do now. Jason Calacanis (00:20:56): Just is Gates the winner in all of this to see it look like By Chamath Palihapitiya (00:20:59): the way, just just so you guys know, like, when to propose elements of a bill, right? In one of those real bills, okay? It has to go to the the CPO and it has to get scored. Right? So for example, we've tried to propose certain aspects of legislation. And no matter whatever we think about it, there at least is an independent body that scores it and says, here's the x year cost, the y year cost, here's the benefits. And so you get a very clear sense and a transparent sense that's published to everybody about what this is. In CR, you can avoid all of that stuff. There is no close study of any of this stuff. And, you know, David is right. You get it on a Thursday night at, like, 8 pm and you vote Friday at 6, you know, or like at at midday. How is anybody supposed to approve a multi $1,000,000,000,000 package logically? You know it's riddled with nonsense. It makes no sense that you Jason Calacanis (00:21:51): don't break up the work and do it thoughtfully each time. I guess, should they change this ability for one member to propose a resolution? To remove the city and speaker. Yeah. David Sacks (00:22:02): It's comically easy to vacate the speaker based on the rules they passed. However, I think it's important to understand why that rule happened. It happened because Carthy was so desperate to become speaker. If you go back to the history of this thing, McCarthy was actually passed over for speaker back in 2015, when he made this gap on TV about the Benghazi select committee being set up to hurt Hillary's poll numbers, obviously, that wasn't an admission that helped Republicans And he only got the job this year by making it so easy to take it away from him. I remember they did, like, 15 rounds of voting. So this is the problem. Frankly, one of the problems with McCarthy is he is a little bit too desperate to have the job. Sometimes when you get a guy who is so desperate for a job, they're not that effective in because they're too worried about it being taken away. What you want is a guy who is like, look, take it or leave it. I could do this job or not do this job the only way you're gonna get somebody tough in the job. I think the guy they should look to right now would be Jim Jordan. I think Jim Jordan would be excellent because At the end of the day, you want a speaker who's gonna be fear, not loved, like Nancy Pelosi, quite frankly, you need a Republican speaker who's gonna be tough who doesn't give a shit if you like him or not. I mean, this is, I think, Kevin's downfall is that he cared too much about people liking him. As a result, in the room, he would always tell you something that you liked, but the problem is that he can't deliver on that. Jason Calacanis (00:23:23): Yeah. So let's get ready to move on to the topic, but just a final question here. Do you guys think a shutdown in a couple of weeks? Cause that's, how long the extension is would be productive for the country if it if it becomes the backstop against standard control spending. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:23:36): If it stops the CR process, it'll be effective to the tune of above $500,000,000,000. It'll be half a $1,000,000,000 effective. Jason Calacanis (00:23:45): So the a couple of weeks of the the government not mean, meaning, if you Chamath Palihapitiya (00:23:50): if you kill the omnibus bill and or you have like an extremely slimmed down version of that bill and you revert back to this 12 bills a year process that's supposed to be the law. It'll be more effective. You you'd save half a $200 loan. Yeah. David Sacks (00:24:03): Just finish the the point on that. I think we have to just look at this Wall Street Journal article that came out this morning where it was called rising interest rates mean deficits finally matter. Finally, there's a recognition. We Jason Calacanis (00:24:14): called it. We called it. David Sacks (00:24:15): Yeah. Finally, there's a recognition both politically and economically that our deficits and debt are too big. And the key point of this article is says most of the increase This is in long term rates is due to the part of yields called the term premium, which has nothing to do with inflation or short term rates. So until now, our interest rate problems have been about the Fed raising short term rates to combat inflation. Now we're seeing a separate problem, which is long rates are going up. And the long rates are going up because of this concern that the federal government has too much debt. And so bond holders are starting to demand a higher long term premium to hold that debt is what we've been warning about for a long time now for a year. Jason Calacanis (00:24:56): And David Sacks (00:24:56): it's finally happening. So unless the political system gets serious about reducing deficits, even if inflation comes down. And even if the Fed cuts short term rates, you're gonna have a problem with long term rates remaining high, And that is gonna keep the cost of capital high, and that is gonna reduce long term innovation in the economy. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:25:16): It's bad for us. David Sacks (00:25:18): It's horrible for us. Jason Calacanis (00:25:19): Yeah. Terrible for us. Let's go to another troubling situation. What's happening at the southern border? Obviously, videos of migrants crossing the southern border are all over acts, reddit, YouTube, etcetera, one side saying it's chaos, the other side, arguably been ignoring it So let's start with the two numbers that we actually now put a bunch of time into trying to figure out if there are any accurate numbers. Talk to a bunch of people on Twitter and other places. There are only, we have very, very flawed data on what's actually happening there. We do have anecdotal videos. Obviously, our friend Elon went down to the border and did a video himself. The best data with the caveat that is very flawed is the count of encounters. This is not folks who get through. This is folks who were encountered. So this is the official Sutherland, border encounters from the US Customs And Border action agency since 2022, 2020 2021, there were obviously COVID issues on the border. So it was much more locked down. Half a million people in 2020, 1.7 in 2021, 2.4 rounding up there. And in 2023, Supposedly running up 2,000,000 through 10 months, tracking our pace for 2.3, the exact same as last year. However, It certainly doesn't look like that. It's the exact same. Again, that's from the border patrol, and that is encounters, not actually people who got through, And then the border states are saying that those numbers are wrong, and there's a lot more people getting through. And Eric Adams in New York where a lot of these people are being sent. And this has obviously been the most politicized issue, I think, of the last decade governor Abbott in August of 2022, quote, New York City is the ideal destination for these migrants who see the abundance of city services and housing that Mayor Adams has posted about within the sanctuary city. Here are the clips, and then I'll get your responses from those when we get back. Speaker 5 (00:27:17): This is horrific when you think about, what, the governor, is doing, the governor of Texas but we are going to set the right message, the right tone of being here for these families. Speaker 6 (00:27:29): Before we begin, busting illegal immigrants to New York. It was just Texas and Arizona that bore the brunt of all of the chaos and all the problems that come with it. Now the rest of America is understanding exactly what is going on. Jason Calacanis (00:27:46): Alright. So this is obviously something that New York City is unable to handle. Those are from August of last year when this was flaming up. According to Abbott, Texas has given bus tickets to 42,000 Migrants. And, as of late September, 118 migrants have arrived in New York City since the spring of 2022, about 30% of New York City migrants have been bust in from Texas. I'll stop there and just get your general reactions to what you all believe is happening at border since we're getting a highly politicized take on each of these. It's become super polarized and the numbers, any accurate numbers do not exist. Sachs? David Sacks (00:28:23): I don't think it's hard to understand what's going on with the border. I think there are people who Jason Calacanis (00:28:29): Well, I said it's hard to the numbers of what's going on. I don't David Sacks (00:28:32): even think the numbers are that hard. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:28:33): Do you Jason Calacanis (00:28:34): have a better source of number? David Sacks (00:28:35): I have some numbers that are similar to yours, but Okay. So Cetista goes back to 2019. So the numbers I have are about in 2019, which is when it remained in Mexico went into effect, the number was 851,000. Then it went down to 400,000 because of COVID and Title 42. Then in 2021, we had about 1,700,000, which was a new record. Then in 2022, we were up to 2,700,000, which was a new record. And the question is what is happening in 2023? Obviously, we don't have a full year of data, but given that we've eliminated remain in Mexico, and Title 42. I don't think anybody seriously doubts that were headed for a new record. And in fact, the Washington Post had articles in August of September saying that those months were all time records, and now they're surpassing 11,000 daily migrant encounters the border just twice last week. So and, you know, what what Elon reported from the board? Jason Calacanis (00:29:31): You sent that link? You sent that link so important. Yeah. I'll have to. And then also, just so you know, that was just use. David Sacks (00:29:36): That was a mistake. Jason Calacanis (00:29:36): Sister is, an aggregator. They don't do primary research as you know. So, which one? Yeah. David Sacks (00:29:41): But those numbers are pretty similar to to yours. Jason Calacanis (00:29:44): Maybe from the same source. We David Sacks (00:29:45): also have the video evidence. We have the fact that, you know, Elon went down there and reported exactly what we're seeing in other contexts, which is new records virtually every day and every week and every month, the border patrol agents are basically being overrun. And so you made the correct point that this only measures encounters. It doesn't measure the actual number of people going through. Well, if border patrol is overrun, then the number of encounters relative to the people getting through is obviously gonna be very understated. So I think we're on track for another huge record in 2023. And the point is that the pace is accelerating. Elon gave the simple math. There's 8 billion people in the world. How many of them would want to be in the United States if they could? Probably billions. Jason Calacanis (00:30:29): At least half of them. Yeah. David Sacks (00:30:30): At least half of them. And I don't blame them. Okay. I wanna be in these Jason Calacanis (00:30:34): districts too. David Sacks (00:30:35): Okay. But obviously, we can't handle all the people who wanna be here. And the word has gone out via social media via word-of-mouth that the border is effectively open. And we've seen numerous videos. It wasn't just Elon when Rf K went down there to Yuma, Arizona. Jason Calacanis (00:30:50): There's a 100 different passengers. David Sacks (00:30:52): Hole in the wall, and people were just lining and and But Jason Calacanis (00:30:54): but it was a 100 different countries. Right? I mean, we we it was 100 different chance. David Sacks (00:30:57): And and Elon broadcast the exact same thing coming from Eagle Pass. So The point is you've got all of these different points where there is no wall, and people are just lining up and being let through. And in some cases, they're just running through because the border patrol is is overrun. So we effectively have no border. I mean, let's admit the truth. Now Yeah. And I think that the mainstream media and the Biden administration, their policy was basically see no evil, hear no evil, and to deny the reality of what was happening. Eric Adams was one of the first Democrats to break ranks saying, listen, we can see the migrants lining up in tents going around the block, we are trying to put them up in hotels. It's costing us $12,000,000,000. We can't afford it. But Eric Adams has always been a little bit of a maverick inside the democratic party. We talked about how he was tough on crime during the Chase of BD era. Which is why I supported him. Jason Calacanis (00:31:50): He's a moderate. David Sacks (00:31:51): But he's a moderate, but then you had Kathy Hochul, who's the governor of New York, who's nothing, if not a machine politician, just in the last week saying, we cannot handle this. So she broke ranks, which was, I think, a big news story. And now the latest is that the Biden's administration itself might be breaking ranks. I think Jamoth, you posted a really interesting story that mayorkas, who's the secretary of DHS just posted a notice in the federal register, which said there is presently an acute and immediate need to construct physical barriers and roads. In the vicinity of the border in Jason Calacanis (00:32:26): the United States. David Sacks (00:32:27): They don't wanna say wall. Jason Calacanis (00:32:28): Don't say the w 1. And just to what are your points? David Sacks (00:32:30): Awful entries in the United States. Now there was no press conference on this. The way that this got reported is some reporter was doing their job keeping track of the federal register and saw that New Yorkus had posted the notice saying that they need to construct a wall. Now Biden hasn't said this. No one in the administration said this, but Jason Calacanis (00:32:50): clearly obvious reasons. Yeah. David Sacks (00:32:51): For obvious reasons. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:32:52): So Jason, what do you think the obvious reason is? Jason Calacanis (00:32:54): Well, the obvious reason is Trump's entire presidency was predicated on, hey. We're gonna build this wall and I'm saying he can go back and say that he was right is untenable to Yeah. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:33:05): He's at the stage of national security. It's like Yes. Jason Calacanis (00:33:08): And so they're gonna do the right thing and build the wall, but they don't wanna say it. So it's just ridiculous. But just one important point to what David said, New York City has right to shelter. So that means every immigrant comes there, they have to put them in a hotel. And these are, like, turns out 4 or $500 a night hotels. So this has become cataclysmic. There obviously needs to be a border And, it's ridiculous to say there shouldn't be a border. Nobody believes that. I don't know why this administration just can't admit that there needs to be a a border of some kind we could talk about what the A wall. Well, no. Actually, it's a better solution than a wall, but we'll get to that. David Sacks (00:33:40): What is it? Jason Calacanis (00:33:42): Well, I I don't wanna jump. Shamafi had something to say. So Shamada, I'll explain in a second if you want, or I can jump to it. No. Jump to it. Jump to it. Oh, okay. So, obviously, people are talking about a wall wall a terrible solution, because there are ladders that can go over them pretty easily. What you really need to have is eyes on it, and the two solutions. You can see them here. Israel has had a really they understand borders really well. And so what you're seeing, if you're watching, are these, towers, which do a great job of monitoring the border. And you could put about 2000 of E Cyrus. They have a range of easily a mile. This is Nextgen Border by EBIT Systems. It's a rally based company. It's a 160 feet surveillance tower. Andrel actually has a Century Tower as well. Our friend, friend of the pod, Palmer Lucky's company, Andrew, and obviously, Oh, and the the border patrol already has 10 of the towers. David Sacks (00:34:35): Well, why do you see us in either or? I'm just curious. Like, why don't you Jason Calacanis (00:34:38): do those? I think that the I think that these smart land posts, as I call them, are the number one first thing to do because you could deploy these in a fraction of the time. You could have 2000 of these in under a year. $4,000,000,000. And so these only cost $2,000,000 each. The ten towers that we're putting were put in a 1,000,000 in the pilot. So if you put 2000 of these towers in and you just picked 4 different vendors, so they do 500 each and you test them, that would be $4,000,000,000. That would be nothing. What do Chamath Palihapitiya (00:35:06): you do when you when the camera spots a person? Jason Calacanis (00:35:09): You send, intercepts there, and then you build the walls where people are crossing most. So that would be my David Sacks (00:35:13): Well, you're making the most. They're crossing the bubbles. Jason Calacanis (00:35:17): You build what you you look for hotspots, David. So you would you but we don't there's hotspots that we don't know about. So I'd say you you deploy these for 4,000,000,000 very quickly. And then where there are hotspots, you obviously build walls. But you're still gonna need David Friedberg (00:35:27): Can I David Sacks (00:35:27): be frank about this? Jason Calacanis (00:35:29): Sure. Be as frank as you like. David Sacks (00:35:30): Look. Regardless of what you think about Trump, this may orchus revelation completely and utterly vindicates his approach to wanting to build a wall. And there's so many people who won't just admit that he was right, that we need a strong border wall, not because it's perfect, Not because you can't climb over it if you have the right tools, but because a wall is more defensible than an open field. Now look, I'm all in favor of these towers the cameras. And my understanding is that a lot of the parts of Trump's wall did have cameras on them. Jason Calacanis (00:35:59): Yeah. I know. He he gets track of Chamath Palihapitiya (00:36:01): that too. David Sacks (00:36:01): Is that you have video now coming out of thousands of people streaming across running. Jason Calacanis (00:36:06): And the word is that? David Sacks (00:36:07): You need a wall to stop that. You also then need cameras and border guards and all the of it. Jason Calacanis (00:36:12): To say, no. 2000 miles of wall is going to be like a decade long project. So that that's my only point. David Sacks (00:36:18): Okay. It's only a decade long if you allow all of the core challenges that are designed to frustrate it. The fact of the matter is and look, we don't need two thousand miles of wall because there are a lot of natural barriers along the border, you know, where you have deep rivers or mountains or whatever. We're not gonna need the wall. However, there are pieces of the wall that were literally laying on the ground. They were unfinished from Trump's term. By the way, Trump should have gotten that done. He didn't in any event, whatever. The point is the Biden administration was actually selling those pieces of wall for scrap metal for 2¢ on the dollar. This was a story that came out. Now they're admitting that we need the wall. That was pure politics. That makes no sense. They had the construction materials. They should have just finished it. Jason Calacanis (00:36:59): That is not ridiculous. Yeah. The the American public. David Sacks (00:37:01): It's utterly ridiculous. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:37:02): Yeah. That's like crazy. It's because the American government didn't like Who said the right thing? Jason Calacanis (00:37:09): Yes. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:37:09): And the tone in which he said it. Jason Calacanis (00:37:11): Yes. And they didn't like the the rating of children from whatever, and they politicized that. Both parties are equally just gross at this issue earning cost. So it should be a point based system. You lock the border, and you allow people in, you know, as I've said ten times on this podcast based on merit, what they're gonna contribute to our society. Those were that's recruitment, some amount of people who are need asylum because they're gonna be murdered, I. E. Afghanistan, people who supported us, Afghans who supported us, during the war. And then finally, the order process of people applying to come in here. Do your jobs, everybody. David Friedberg (00:37:46): Please, Nick. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:37:48): Happens when you get to the border, guys? Do you just get in admitted to America? David Sacks (00:37:52): Guys, this is insane. Okay. The Biden administration started auctioning off what they called spare border wall parts. Okay? I mean, how does Biden live this down? I think Jason Calacanis (00:38:04): this could cost me a lot. Yeah. David Sacks (00:38:05): You're a 100% right about that. Jason Calacanis (00:38:06): Yeah. Yeah. I think this is like a Chamath Palihapitiya (00:38:07): this is a set up for a very bad ad. Absolutely. Jason Calacanis (00:38:10): Yeah. And, I mean, I think this is just because it's become so politicized, point based system, recruitment over chaos, Build a wall, build But these are towers. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:38:21): What do you do in the meantime? There there are tens of thousands of people a day hitting the southern border. Jason Calacanis (00:38:26): National guard. Have something called the National Guard. We send them there. They have to be deployed anyway. You just deploy the National Guard. That's the short term. Of course. Of course you turn the run. Yes. That's it. Well, so specifically you National Guard will be quickest. The towers will be second quick quickest and the wall's gonna take forever. You need to but how do you but how do Chamath Palihapitiya (00:38:46): you process the asylum claim because isn't the whole point of asylum like you can't send them back to this country in which they're going to be killed in. And so it's an imperfect process, Tremac, obviously. So Saxon and I and a few other folks, we held a fundraiser for Vivek Ramaswamy last week. And we talked about this a lot. And one of the things that we learned is that All the people that come to the southern border are trained in YouTube and TikTok and Instagram. Yes. Exactly what to say so that you have to accept the asylum claim. Jason Calacanis (00:39:16): And so the asylum, there should be a limited number of them. That's it. Just you have this many per year. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:39:20): But you don't. I understand, but but you don't know whether that person who was helping us in Afghanistan. Ends up coming in October and not in March. And that's the reason why they can't get in. The, the thing that I learned is that it's a It's a specific script. It's available in multiple languages, right? So anybody who gets to the southern border knows exactly what to say so that America is forced to accept you. David Sacks (00:39:42): That's not how asylum should work. Jason Calacanis (00:39:44): The bad news is not everybody's gonna get in. Not everybody will get in. David Sacks (00:39:47): That's it. Jacob, there's 2 things we need to do in addition to to your point about sending troops to the border because we do need the manpower. Jason Calacanis (00:39:53): Yeah. It's obvious. David Sacks (00:39:55): Number 1, to Chmas Point, you can't just say the word asylum and get in. That doesn't make sense. You should have to produce evidence of actually meeting the the the case for asylum, which is not being economically disadvantaged. It's being politically prosecuted where if you're Jason Calacanis (00:40:09): Yes. David Sacks (00:40:09): Sent back to your home country, they're gonna put you in jail or kill you. And there aren't many countries in the world, quite frankly, where that is gonna be a valid claim. Just to be honest about it. I mean, if you have a freedom fighter from Iran coming over who's gonna be put in jail or killed, let him in, but that's not most of the people lining up at our border. Jason Calacanis (00:40:28): If you're coming from Mexico, there's a very small chance that you are being David Sacks (00:40:31): The other thing we gotta do is you gotta reinstall it remain in Mexico. That was the policy. Jason Calacanis (00:40:36): Yeah. You can't have I'm just David Sacks (00:40:38): waiting on this side of the border because they're never gonna show up in court. Jason Calacanis (00:40:42): Yeah. I mean, listen. We want immigration to this country. It has to be logical. And the fact is everybody wants to come here. That's a great thing. We should be taking advantage of that, but it can't be chaos. It's gotta be orderly. That's what everybody wants. I don't know why how this became a political issue. Everybody wants orderly. Everybody wants recruitment. Nobody wants an open board. David Sacks (00:41:01): Well, but but, Jake, in order for Jason Calacanis (00:41:02): it not David Sacks (00:41:03): to be a political issue, you need both parties to agree, and they currently don't. I mean, think about it. What's in Biden's interest right now? Is to do a 180 on this issue before it's too late. Jason Calacanis (00:41:11): He's gotta do it. Yes. Absolutely. Well, and it's very simple for him to say, which is But David Sacks (00:41:14): he hasn't done it. Jason Calacanis (00:41:15): Because everybody knows that the border doesn't have a wall. We've seen an increase. There's been a 10 x increase. This the situation on the field has changed. Therefore, we're gonna change. And we're gonna do all these things one of them is building a wall, and you wanna say gotcha. You can say gotcha, but it's the right thing to do because data has changed my opinion. Where did we get to the point where data can't change your opinion? Data should change your opinion. The data is clear that more people are coming through. That's why I made such a point at the of this is like, we don't even have good data. What these sensor towers would do would at least give us data and would give us clarity. And then you only need you know, a unit every half mile. So you need 4000 units patrolling the border, and they would catch everybody. This isn't as expensive as people think it is. This could be I mean, the the last the last amount of money we gave, what was the last appropriation for Ukraine, Sachs? Since I'll give you a red meat. David Sacks (00:42:10): Well, we've already appropriated or authorized over a 100,000,000,000 and there are clients asking for another 24,000,000,000. Jason Calacanis (00:42:16): Okay. So for 3 or 4 percent of that cost, we could have these sensor towers David Sacks (00:42:20): for you. We're defending Ukraine's border but not our own. Jason Calacanis (00:42:22): It's a very valid point. Independent rights. So by David Sacks (00:42:25): different Republicans up in arms. It's this combined with the the lack of fiscal discipline. Jason Calacanis (00:42:31): Now the craziness about this is if we were sitting here 20 years ago, the Republicans were trying to open the border to have more low skilled workers to work in restaurants to work in businesses. That's not the place we are today. We have too many people coming in. These are not just David Sacks (00:42:46): It's even worse than that. Jason Calacanis (00:42:48): Workers to to pick vegetables. It's a different group. David Sacks (00:42:51): There was a point in time, Jason, where the Wall Street Journal editorial page, which is really the voice of the GOP establishment Yes. Supported a constitutional amendment in favor of an open border. This was very much the point of view of the old Republican party, which was this libertarian open borders, open trade free markets position. And the results of those policies have been partially disastrous. I mean, I understand the value of free trade and so forth, but and obviously, we wanna have high school immigration. We've talked about that. But it was too much of a good thing. I mean, they didn't draw intelligent distinctions, but we still have, I think this, to your point, about the battle inside the Republican Party, We still have that old GOP establishment, and now there's this new populous wing that wants to make, I think, sensible changes. Jason Calacanis (00:43:38): Here's the Wall Street Journal story from 2001. Open afterwards. Why not? There it is. David Sacks (00:43:44): Yeah. That was Bob Bartley, who was the long time editorial page editor. He was kind of like a hero sort of movement. When I was in college, I read a great book by him called the 7 fat years about supply side economics. And I think he was right about a lot of that stuff, but along with that economic policy came, I think this open borders completely open trade view that I think produce a lot of negative results and has to be revisited. And by the way, there's a third leg of that stool, which is forever worse, The Wall Street Journal is one of the most pro Ukraine publications there is, both in the news pages and in the editorial page. And they have never revisited the results of our disastrous foreign policy where we keep intervening all over the world. This is the old Republican party. There's a new Republican party that is emerging. And, unfortunately, Kevin McCarthy found himself on the wrong side of that divide. Jason Calacanis (00:44:39): Alright. So moving on to our next topic, there was a notable accident with a cruise robo taxi in San Francisco this week or not. This is being framed by some as the first automated cruise vehicle to get in an accident, but what actually happened is not accurate. So there was a hit and run incident in San Francisco when we struck by a human driver. That human driver fled the scene. The hit and run launched tragically the woman underneath a cruise vehicle. The cruise vehicle braked aggressively according to cruise, but stopped with its rear tire on top of the woman's leg. Police ask crews to keep the vehicle in place and lock it, which they did. Emergency respondents arrived and used the jaws of life, to get the car off the woman's leg. Local media picked the story up, and David Friedberg (00:45:27): the police asked cruise to leave the car leave the car on the woman's leg? Yes. Jason Calacanis (00:45:34): I I think Why would David Friedberg (00:45:35): they do that? Jason Calacanis (00:45:36): Well, I think act actually, sometimes moving no. No. I I I do think, for my time as EMT, sometimes moving the person can cause more damage than leaving it until you have the emergency services on the scene. So they like to wait for emergency services in let because moving it Chamath Palihapitiya (00:45:51): Oh, cause they can heal that. Jason Calacanis (00:45:52): Broken bone, hit your firm, your your femoral artery, and then you could bleed out. So they just say stay where you are. Don't make any more movements until David Friedberg (00:45:59): Dude, at least the car on top of them, that's ridiculous. It's part Jason Calacanis (00:46:02): of the person's leg. So that would mean that they're not in any danger. It might be painful. But if you were to move them, I was taught this when I was an EMT, you if you move people, you have to be very careful because you could cause a spine injury that can become paralyzed, or you could cut a major artery. You gotta be very How long were you seeing EMT? I was the 1st class of what was called EMT FRs. First responders. And I worked at Bravo Ambulance in Brooklyn as on a volunteer one for about 3 or 4 years. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:46:27): Did you have, like, a tight outfit, like, a tight polo? What do you wear? Skinny jeans? Jason Calacanis (00:46:32): Did you Chamath Palihapitiya (00:46:33): have skinny jeans? You wore Jason Calacanis (00:46:33): green pants and a white collared shirt. And, yeah, I never told you guys the first call I ever got. I never told you that story. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:46:41): Were you like were you like a sexy paramedic, or were you just like a pure medic? I can Jason Calacanis (00:46:45): be whatever you want me to be. Whatever works for your fantasies. Oh, geez. Bless you. But I'll tell you my first car. You are Chamath Palihapitiya (00:46:51): a sexy paramedic. Jason Calacanis (00:46:52): I was a little sexy. It's a part of the month. Got him blushing. Here's my first call. I swear to god. It said night before Thanksgiving, Wednesday night. It's a big night in Brooklyn. I don't know if in other places, but the night before Thanksgiving, everybody goes out and parties. So big Wednesday happens. First call comes in. I was, I was originally the person who picked up the I was the operator at the 911, but then my second job, I was on the bus. And so first call, first shift is big Wednesday. Guy gets we get a call that a guy got stabbed. We go. The guy is outside T. J. Beltney's and I kid you not. The guy was in charge of the ambulance says cut the jacket off. I take my shears, and we have these really sharp scissors, and boom, we go right up to sleep. We cut his jacket. He goes, oh, my member's only jacket. We cut him open, and his giant hairy chest Blood is pumping out. Like, it's like a little, water fountain. And the the guy who was running the bus, I remember as I just say, puts his hand on both the injustices. Guy? You got bigger problems in this member only jacket. He says, get the mask pants. The mask pants, just so you know, are used in war. We get trained in them. You never use them. Mass pants are a blood pressure cuff. You put over people's pants. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:47:57): Oh, yeah. Take the blood from Jason Calacanis (00:47:58): their legs. Put it into their chest so that they at least survive. The guy says, get the mespets. I said, get the mespans. The mespans are packed away. You never use them. I'm getting the mespans out. We're we're wailing down Fourth Avenue to get this guy and his blood pressure's dropping, his part rates dropping, blood all over the bus. We're trying to control the bleeding. He survived. Do you Chamath Palihapitiya (00:48:18): save him? Jason Calacanis (00:48:19): We saved them. Yeah. But that was my first call. First call. Nuts. This was a volunteer gig. Nope. No. Not everything's about money, Friedberg. Not everything's about money free brew. David Friedberg (00:48:30): I'm not saying it is. I'm just asking. Jason Calacanis (00:48:32): I'm joking with you. Yeah. No. David Friedberg (00:48:33): I just want David Sacks (00:48:33): to be a superhero. David Friedberg (00:48:35): Yeah. That's all we need there. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:48:37): I texted I texted Jamie, Jason's brother, and, I asked him if this was true, And, I asked for a photo. Jason Calacanis (00:48:45): Hey, Nick. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:48:46): You wanna you wanna put up the photo for the second one, please? Jason Calacanis (00:48:48): Oh, there I am. There I am. Stops. This is the guy you wanna come research, Jake. I'll David Friedberg (00:48:55): have dazed it. Jason Calacanis (00:48:56): We know. Dave, did your heart stop? Did your heart stop, Dave? Because I'm gonna resuscitate it. Nick, show the other one. This is this is the original Chamath Palihapitiya (00:49:03): outfit that when he became a parody. No. Jason Calacanis (00:49:05): That's better not be X rated. David Friedberg (00:49:07): Oh, god. Oh, there. I like the second one better. Yeah. Jason Calacanis (00:49:10): We know which one you like better days. David Sacks (00:49:13): Oh, is that a nurse? Is that a thermometer he's got? What what does he have in Jason Calacanis (00:49:16): the hand? That's a David Friedberg (00:49:16): needle. It's an David Sacks (00:49:17): entire thermometer. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:49:18): Think that's like a coke bottle. Jason Calacanis (00:49:20): I think that could be a thermometer. We might need to check your temperature, David. It's like a Pepsi bottle. A temperature, Dave. I don't know if you're gonna make it. This would be What kind David Sacks (00:49:29): of temperature does that take? Jason Calacanis (00:49:31): Well, I know it's gonna be really hot. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:49:34): Jason, Jason Calacanis (00:49:35): you did a great job. This is great about it. We really appreciate your contributions. Wow. Great job. Alright. Back to the story about cruise. This terrible accident. Wow. We got derailed. David Friedberg (00:49:46): Yeah. Well, thanks for the work you did, Jake. Thanks for your service. Okay. So I'm gonna take your vitals. Jason Calacanis (00:49:57): Okay. Local media picked up Chamath Palihapitiya (00:49:58): Do you David Sacks (00:49:58): have a legal tattoo on your arm too? Jason Calacanis (00:50:01): That was that was removable. Local media picked up on this, reporting that cruise was responsible for the incident. Director of news for the San Francisco Chronicle, which is a lunatic publication, woman run over by crew self driving car on Market Street in Downtown San Francisco pulled from under rear axle circumstances under investigation. The San Francisco standard posted on x, a woman suffered traumatic injuries after being trapped under a cruise robot taxi in Downtown San Francisco, Monday, fire department spoke to a person said a few weeks ago, as you know, a video circulated on x, formerly known as Twitter, of 20 or so cruise vehicles causing a massive traffic jam and an intersection in Austin. The Robo Tak agency, provider issue has become very divisive here in San Francisco. There are now multiple companies working on that. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:50:56): People in San Francisco will put icons. They come in to break the car. Yeah. Yeah. Why would they do that? Jason Calacanis (00:51:03): Because they're lunatics. David Friedberg (00:51:04): And it represents technology. That's the real story here. The real story is the very deep disdain for technological progress And the second story, I think, that's so important is the total lack of assumption of risk generally in the US, which limits progress in meaningful way. Let me just pull up some data that I shared here. So, Nick, if you pull up this first chart, I'll give you guys some some numbers. For every 100,000,000, my is driven in the US. There's about 1 and a half deaths, car accident deaths. There's about 3,200,000,000,000 miles driven per year in the US. So about 45,000 people die from auto accidents each year. This is a crazy number. 2,300,000 people have auto accident related injuries in the US each year. And there's 6,000,000 car crashes each year in the US. That's one crash for every half million miles driven. Pretty you know, incredible statistics. So if you look at this chart, it kinda shows the car fatalities over time. Now what's the leading cause of car fatalities? We'll go to the next chart. To driving. Number 1, I should've I should've done this as a quiz. Number 1, DUI. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:52:14): Jesus. That is unbelievable that even today? David Friedberg (00:52:17): Yeah. Number 2, speeding. The number 3, not using your seat belt. So Jason Calacanis (00:52:23): By the way, all three of those are the same. David Friedberg (00:52:25): Yeah. All so 80 percent of those, 80 percent of deaths are DUI speeding and seat belt non use. Now go to an autonomous driver. Jason Calacanis (00:52:33): Those are all opt in. David Friedberg (00:52:34): Now go to one autonomous driving world. You won't see DUIs. Those things are programmed to not speed. Obviously, you're they're not gonna run if you don't put your seat belt on. And then the fourth one is distracted driving. The real question is what incremental accidents or what incremental errors do autonomous cars make that might, you know, kind of cause new deaths or new accidents. But the net is that we have an incredible number of car accidents, 6,000,000 accidents a year, 2a half 1000000 injuries a year, 45,000 deaths a year, most of which can be prevented by things that are just basic human stupidity, Jason Calacanis (00:53:08): The first three are all opt in. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:53:09): So what you're saying is Warren Buffett and GEICO are probably responsible for lobbying and creating this mess in San Francisco. Do the insurance companies even need to Jason Calacanis (00:53:19): state Chamath? Conspiracy Corner. Well, I actually think there's David Friedberg (00:53:23): a very different driver for why these things so I just wanna make the case first off that if you if you zoom out and you don't take the anecdotal story of the woman trapped under the cruise car, it's an awful story But that anecdote allows people to heighten their fear and heighten their emotion and create a response to autonomous driving as if that is a cause of a problem. If you zoom out and you ask the question, dude, fifty thousand people a year are dying because of human stupidity that we can just completely take off the streets, it's such a no brainer. That this technology should progress. Jason Calacanis (00:53:55): Agree. David Friedberg (00:53:55): And I'll give you guys another story. In 1999, there was a the the clinical trials for gene therapy had begun. And, there was a guy named Gelsinger. He was a young kid. I think he was eighteen or nineteen years old, and he passed away from the gene therapy. And it turns out that there was actually doctor malpractice that was primarily responsible for his death. After that happened, the FDA and the regulators stepped in, and they basically put a halt to all gene therapy clinical trials for about 7 years. The number of lives that were lost during the 7 years that went on that we did not make progress on getting gene therapy programs to market is significantly higher than the number of people that would have lost lives, which by the way, it turns out when you go back to this this particular death was driven by Doctor malpractice not by the gene therapy technology necessarily itself, and a lot of the stuff was understood. And I think we've heard Peter Till and others speak a lot about how the US has lost our appetite for risk. We say that if anyone dies or if any bad thing happens, a new technology should not progress. But when we look at the benefit of new technology relative to the cost of many of these technologies should progress at an accelerated pace, not at a decelerated pace. And the stepping in to stop these things from moving forward, because number 1, we're rudely afraid of new technology. Number 2, we, you know, we, we kinda wanna get there's a lot of regulatory cap sharing incumbency that wants to see these things not succeed. I think we're really denying ourselves In many cases, the opportunity to realize progress because we're so concerned about any loss. Nuclear Fission is a really great example of this. 3 Mile Island accident and Fukushima, you know, if you look at the total number of live files, and and there's incredible statistics, which I should probably not pull off the top of my head. I should probably make sure I get the right numbers. But Chernobyl is another good example. If you look at the total number of incremental cancers and the total number of lives that were lost from Chernobyl, you look at three mile island, you look at Fukushima, Jason Calacanis (00:55:49): Yeah. You can ask 46. David Friedberg (00:55:51): Yeah. You can you can make a statistical argument that even with those extraordinary cataclysmic disasters, the number of lives that could have been improved, the number of lives that could have been saved, the progress that people have been, could have been, could have made, the number of people that could have been pulled out of poverty if we make cheap abundant energy available at an accelerated pace rather than at a decelerated pace. It could have had a much more significant effect. So I view this in the lens, this autonomous driving backlash in the lens of what we see with a lot of new technologies, which is we lose our our appetite for risk. We lose our tolerance for any sort of incremental loss and we lose perspective on the fact that that loss is far, far far outweighed relative to the gains that you gain, if you can get that technology into market faster, not slower. And I think that's just such a, a real kind of storyline that's not told very often about how technology and progress is limited, particularly in the modern age. Cause once you have enough stuff, you're not willing to take as much risk. Meanwhile, you see China building 450 nuclear fission stations and the US building none. And I think that that's part of the story of where the US is today. No. I mean, I know that was a big rant, but for me, I'm just, like, so sensitive to this stuff. You know, like, all of this, like, anti tech stuff and anti progress stuff because you then pick an anecdote and you focus on the anecdote and you miss the bigger fucking picture. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:57:12): Well, what's so funny about San Francisco is this, it's the city that both is the first to approve the testing of it. And then where there's a small fraction of citizens who try to go and sabotage Jason Calacanis (00:57:23): I guess the next issue is how close are we to having these at scale cruises currently in San Francisco, Austin, and Phoenix? Waymo. Very expensive cars, by the way. They are currently in San Francisco and Phoenix 247. They're gonna launch in LA soon. And Tesla has been working on this. David Friedberg (00:57:41): You know what's another example of this? SpaceX, some shrapnel got blown into the uninhabited desert lands around Boca Chica, Texas. You're talking about starship? Jason Calacanis (00:57:52): Yeah. Starship. The big one. Yeah. Yeah. David Friedberg (00:57:54): And they come in and they're like, shut the whole thing down, you can't have shrapnel flying around. Think about the risk tolerance equation here. So if you delay SpaceX by 6 months, to make sure that shrapnel doesn't fly through the desert. That's 6 months longer till humans can perhaps inhabit the moon, go to Mars, do all these extraordinary things. This is what I mean about the lack of tolerance for risk. We have to assume that there is a cost in moving things forward. There has to be a cost in progress. You don't go fight a war and try and move the front lines of a battlefield further into the enemy territory and assume you're gonna have no loss. And all of human progress needs to be thought about in a similar way, we have to have some degree of loss and some tolerance for risk as we try and make progress with our species. And technology always is gonna have setbacks. It's always gonna have mistakes. But if the net benefit far outweighs those mistakes, we have to be willing to accept it and get everyone to kind of take a broader perspective on what we're doing, that this isn't just about maintaining status quo and not getting hurt This is about the great benefits we get from moving things forward, and we've lost that in such a profound way over the last 50 years in Western culture. Jason Calacanis (00:59:09): Another great example of this to add to your thyroid is challenge trials. And these have been banned for a long time. And if you what a challenge trial is is you introduce something, like, let's say COVID into a person who has had a COVID vaccine. And, yeah, they're assuming some risk in doing this. It was a young person, as we saw, it probably wouldn't be that much risk. And there are people who would do it. And there are this whole concept of challenge trials could reduce in the long term, a massive amount of debts, but it's not allowed because of ethics issues. What what are your thoughts on that framework? Challenge trials. David Friedberg (00:59:42): I mean, it's look, I there there's so many examples. We could just keep going through this. Enter from energy markets and nuclear technology to biotechnology, to space technology, to I've lived it. I mean, like GMO Technology And Bioengineering And Food Systems, there's a fear and a concern. And like Rob Henderson said at our summit, I've always viewed those to be luxury beliefs that this idea that I don't wanna have my precious things changed. When the Ben that really accrues mostly to the poorest people in the world. The people that can't afford by Jason Calacanis (01:00:12): the way, because that's an important point that people don't realize. David Friedberg (01:00:15): When when you make things more productive, whether it's a acre of land to make more food or a unit of energy and the cost comes down per unit of energy, Those of us who already have a lot of stuff and have all of our basic needs met, we have housing, we have shelter, we have food, we have energy, we can afford it, we live in a great environment, we live in a place, we can do whatever the heck we want anytime we want. We don't care if the price goes up by 30%. I'm happy to go down to Whole Foods and feel good plop down an extra 50 percent to buy an organic banana, someone who only makes $8000 a year cares very deeply about that cost delta. They need to see the cost of food go down, the cost of energy go down, the cost of medicine go down, the improvement that's driven by technology and has been for 10000 years mostly accrues to the poorest people in society first. And that's the problem. And so we all who are in charge, those of us who are rich, who are elite, who have power, who have control, who have influence, who run the fucking government, we all get to raise our hand and say, don't wanna take any more risk than one person died. Meanwhile, a million people are starving to death over the next 3 months. And you can make that same story and you can connect those dots in every area of technology that humans have lost their risk tolerance for in the wealthy industrialized west. And we are largely, I think, not just hurting ourselves because of the economic costs and all the other stuff that's going on that we're now seeing as very apparent, But we're also limiting the intelligence and the Jason Calacanis (01:01:44): energy to make technology and progress it that could benefit the whole world. We're David Friedberg (01:01:49): limiting its ability to diffuse. And I think it's it's really profoundly sad. And I I hope that we one day look back at this era as almost like a pseudo dark ages, and we wake the up someday and recognize that we need to take some degree of risk and have some tolerance for making progress. Alright. Listen to family. Whatever. Jason Calacanis (01:02:08): It's a family problem. David Friedberg (01:02:09): I'm a little bit of bleeping Jason Calacanis (01:02:10): it. Yeah. David Friedberg (01:02:10): So I got a little passionate about the whole anti tech stuff. Right. Jason Calacanis (01:02:13): We like it. We like it. And and, listen, 35 people died building the Golden Gate Bridge. Right? Like, the people wanted to see that progress. People took risk. That's it. No risk, no reward. David Sacks (01:02:24): To that point, I think it took 2 years to create the Bay Bridge and 17 years to do the repair to it. I mean, that's all crazy things have gotten David Friedberg (01:02:30): $2,000,000,000 to to $2,000,000,000 to build those suicide nets on the side of the Golden Gate Bridge and some fraction of that to build the whole freaking bridge. You know? And even on a dollar adjusted basis, ridiculous. Jason Calacanis (01:02:40): It's it was 5 it's interesting. You said a 550,000,000 to build the bridge in US dollars. And then, yeah, it was the same amount to build the net So Can you David Sacks (01:02:49): ask a question about the cruise thing? So do you believe that cruise will have a good solution to self driving? I'm just like a little bit skeptical. Are are they owned by GM now? David Friedberg (01:02:59): Yeah. But didn't they raise money from SoftBank? Isn't there some, like, independent funding as well that happened? David Sacks (01:03:04): I thought it was sold to GM. I'm just like us. Jason Calacanis (01:03:06): Part of GM. David Friedberg (01:03:07): It was sold to GM, and then they set it up as a sub, and they, like, like alphabet did with Waymo. Alphabet's raised 5,000,000,000 in outside money into Waymo. And I think that Cruise or GM tried to do the same thing where they've got SoftBank and a bunch of institutional investors in Cruise. Jason Calacanis (01:03:23): Yeah. It was spun out because GM didn't have the ability to bankroll it. It's obvious that these are getting there. The question is is I think it's more like 10 years before this is fully deployed also have to build all the cars. If Elon does get out this robo taxi vehicle for 25 k, which he seems like is well on the way with the model 3 to getting to, This was an early mock up from Walter Isaacson's book, which looks pretty sharp, and it doesn't have it's like a two seat car. So these things zipping around San Francisco, etcetera, at a reasonable speed, 25, 35 miles an hour. I think it's pretty close to having this. I use the self driving beta, full self driving FSD. I use it all the time. Used to only use it on highways. Now I use it on side roads. I disengage it when it's on roads that are not clearly marked. You know, David Friedberg (01:04:14): have you said, like, taken Jason Calacanis (01:04:15): a cruise or a David Friedberg (01:04:16): Waymo road? Jason Calacanis (01:04:17): I haven't taken either. I got invited to the beta, though, for cruise. Do you David Friedberg (01:04:20): guys wanna take one? David Sacks (01:04:23): Personally, I would not trust, the cruise ride. I don't believe they're responsible for this accident as it turns out, but I'm just skeptical that some of these initiatives are gonna pan out. I think Tesla's getting it. Jason Calacanis (01:04:35): Why are you why are you skeptical? David Friedberg (01:04:36): Yeah. David Sacks (01:04:37): I think it's a hard problem to solve, and I'm just dubious about GM's ability to develop tech at this levels of sophistication. David Friedberg (01:04:47): New test lab will get there. David Sacks (01:04:49): I think Tesla's already there. David Friedberg (01:04:50): Well, if an autonomous Tesla drove up and pick you up, would you do that? Would you take a ride to that? David Sacks (01:04:54): I mean, not today, but I mean, when they get there, which I don't think will be 10 years. I mean, it seems like Tesla's this way ahead of everybody else. David Friedberg (01:05:01): Timoff, what do you think? Where do you think the tech is? Chamath Palihapitiya (01:05:03): I think this is a an inference problem for Tesla, and it's a learning problem for everybody else. So I think in order to build level 5 autonomy, you have to have good reasoning. And I think in order to have good reasoning, you just need to have enough training data where you literally see every potential branch and node in a decision tree. And so it's one thing to be able to scan a light, know that it's green, and then go forward. But when you multiply that by every intersection, every light in every city, it's a massive, massive learning problem. So the thing that GM and Cruise don't have in my opinion is Jason Calacanis (01:05:36): a path to acquire enough data to be credible. Could they Chamath Palihapitiya (01:05:40): solve a limited set of streets in San Francisco? Yeah. Yes. And so if you have the city Sort of block off certain parts of the neighborhoods and say no more human driven vehicles in these sections Only these 3 or 4 licensed providers can be inside of it. I think that Cruise and Waymo could work. But if you're gonna live in a world where there's autonomy, meaning like humans can drive wherever they want, I think Tesla is the only one because I think they've acquired and they are acquiring so much training data that for them, they're fine tuning reasoning. And it's exactly what Jason just described. Jason is a perfect example of a consumer now who has adopted it, call it 70 percent of his use cases, and Jason Calacanis (01:06:27): is incrementally kind of like getting towards 90% or 95%. Chamath Palihapitiya (01:06:33): And I think that that's impressive. I would agree with Jason. I use FSD 100% on the highways, And depending on where I'm going, so like this weekend, when I when I came to David your house, Saksis House, full FSD the whole way. Jason Calacanis (01:06:47): Yeah. 2 ways. 101. It's bulletproof. Chamath Palihapitiya (01:06:49): Bullproof and then in the city. Yeah. And navigating to get into into David's house. It I thought it was it was pitch perfect. And there was one or twice where, actually the person that's panicking and disengaging FSPs, Jason Calacanis (01:07:02): like intersections, right? Left turns? And also just on Chamath Palihapitiya (01:07:05): the highway, like, I get a little skittish at times if it goes if it speeds up or whatever. My point is Tesla is so close to it. So I, I do trust that they'll have a credible solution in the next 4 or 5 years. And these other companies, I think that they need to have a solution for training, and I don't see it. Jason Calacanis (01:07:24): Yeah. The the point is there's over a million cars recording, because when you buy a Tesla, you turn on self driving. It's in every car. And so every car is recording data all the time. As opposed to GM. GM doesn't take the time to put the $10,000 20,000 oil package. Chamath Palihapitiya (01:07:40): Half a 1,000,000 new sensors. Yeah. Collecting 1,000,000 of miles a quarter. A quarter being added to the network. David Sacks (01:07:46): Exactly. What Tesla did years and years ago is even before self driving was a thing, they put all the cameras in the cars to collect the data. And you're right. GM doesn't do that. Chamath Palihapitiya (01:07:55): If GM did that to their legacy gas cars and then funneled that into cruise, I think they would have a decent shot, but they are not doing that. Here's a David Sacks (01:08:03): map Jason Calacanis (01:08:04): of Waymo, in and I brought this up because, you know, I think there's 2 different strategies going on here. Test was going for the whole Megillah. They want to be able to do dirt roads you've never been on. Waymo and crews are working from constrained areas that they can perfect. And Phoenix is the perfect area because that's a grid based system, very wide highways, and it was planned. And so if you have a planned community, you know, this is not like a city. In Italy or France where it's like the the roads have been there for 800 years. When you have some modern city where it's a grid based system. Austin falls into this as well for a large portion of Austin. It's gonna be fairly easy to do those. And so that's what we'll see. My prediction is we'll see this Also, it's very flat, you know, obviously no hills and also weather. So, you know, the northeast will be the last place. When you go to Boston or you know, you're in, other places that don't have a grid based system and you have ice and snow. This stuff is 10 plus years out, but in a dry place with the weather, like Calacanis, Phoenix, etcetera. It's it's the it's it's now. Right? It's now, I think. Okay. In, Bill Gurley's regulatory capture corner. We have Chamath Palihapitiya (01:09:12): an interesting story about JSX. Jason Calacanis (01:09:13): If you don't know Jet Suite X, that's what the JSX stands for. This is an airline that offers hop on public charter flights out of FBOs, tiny airports usually reserved for private jets, and they get passengers the private jet experience for the cost of roughly a 1st class ticket at major airlines, maybe double the cost of, coach ticket 700 bucks one way from Westchester to Miami, 14 under dollars round trip, not a bad deal. By comparison, United, on the same day are between 5800 for 1st class from New York to Miami. Jets Suite X has 47 airplanes. With 1200 crew members. Chamath Palihapitiya (01:09:56): Let David Friedberg (01:09:56): me cut in and give you my anecdote. On Saturday, I took a JSX flight from Vegas to Oakland. Jason Calacanis (01:10:03): Were we doing in Vegas? David Friedberg (01:10:04): I went to the opening night of the YouTube concert at the sphere. Opening night at the sphere? Jason Calacanis (01:10:09): At the screen? Yeah. The sphere. I looked at the photos in the video as wasn't super impressed, is it impressive in person? Because it didn't come across in the videos. David Friedberg (01:10:17): Yeah. It's incredible. You gotta go see it. I think it's Jason Calacanis (01:10:19): Incredible how? David Friedberg (01:10:20): So it's the first, like, live experience that I think you have kind of live analog elements, like a band and this incredibly immersive digital experience because it's a three sixty foot tall dome, and the entirety of the interior of the dome is a digital screen. So there were these scenescapes that they created that were like dynamic video on these walls that it's hard. It I don't think the videos do it just like, when you're actually when you're in this room during this shot right here, and I was kinda sitting center. I was also I went down on the floor. Looks like you're Jason Calacanis (01:10:51): in the desert or something? David Friedberg (01:10:53): It's like you're there. Dude, I mean, it's it's it's inexplicable. It's more real than VR. It's like you're in this world. And They even did these amazing integrated scenes where they had, like, helicopters flying overhead, and then they had spotlights coming out of the ceiling While the helicopters were flying in the video above you, they did like a hot air balloon flying above you and they dropped like a rope down. So it was total integration of, like, physical and virtual content. And I think, like, you 2, to be honest, as great as the concert was, is almost like, the most boring thing you could probably do with that setup. Over time, you could probably integrate a lot more things. You could have giant sets and giant scenes and people, you know, doing stuff physically. Jason Calacanis (01:11:34): A Star Wars movie. Star Wars movies. David Friedberg (01:11:36): In in real life, you could have, like, the the siege of Carthage, and you could have ships on the ground, and then you could see the battle scene behind you, and you'd be like in the middle of it. The whole thing was really incredible. Jason Calacanis (01:11:46): I heard about the sound. David Friedberg (01:11:49): 100 of speakers. So when I was down on the floor, I went right by the stage on the floor, the sum of the sound is actually distorted down there, and it's not that good. When you're in the seats that's set back where the sound is really designed, hundreds of speakers, like, built into the wall. Jason Calacanis (01:12:02): I heard each seat has David Friedberg (01:12:03): to be submitted. There's there's seat speakers. They're but really it comes from the the dome. And the dome sound when you're sitting in the seats is really, like, immersive and incredible. Jason Calacanis (01:12:11): So you took Jets X back. And then I took By the David Friedberg (01:12:15): way, I I will my prediction on the sphere, I think there'll be, like, dozens of these things soon enough Jason Calacanis (01:12:20): Okay. David Friedberg (01:12:20): Because this can become like a new form of live entertainment venues, not just a stage where someone stands on it. It's a new model and more than musical artists, I think you'll see, like, new kinds of art and new kinds of things happening on these, you know, in these things. Jason Calacanis (01:12:33): Anyway, there's also video on the outside. So you can do advertisements or make it look like a pumpkin or make it look like a while I saw that. And they'll get David Friedberg (01:12:39): cheaper and cheaper over time. The first one was, what, 22, 2 and a half $1,000,000,000. They'll make smaller versions of it. It'll be a couple 100,000,000. It's almost like IMAX theater. So roll them out all over. Jason Calacanis (01:12:47): So back to Jet Sweet. David Friedberg (01:12:49): 240 bucks, you drive up just like an FBO, like a private terminal, drive up, walk in, no security, no lines, no check-in, get on, get off. It's like flying a Jason Calacanis (01:13:00): Wait. There has to be some check-in so they know your name and stuff. Yeah. If you walk David Friedberg (01:13:03): up and they, they, you give them the ticket, And then they do, gate side check-in. They take your bag and they put it all. They missing out under the plane. So you Jason Calacanis (01:13:11): save an hour on either, how Oh my god, dude. David Friedberg (01:13:14): It's so hassle free. It's ridiculous. And, like, when my mom comes to visit, she takes it. She loves it, but, obviously, there's gotta be some cat I don't really know these regs, but there's some caveat that they're able to do. Chamath Palihapitiya (01:13:24): So I'll Jason Calacanis (01:13:24): explain that now. So they have 47 airplanes, 1200 crew members, American and Southwest, and several major aviation unions are accusing JSX of exploiting a regulatory loophole that they can hire pilots who are too old fly for commercial airlines and who don't have the requisite 15 hour 1500 hours of flying experience because they are a smaller airline, Jet Speedex says its captain's average over 8000 flying hours and first office average over 3000 flying hours. So they're blowing past the regulation. So that's obviously, a red herring. According to Jet Suite X, 2 huge US airlines, and their labor unions want companies like Jet Suite X, small air carriers that actually care about providing you with much needed choice and high quality service, to be legislated out of existence. And by the way, Jet Sweet X has a couple of the other airlines, I think, United as an investor. So the other airlines actually want this. They're obviously Is a difference in security? The one difference is not how many hours the pilots have, obviously. It's going through TSA. So the the ability to not go through TSA is such a key part of this experience and to not go through a big terminal, JetBlue and United support JSX, and I think they're exploring doing this themselves. So regulatory capture, had its best, I guess. Chamath Palihapitiya (01:14:44): I'll take the unpopular side of this. I think it's easy to blame this regulatory capture boogeyman here. Jason Calacanis (01:14:51): Okay. Chamath Palihapitiya (01:14:52): I think Jet Sweet X seems like an amazing service. It has Starlink. A bunch of my friends have taken it. They seem to enjoy it a lot. But here is the, the clever arbitrage that Jet Suite X is taking which is that they fly under what's called part 135 of the FAA. And that is when you take a private plane and you charter the airlines fly under what's called part 121. And the rules are very different if you're 121 versus part 135. And the biggest rule is the training of the pilots. Which is that there are minimum hour requirements to be a commercial airline pilot, which is about 1500 hours. Versus 250 hours for a part 135 charter pilot. So I think the question is, is that it's one thing where you charter a plane with 2 or 3 of your friends. That's a part 135 license in a small plane. But when you take a large plane with nobody else you don't know, I think there's a pretty credible argument that that's a commercial airline. And I do think that it's reasonable that if you're running a commercial airline through a loophole, At some point, if you get big enough, that loophole is going to be obvious, obvious enough that people will ask it to be closed. I think what you wanna have is this loophole closed, or you decide that part 135 where there are so many people, the pilots should be at a certain flight training standard. Jason Calacanis (01:16:18): And to Jets Read X's, defense, they reported their campus average over 8000 flying hours. So that is a magnitude more 5 x more than five times the rules and first office average over 3000. So why not just up that number of hours to 500 or a 1000 yet? Or make it all make everybody 1500. Or Jason, to Chamath Palihapitiya (01:16:37): your point, just like, say, go to the FAA and say, look, we're gonna continue to fight part 135, but here are the exact we promised to never hire a pilot that is not under this 1500 hour threshold, etcetera, etcetera. There's all kinds of ways to go around it, but I do think it's important to acknowledge that they're basically running a united, but they're pretending that it's a private plane. And I think that there are some Yeah. Jason Calacanis (01:16:57): It's a mini united. Chamath Palihapitiya (01:16:58): Yeah. It's a Jason Calacanis (01:16:58): mini united. Yeah. It's somewhere between the 2. Chamath Palihapitiya (01:16:59): No, because United runs those regional legs as well because in in in equivalent sized planes. So I do think it should exist. I just think that it should exist on a relatively level playing field. I don't want somebody else to use a loop pole, so I would not want them to use a loop pole either. Part 135 exists I'm actually in agreement. To take a private plane and charter it, not to run an airline. Jason Calacanis (01:17:20): Alright, everybody. This has been another amazing episode of the all in podcast thank you too from his fear of influence, David Friedberg, consultant of Science, and the rain man himself hot water burn baby. David Sachs, and the dictator himself. And all it. Moff. Polyhumpetoo. Love you boys. Hi. The world's greatest moderator, and we'll see you next time. Bye bye. Slide. Rainman, David Saffens. And David Sacks (01:17:54): it said we open sit to the fans and they've just gone crazy with it. Jason Calacanis (01:18:03): Uh-huh. You. Have one big huge, George, because they're all just useless. It's like it's like sexual tension, but we just need to release them out. What? Your feet.