纽约选民否决极左候选人、实验室泄漏论新进展、App Store 或被拆分

Speaker 1 (00:00:00): As you guys know, I get panic attacks at the dentist, but she was able to navigate me through where I didn't. I only sweat through half my shirt. Jason Calacanis (00:00:08): Do you have panic attacks at the dentist? Chamath Palihapitiya (00:00:09): No. But I sweat profusely, and I get very nervous. Why? What is that about? We all have weaknesses, Jason. We all have weaknesses. This is my Achilles heel. My Achilles heel is a dentist. Really? Yeah. David Sacks (00:00:21): I don't I don't like going to the dentist either. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:00:23): No. The dentist really freaks. I don't know why it freaks me out, sex. What why does it have you thought about this? Speaker 1 (00:00:28): -- David Sacks (00:00:28): bad experience when I was a kid. You know? Jason Calacanis (00:00:30): Tell us more about your childhood trauma. David Sacks (00:00:32): Have you ever seen the movie marathon man? It was kinda like that Jason Calacanis (00:00:36): Is it safe? Is it safe? Alright. Here we go. The weather winner's wide. Rainman, David Sachs. And it said -- We open source it to the fans in a Hey, everybody. Hey, everybody. Welcome again to another episode of the all in podcast episode 37 with us today on his Noble Crusade conquering Europe, Chamath Palihapitiya. calls us from a a castle somewhere. I don't know. I can tell by the light switches you're in Europe. And joining us again, the 2 AIs, AI number 1, David Saxx, and AI number 2, David Friedberg here. And, of course, I'm Jake Howell. Do we wanna get right into the show or don't know, Tremat, if you wanna talk about the the dueling AIs in the group chat debating the nature of the pod. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:01:33): I mean, one guy told the other guy or one robot told the other robot to fuck off. Jason Calacanis (00:01:38): That's because what we know it's the singularity because when the robots arguing with each other. See, you Chamath Palihapitiya (00:01:44): don't even know because you don't have any emotions. You told Freight to fuck off. David Sacks (00:01:49): Oh, that's kinda true. David Friedberg (00:01:51): Hey. Fair enough to Jason Calacanis (00:01:53): he was drinking a beverage with 14% alcohol content. David Sacks (00:01:58): No. No. No. I just think that we I think the format of the pod is working, and I don't think we need to turn it on its head. That's all. David Friedberg (00:02:06): I think my so just for Jason Calacanis (00:02:08): the -- -- gonna do this, so we're gonna do that. Hopefully, we gotta I'm David Friedberg (00:02:11): so tired and out of it right now, but but let's do it. our just for the listeners benefit, on our little group text where we do our incredibly well prepped rehearsal for the show by connecting each other maybe for Speaker 1 (00:02:25): 4 David Friedberg (00:02:26): minutes a week with the date that I recorded show Speaker 1 (00:02:28): -- -- Jason Calacanis (00:02:28): each other for 3 hours. Speaker 1 (00:02:29): -- David Friedberg (00:02:29): and we talked to others, but mostly other stuff is covered over the group chat. But we were kinda debating maybe throwing in a spin and, you know, doing a little group q and a kind of format. Saks doesn't like it. And we were kinda joking with Saks that he loves getting his sound bites in and then turning them into little short sound bite video clips with his BFF Henry Bellcaster and putting him Jason Calacanis (00:02:52): on Twitter and promoting him around David Friedberg (00:02:54): the Internet. And my point of view was I don't think that this show should be about getting to the sound bite, that this show should be about something very different, which is elevating a conversation and creating the context for people to make decisions on their own. And that is to give people multiple points of view and all of the data and consideration when there's a big topic or a big debate underway. And it's too easy for us to take a sound bite and then use that as the narrative to try and influence people to do things or to have a point of view. And I think that is largely the problem we've broadly had in the Twitter social media era is we are very reductionist. We bring things down to kind of a one sentence or a 140 character statement. and then we use that as an emotional pivot point for people to get them to go on one side Jason Calacanis (00:03:42): or the other side as opposed to recognizing that many of David Friedberg (00:03:43): the topics we we address are that is the way things are done. I get it. But -- And Jason Calacanis (00:03:49): here and here is Saks's response. Okay. That is a valid point David Friedberg (00:03:52): free word. Jason Calacanis (00:03:53): However, humans all need to be led They are sheeple. We need to tell the sheeple what to think and to get to her tossing into office. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:04:01): Jason, I would like to cut to a segment a new segment that I called Shamalff does a dramatic reading. So so Freeport so Freeport did say this. Speaker 1 (00:04:14): -- Jason Calacanis (00:04:14): now a dramatic reading from the group chat. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:04:17): I will be playing all characters starting with myself. Friedberg Freeburg grants to which I say, I'm down with that. David Sachs. You keep trying to fuck with the format of the show. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. Fuck off. Fuck you, like, fucker. David Sacks (00:04:38): You might response. You Jason Calacanis (00:04:39): might just you David Friedberg (00:04:40): don't you don't say that. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:04:41): Wait. My my response, I'm down with that. Jason Calacanis (00:04:47): Oh, no. David Sacks (00:04:48): Am I gonna be able to respond here? Chamath Palihapitiya (00:04:50): Yes. Okay. Exactly. Jason Calacanis (00:04:51): In your defense Speaker 1 (00:04:52): -- David Sacks (00:04:52): Okay. Speaker 1 (00:04:52): -- Jason Calacanis (00:04:52): defending your running for office. We know. David Sacks (00:04:54): No. No. No. Look. I think that the the Friedberg position on Jason Calacanis (00:04:59): many issues often comes down to to the idea that this this issue is David Sacks (00:04:59): so complicated. It's so new on we can't have a definitive take. And I just reject that. I think it's true for some issues. I think it's great to have the conversation, but I think there are many issues where It is possible to have a definitive take to come down strongly on one side of it. And I think the audience wants us to do that. I think it's a little bit of a cop out to say, oh, we're gonna table all the issues so the audience can say, no. The audience wants to hear us give our point of view. And I didn't, like, see Harry Henry Bellcaster out, he found us. He's -- Yeah. Jason Calacanis (00:05:38): But you just talk to him seven times a day and direct every frame of the animation. No. No. No. No. He -- Jake, let him go. No. Let David Sacks (00:05:44): No. Henry Henry, you know, as one of our super fans started making these videos. Okay? I ignored, like, the first ten. And then finally, I was like, okay. I gotta, like, see what this guy's need to. Right? You did too. You slid into it the ass. What is this about? Is like, I hope it's to promote his business or something. because he's just spending way too much time on this. Anyway, so now Henry does run the his, like, videos by us as a courtesy. but he comes up with them. He chooses what takes he wants to run with, and he puts it all together. Sometimes I'll have a note for him. I'll say, you know Speaker 1 (00:06:18): -- Chamath Palihapitiya (00:06:18): Oh my god. -- whatever. David Sacks (00:06:19): He's never sent Chamath Palihapitiya (00:06:20): me anything. David Sacks (00:06:21): You're gonna get a hold of you. He keeps coming to me me and Jason are on a thread. Jason, don't Speaker 1 (00:06:26): 10. David Sacks (00:06:26): You're not on the gym. Speaker 1 (00:06:27): -- Jason Calacanis (00:06:27): with every Bellcaster. Yes. David Sacks (00:06:29): Yes. The yes. Because he Jason Calacanis (00:06:31): did through to you. Is it okay for me to do this? And we're I'm just like, go ahead. But then Dave was like, well, act shelly if we could change this and cut this word. And David's like, oh, you don't need any editing. Just let the chip forward they may. And then he's like, avelium back there like he's Cortezi, changing every fucking frame of a rebel against her, animated GIF made it. David Sacks (00:06:49): Well, So I I I just think it's a courtesy that Henry's running it by us. And, you know -- David. -- that's it. Jason Calacanis (00:06:56): Are you paying him? No. Have you given him any compensation of -- Okay. David Sacks (00:07:00): Well, no. Jason Calacanis (00:07:01): Separately. Separately, hold on. Speaker 1 (00:07:02): -- Jason Calacanis (00:07:02): secs. Good point. Here it comes. No. David Sacks (00:07:04): No. No. Separately, I after finding out that Henry and then his partner Dylan, they've got, like, a it is a business for them. Okay? So I said, listen. You guys are doing great work. I think Oh, Chamath Palihapitiya (00:07:14): he does she does great work, by the way. David Sacks (00:07:15): Yeah. I said, listen, why don't you guys start doing, like, product videos or videos for startups? You can do the first one for call in. So they're working on a video for that. I think we're gonna pay them, like, $5. And if it and if it's good, it'll be great for their business. I want them to be successful. David Friedberg (00:07:30): No. But let's get to the point. Let's get to the point about, you know, reducing the the conversation to sound bites, and I wanna respond to your point about not taking a position on things. But okay. So I feel like, 1st of all, within this group, there are hard takes within this group of 4 people. So there are hard takes already in the show. And I I think that it's important in many debates and many of the topics we cover, there is more than one side to the story. And we can have our formed opinion. But I think understanding what the other counterpoints and and counter arguments might be in critical to get people to actually get to that opinion themselves as opposed to Jason Calacanis (00:08:11): just telling them, this is the single point that you David Friedberg (00:08:11): should believe nothing else matters. And so I I I really think also many of these conversations are generally 2 this 2 sides of the same coin And many more often than not, if you zoom out, there are shared values and many of the things that we all argue about broadly a society, and I'm not trying to kind of philosophical here. But if you kind of distill things down to different points of view with the same set of values or recognize that there are actually different values, you can come to a point that allows people to think more progressively and, you know, achieve a point of view on their own. And I think that's critically missing today broadly in society that so much is all about, like, the good and the evil, good and bad, them and us. And we don't recognize that in moments where there are shared values, we're just sitting on, you know, both sides of the same coin or recognizing that sometimes having different values doesn't necessarily make someone evil. It makes them different. And and that's why I try and kind of elevate the conversation a little bit and why I care so much about this point because I really think it's worth everyone getting a broader perspective on everything that they're dressing so that they can kind of go into things eyes wide open. Now, Sax, I will say on nearly everything, I actually fundamentally agree with you on many of the points on the show. And so it's a little bit kind of, you know, gets a little echo chambery for me to kind of say, I agree with Saxx. Like, that's it. I think it's also worth highlighting why there are other points of view and why there are other to be made out there. And for me, I certainly have strongly held opinions. And, you know, I I just don't think that it's worth getting to my opinion without taking the broader context of the conversation if Jason Calacanis (00:09:47): they're -- Shamak, did you did you notice that Freeport got a little emotional there? I think it was a little emotional motor Speaker 1 (00:09:54): -- David Friedberg (00:09:54): Jamont -- -- my my phone to the entire -- Jamont is tuned out right now. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:09:57): I was confused. I am on my iPhone. David Sacks (00:10:00): Okay. Let me let me try to find Jason Calacanis (00:10:01): someone to wrap here. Let me just ask you one question about this because this is getting I mean, we're we're kinda in the dugout right now, and I don't know if this is fabulously boring to people or not. But do you frequently hold back your opinions on the show because you don't wanna influence or you're afraid of being canceled or it having an adverse effect to your business as it has to David's business? David Friedberg (00:10:22): I don't give a shit about that. No. I care more about the the path to an opinion. Jason Calacanis (00:10:31): Oh, okay. David Friedberg (00:10:31): And and I and I about the process. No. And I care more about, like, achieving the objective. So what I mean by that is if you just say this is my opinion, take it or leave it, The other half that has a different opinion doesn't change their opinion. If you if you zoom out for people and you say, here's the broad set of facts and circumstances and why different groups have different opinions, it ends up being a lot easier to actually get people to see what may be the better path forward. Jason Calacanis (00:10:57): Listen, I think you wanna get mad. You wanna zoom out. I I got it. David Friedberg (00:11:00): I have I have formed opinion on many of these matters. I don't think stating my opinion changes anyone's mind. I think zooming out and giving people the broader perspectives so they can get there themselves is the way to kind of achieve James. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:11:10): Okay. Guys, enough. We're done. We're done on this topic. This is we can walk and chew gum at the same time. Here's the point. I think that day David Sachs has opinions They are strong opinions, but as I've known him for 20 years, they're also weekly held, and he changes his mind. And I think that's powerful. David Friedberg and I've known you for a very long time as well is great at explaining things. All of it is additive. So let's all just Keep -- Yeah. David Sacks (00:11:35): And, of course, of course, you know, I support having a Nuance conversation that gets all point of views out on the table. The the point of the pod is not to, you know, engage in sort of sound bites. It's just that what Henry creates is a result of a conversation. He boils it down from 30 minutes into one minute, I think that performs a service for the audience maybe gets our takes out there in a way that, you know, that that more people can hear them. So I think that's useful. Jason Calacanis (00:12:03): But do you understand Friedberg? I mean, I feel like I'm I feel like I'm a couples therapist here. But do you understand Freightberg's position, David, David Sacks (00:12:10): that -- Yeah. Jason Calacanis (00:12:11): I -- He doesn't want people to look at the podcast as redact to a reduction down to a 60 second clip or a 32nd clip of some place. He wants them to hear the full discourse. David Sacks (00:12:21): Yeah. Well, that's great. Well, then they can listen in and do that, but I mean, realistically, a lot of people don't have time to listen to the full 60 minutes. They made sense to the clip. But look, I think if there's a meta purpose to me being on the pod, I think it's to expand the parameters of what people think they can say. because, actually, I agree with Friedberg that the debate is shut down in a lot of context, and we wanna open it back up. And, you know, you just Jason Calacanis (00:12:45): start -- -- merchant window needs to be reopened. David Sacks (00:12:47): Yeah. Like, look at what happens. The whole Frank's sloopman thing last week where he puts out a pretty mild statement about supporting diversity, but not to the point where it's it jeopardizes merit. you know, there was a giant uproar over that. He has to walk it back and issue an apology. There was no discussion -- -- about Jason Calacanis (00:13:02): the CEO of Snowflake. David Sacks (00:13:03): Yeah. There's no there's no discussion or debate there. That was a shutting down of the conversation because one side of the debate is basically engaging in moral indictments against the other side. They're not really interested in having a serious debate about the issues. I think the my meta purpose in speaking out on the pod about all these issues that I think are just common sense, you know, is is just to kinda reopen the debate. Jason Calacanis (00:13:27): Yeah. I mean, it is that merit versus diversity and what is the point of a business? And should the business be compromised or throttled I think that's a very hard thing for people to say. Should we throttle this business so that we have diversity? Should we slow down in order to have more can't find the right candidate. But we have a candidate here who's a white male, but, gosh, you know, we already have 7 to eight people on this. David Sacks (00:13:52): Yeah. Right. We've talked about that. My my point in giving that example is just to show how shut down the debate is because the day after, Slutman said CEOs are having this conversation in private. They're telling me this. and they're afraid to say it publicly. The very next day, he walks it back and issues an apology, kind of buttressing his original point. that people can't say what they really think. So I in my view, like, part of the reason why the all in pod is successful is we're getting issues on the table people wanna talk about but feel they can't. And I think Friedberg brings a very valuable perspective to that conversation. But my goal is kinda if I have a medical besides expressing my point of view, it is to expand, like you said, the Overton window. Jason Calacanis (00:14:31): Alright. So speaking of the Overton window, New York City has voted for a basically universally, both on the on the Democratic side and on the Republican side for a tough on crime mayor, 70% San Francisco feels worse about crime in a separate poll. And Eric Adams is the current borough president of former NYPD officer, and he is looking like he, because of this stacked voting, which can take a little time to figure out who will become the mayor of New York, but he has 32% of 1st place votes among 800,000 democratic voters. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:15:10): This guy is a a really decent centrist, moderate human being. Grew up where he was affected and touched by crime, decided to fight through that, wasn't, you know, complaining. Became a police officer. did that. You know, eventually, borough president has done that, runs for mayor. He goes on television. He gives an interview where they say what is your perspectives on stop and frisk? And the answer he gives was pretty specific which is that, you know, I believe in stopping and investigating potential crimes or some such. Right? Jason, you can probably find the exact Speaker 1 (00:15:51): -- Jason Calacanis (00:15:51): Well, I mean, having been in the you know, in New York city police department family. The and living in New York during stop and frisk. They left out a keyword. It was stop question and frisk. So in high crime areas where there were a lot of shootings or guns, they would do a stop question and then possibly, Frisk. Obviously, all policing techniques can be abused, but his feeling on it was when deployed correctly, stopping question is a great technique. And I can tell you when I lived in New York previously, Speaker 1 (00:16:24): 70, 80% Jason Calacanis (00:16:25): of people, including people of color, including people from the toughest neighborhoods, were in favor of this. This was universally seen as a huge success at the time because they were taking guns off the street, illegal guns constantly. because somebody would hop a turnstile or there would be people hanging out on a street corner, and cops would come up and say, hey. You're hanging out here at 3 in the morning. What's going Chamath Palihapitiya (00:16:46): But the problem the problem is that he gave a pretty reasonable answer. Yes. And then they tried to cancel them. Jason Calacanis (00:16:53): Yep. And he would not allow himself to be canceled. David Sacks (00:16:56): Which helped him? Jason Calacanis (00:16:56): He went on the breakfast club and all kinds of other media outlets and explained his position, and they couldn't cancel him. which is I thought I thought Chamath Palihapitiya (00:17:06): it was an incredible testament to what we're going through right now, which is right now, nobody knows what to do to solve the things we feel. We've tried the radical right version of a candidate. It didn't work. We're now wondering to ourselves while we have a custodian in the White House whether we go to the radical left. That's probably not gonna work either. Because, unfortunately Speaker 1 (00:17:28): -- -- Jason Calacanis (00:17:29): in San Francisco. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:17:30): I mean, well, unfortunately, it looks like the the the progressive left or the radical left is really, really judgmental. And none of these folks have really done anything. And so they they are easy to complain. It's almost as if they know that they what they want won't work they don't want anything else to work, and so they just want everything to devolve into chaos. That's a shame. And so, you know, people try to literally lie about what this guy said on television, that was taped. Jason Calacanis (00:18:00): No. It happened about 5 times and clarify, I am not for Chamath Palihapitiya (00:18:04): They were there were people, Jason. I don't know if you saw that they are the the video link that it there were people holding a press conference in front of his office literally screaming about Stop and Frisk. When he never said, Stop and Frisk, he said stop and question is a reasonable strategy if somebody if we think that there is the potential of a crime. And the fact that people could not have that conversation and had to go to basically this guy needs to either quit or be completely removed from his ability to run for mayor. It's it's insanity. Jason Calacanis (00:18:39): Yeah. And you can people seem to have losses ability to hold 2 conflicting ideas in their mind, which is You could be for criminal justice reform. You could be against police violence, and you could be for strong policing of violent crimes at law and order. And what seems to be happening in both cities, New York, San Francisco in other places where crime is getting acute is that they people are voting. Here's here's 2 other conflicting reports. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:19:12): Here's here's another conflicting thoughts. You can believe that, you know, Asians are awesome, but you can also believe that the coronavirus may have come from the Wuhan lab. And believing the latter doesn't mean that you're supporting Asian hate. I'm just gonna put that out there. Right. David Sacks (00:19:35): Okay. Can I can I chime in on this on this on the on on the Adam's win because I think this is this is huge news. Jason Calacanis (00:19:43): Do you have your notes from Harry to make a play? Okay. Go. David Sacks (00:19:48): Look. I mean, Eric Adams is gonna be the next mayor of New York City. And I think there's, like, 3 big takeaways from from this. number one, crime is the issue that I've been saying on this pod that it is for at least 6 months. It is the number one issue when people do not feel safe in their homes and in their neighborhoods. you know, nothing else matters. And here comes this really underdog candidate. He is despised by the sort of the progressive left and sort of the elites of the Democratic Party, and he wins. I mean, he this is a huge underdog victory. He's he's only a former cop. He still carries a gun. I mean, he is hacking. And that sent a message to the electorate. I am gonna be tough on crime. I'm not standing for defunding the police and de prosecution. and decarceration, which are the hobby horses right now that Progressive's left, I'm gonna protect you and the city and the voters. We're eating it up even in the Democratic party. So Number 1, crime is the huge issue, and I think it's gonna reverberate throughout America for the next few years. Number 2, it showed how out of touch These sort of progressives, these, and I'd say, predominantly white progressives are how to touch they are with the constituencies they claim to represent. You know, the the mostly black and Latino neighborhoods who voted in large numbers for Eric Adams were having none of this sort of elite woke progressive thinking around decarceration, de prosecution. They are interested in real solutions for the problems that they see not engaging in this sort of, like, identity socialism. Jason Calacanis (00:21:30): there's a there's actually an interesting nugget in what you're saying, which I think you can broaden out, which is the the radical left. I I didn't even call them the progressive left because that would mean they were making progress in their thinking. I think it's just this radical left. They seem to be white, rich affluent people. David Sacks (00:21:45): Yes. Jason Calacanis (00:21:45): And they seem to be super Speaker 1 (00:21:46): -- Chamath Palihapitiya (00:21:47): They're super guilty about something totally Jason Calacanis (00:21:50): disconnected from what actual people of color want. David Sacks (00:21:53): They're totally disconnected. Speaker 1 (00:21:54): -- Jason Calacanis (00:21:54): they're speaking for a group of people who maybe are like, That's not actually my position. I want the kids to be safe on the way to school. I want guns off the street. If somebody, you know, if And I think that I wanna read the quote that he had because this is really important is to go to the source material, not the headlines from, let's face it, the radical left is running these news publications, and they're determining how they frame him. And here's the question. from Vanity Fair. So you think there is a way to you stop at risk that isn't abusive? It's a reasonable question. And his answer, Well, there's a word that's missing in there. It's called stop question and frisk. So 2 o'clock in the morning, you look out your door, you see a person standing in front of your house. He places a gun in his waistband. You go to call the police. I hope. That police officer responds. He needs to be able to question that person. What are you doing with that gun? If we're telling police officers, you can't question people we are jeopardizing the safety of the city. I mean, this is the most common sense logical Speaker 1 (00:22:59): -- David Sacks (00:22:59): Right. Jason Calacanis (00:23:00): framing of the discussion. It it's not like they're saying just pick a random person on the subway and say empty your pockets and get up against the wall like the Gestapo. you know, somebody called something, and you questioned people in the area. David Sacks (00:23:12): We we've seen this in San Francisco that you've got these, you know, social justice crusaders who claim if they're helping already communities, and you see an increase in the number of victims from those communities. And what Eric Adams said is, listen, we can't just care about the cops abusing their power. We also have to care about violence against these communities when it's perpetrated by criminals, and people responded to that to that message. And I think this the the the final point that I think the the Eric Adams win represents is that Twitter is Jason Calacanis (00:23:40): not -- -- likely win. David Sacks (00:23:40): Likely win. Okay. Fair enough. is that Twitter is not real life. Okay? Eric Adams has 14,000 Twitter followers. Yang has 2,000,000. Okay? Yang came in 4th. Okay? And, you know, Yang was sort of the darling of the, you know, of sort of the Twitter elites. You know, he's sort of I mean, look, when he first into the democratic primary for president. He was a little bit of a breath breath of fresh air. But, ultimately, he kind of adopted the generic progressive positions on things. That did not resonate with the people of New York. They wanted someone tough on crime. And so I think, you know, Eric Adams, he had another great quote, I think, on election night, he said, Social media does not pick a candidate. People on Social Security pick a candidate. Okay? Great line. And and, I mean, And so here's the thing is I think we all are distorted in our thinking based on what this like, very loud But, ultimately, small number of voices on social media says, and I think it's not just politicians. And by the way, I mean, it's it's not just Eric Adams who won because he ignored Twitter. I mean, Biden won because he ignored Twitter. Right? I mean, Biden was not on Twitter, and he was able to win the democratic primary for president. So, you know, I think there's a lesson here for politicians, which is ignore Twitter. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:24:55): Moderate can win anything and everything as long as they show up and they do the But if you, to your point, spend all your time trying to curate your Twitter image, all you're gonna do is validate a bunch of people really at the end of the day are trying to punch up. Right? If you think about all the people that are spouting off, trying to cancel, trying to judge, There's a -- Right. Speaker 1 (00:25:17): -- Chamath Palihapitiya (00:25:17): there's a great there's a great quote in in many Drake songs, which is like these people have more followers than dollars. And what he's trying to say is, like, you make them important when they don't need to be important. David Sacks (00:25:30): Totally. Now now now do CEOs. Right? You've got CEOs of some of the biggest companies in the world, like Tim Cook, like Frank Slutman, who are making their company policy based on what this small number of loud voice on Twitter are saying it's ridiculous. I mean, I think the Eric Adams win is a watershed because it shows the emperor wears no clothes. These these very loud progressive woke voices ultimately do not have that many supporters, and all people have to do Speaker 1 (00:25:58): -- David Sacks (00:25:58): Not not not when it goes into them. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:26:00): Not when it goes into the privacy of the ballot box, you have a lot of people. Again, similar to the to the to the to to what we saw in the in the Trump election in 2016 where all these people quietly said, oh, I cannot support Trump, and then one in two people went in that ballot box and said fuck you to everybody. Jason Calacanis (00:26:20): Right. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:26:20): And this is the exact same thing that's playing out except the opposite, which is now If you are not completely progressive, at least in your posture and your vocabulary, there's this threat of being canceled and so you would this stuff almost to make your life easy. But when push comes to shove and we see it here in New York City and we'll probably see it all over the country, you get into the ballot box you're gonna go for somebody moderate and reasonable that does the simple things that you wanna get done. Jason Calacanis (00:26:47): And by the way, they tried to cancel the New York Times, tried to cancel Andrew Yang because he had made very he basically said, you know, that mentally ill men who are addicted to drugs basically are punching people in the face and you know, we need to address that. And the New York Times framed it really interestingly, and I I'll read you the tweet. Watch. Andrew Yang's response to a question about he would handle mental health during wind Wednesdays, New York City Merrill debate. Drew Fire on social media from people who said it laughed empathy or understanding. And when you look at that framing, he said how he would handle mental health. He wasn't talking about mental health generally and broadly. He was talking about people suffering from mental health on the streets who were homeless, who were addicted to drugs, and who punched people on the face. Right. A massive subset. Yeah. But they frame this to attack them. Then let me just finish the other way they framed it. It drew fire on social media Instead of saying this person said this, they'd literally The New York Times is trying to get Andrew Yang canceled and to get more people to subscribe by being part of the woke mob. Yes. Literally, their Twitter handle does it. He I could find ten times as many people who said, yeah. We can't have people who are mentally ill and violent on the street punching people. David Sacks (00:28:15): It was Andrew Yang's it was Andrew Yang's single best moment of the campaign as he talked honestly about the risk to the public of mentally ill people living on the streets and attacking people. It was his single best moment. The reason he did it is because he saw the traction that Eric Adams was getting on the safety issue. And if Yang had done that from the beginning of the campaign, he might be the next mayor. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:28:37): Yeah. Let me let me read this for you, Adam. David Friedberg (00:28:39): He was Jason Calacanis (00:28:39): he was David Sacks (00:28:40): he was Yang cared too much. Ultimately, his Achilles heel was caring too much about the very online voices on Twitter like The New York Times And we've just seen that Eric Adams has proved as all a house of cards. Nobody really cares what they think. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:28:56): Here's the here's the quote from Eric Adams. If the Democratic Party fails to recognize what we did here in New York, they're going to have a problem in the midterm election and they're going to have a problem in the presidential election, the Brooklyn borough president said. America is saying we wanna have justice and safety and end inequality. And we don't want fancy candidates. We want candidates. Their nails are not polished. They have calluses on their hands, and they're blue collar people. Jason Calacanis (00:29:25): Common sense. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:29:26): Common Jason Calacanis (00:29:26): sense. If they return to to common sense. Friedberg, I had CC'd you on this thread where somebody said they found missing sequencing of the COVID genes that were submitted to a database Did you have a chance to review that at all? David Friedberg (00:29:45): I did. And since you sent that, it's become a little bit of a story. A lot of people have picked it up and followed up on it because it did ignite quite a bit of interest. So the story is a guy named Jesse Bloom, who's a researcher at the Hutchinson Center in Seattle and has been studying, you know, COVID as a lot of scientists have kind of shifted their attention over the past year, but but has a a background in virology He was trying to pull some early genomic samples that that may have been taken from patients early in China. So what this means is, you know, when when patients kind of in the early days were emerging as potentially having SARS CoV 2. They were swabbing them and then doing a genomic read of the the RNA they find from the virus in that swab. And around the world, a lot of scientists contribute to this openly available genomic database. and they contribute their whole genome samples when they when they run studies and so on. So other scientists can use it in the future for research. And what this guy found was that there were a few dozen of these samples that had been on this genomics database that we're now missing, and they had been pulled down. and using a little technical sleuthing, he realized they had been pulled down from the directory, but the raw genomic sample redata was still available on the Google Cloud. So he used the Google Cloud API to pull that actual data down from the servers and then ran a study on it. And it turns out the the the interesting kind of intrigue around the story is why did that data get get deleted? deleted it? Jason Calacanis (00:31:22): And it David Friedberg (00:31:22): turns out the only way it gets deleted is if the original kind of authors go in and make a request to have it removed, and these were some random scientists in in China Chamath Palihapitiya (00:31:30): who had submitted a data. David Friedberg (00:31:32): And so in the days following this publication of this guy so this guy published this on a preprint server called bioarchived. So it's not a peer reviewed journal. It it basically is a place for bioarchived is a place where biology scientists can submit early versions of their research papers or to get a new finding out really quickly, and then the world can kind of study it. And you don't have to wait for the journalistic kind of cycle of getting things approved, which is which is common now. And so he put this thing out there, And everyone's kinda questioning, well, okay, where did these samples go? Turns out that these Chinese scientists had submitted them, and now it it has shown or it has come out that apparently some US officials made the request to have it taken down after being asked to do so by some Chinese officials toilitate to them. And so there's a really weird kind of intrigue going on right now around this whole story. Now so so so that's kind of thread number 1. which is why was this request made to pull this data down? What was the motivation, etcetera? Thread number 2 is what does the data show us? And what the data shows us, unfortunately, is a little bit inconclusive. So a guy named Trevor Bedford just put out a tweet earlier today, analyzing that he's a he's a world class virologists also worked at the Fred Hutchinson Center in Seattle. And he basically highlights that in the early days of the SARS CoV-two in explosion in China, you can really identify from a genomic variant perspective to lineages of the virus. That means, you know, we're we're trying to get back to origin or patient 0. And it turns out there were kind of like these 2 families of the virus that were emerging. And even with that new data, you could kind of reconstruct the family treaty in such a way that the Wuhan meat market could have been the origin, meaning the root virus could have come out of that Wuhan market, or the Wuhan meat meat market could have been one of the two branches of the tree that emerged early on. So there may have been an even earlier origin And Wuhan market was just one place where it started to take off. So, you know, he said, look. He still thinks that it's about a Speaker 1 (00:33:34): 5050. David Friedberg (00:33:35): You know, there there's no clear evidence one way or the other based on these newly uncovered samples. But, you know, there there is still this question of does the Wuhan market kind of paint the patient 0 story, or is it one of the places where the explosion happened and patient 0 was, in fact, much earlier than Wuhan market? I I will say couple episodes ago, I kinda made a comment, you know, with respect to the origin of this virus that I don't know, don't care. And and I just wanna clarify because I know that some people kinda reached out to me about that. I didn't really my my my intention with that statement was that this was really meant to be, I think, a little bit more of a canary in a coal mine for us broadly about, you know, hey. What we should be looking for too is what's next, not just about focusing on what happened in the past. Yeah. Jason Calacanis (00:34:19): This has happened already let's move on to the next thing is what you're saying, not being callous that it doesn't matter. Yeah. Well, I David Friedberg (00:34:24): think I think what's more important is that we need to get prepared for how do we prevent these things happening in the future and and what are the you know, the the key kind of checkpoints we have around us in the future. because one thing I am most concerned about is a huge step back. But I'm concerned about our normalization of cancel. You know, we kind of have started to cancel people, but we've also you know, these shutdowns have been normalized. And the normalization where shutdown is the response to an emerging variant or emerging virus is really scary because you know, how is society gonna function properly when there's gonna be a proliferation of these viruses? The proliferation of of risks with new technologies being made available to us and then shutting down becomes our immediate response. Jason Calacanis (00:35:04): Well, how do you feel about shutting down borders, Friedberg, as the 1st course of action? If Everybody in unison had shut down the borders. In February, it said no inter country travel. You know? It would have obviously been devastating for the airlines, but it might have stopped the pandemic in its tracks. David Friedberg (00:35:21): There was no way to stop the the the pandemic. Once the genie is out of the bottle, the genie is out of the bottle. And we saw this in states that had lockdowns and states that didn't have lockdowns where we saw equivalent Speaker 1 (00:35:31): -- Jason Calacanis (00:35:31): But why wasn't Taiwan and Australia and those kind of places that are islands that locked down? Why were they spared? David Friedberg (00:35:37): I I don't know if you can really say that they were spared, and I don't know if you can really say that people are happy with the the life that they led for that year. Right? I I I think what we need to solve for is how do we have these vaccines come to market much faster and be much more variable in their efficaciousness because we are gonna have a lot more of these kind of emerging variants over the next couple of years with SARS CoV 2, but also with potentially engineered bugs that need to be careful about. Jason Calacanis (00:36:02): Question for Tremont and Saxx then. In Friedberg's sort of analysis there and what was explained on the web about the these new sequences, the US was allegedly involved in taking this down with the Chinese. If the USA and I'm just creating a hypothesis here just to do a little game theory. If the US was allowing China to take this down, what would the game theory be if the US was involved in dare I say a cover up or being opaque like the Chinese have already been proven to be. Why would the US do that, Tremoth? What would be the possible various and Saks? David Sacks (00:36:45): Why did why did the NBA shut down Daryl Morey? David Friedberg (00:36:50): But that may not be that may not sorry. That not be national policy, Jay Kal. Right? So, like, a scientist and American scientist or an American official, right, could have made that request. It doesn't mean that it was a conspiratorial process to to remove this stuff. Yeah. Jason Calacanis (00:37:03): No. I wanna jump the gun. I wanna jump the fence and say, if, in fact, the some US people were involved. So to your point, it could be an individual covering it up, or it could be an organization in America, or it could be, you know, some set of organizations. But Sachs, you wanted to just Speaker 1 (00:37:19): -- David Sacks (00:37:19): Look. I I I don't believe the wet market theory precisely because there is a cover up. I mean, the wet market theory was the official CCP WHO party line about where the virus came from. If that was the case, why would they just throw open the gates to investigators let them go into Wuhan Institute of virology. You know, why why all the cover up? Jason Calacanis (00:37:42): Why Speaker 1 (00:37:42): -- Jason Calacanis (00:37:42): And when do they shut down all wet markets? David Sacks (00:37:46): Maybe? I mean but Yeah. Jason Calacanis (00:37:47): It may be the logical conclusion. David Sacks (00:37:49): But but why why obstruct the investigation? Why ask these American researchers to delete these sequences of DNA or whatever. And in terms of why would the researchers do it? Because they were asked too, and they've got a relationship. Speaker 1 (00:38:03): -- Jason Calacanis (00:38:03): would Americans be if in fact they were Speaker 1 (00:38:06): -- David Sacks (00:38:06): Why why is the WHO why has the WHO been carrying water for the the Chinese Chamath Palihapitiya (00:38:11): government because the -- No. because I think the the WHO is stupid. I mean, let's Speaker 1 (00:38:15): -- David Sacks (00:38:16): Well, they've they've they've all done all these, you know, institutional incentives. They all work together, and you know, there's money involved. There's sort of relationships involved. There's bureaucracy involved. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:38:27): And then there's a level of incompetence. Jason Calacanis (00:38:30): Yeah. So it could be incompetence. Could it also not be that we funded that laboratory in some way. Right? We had given some money towards it. That's a think established. David Sacks (00:38:42): Yeah. It gave a function research. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:38:43): I think it's a if I if look. I I am a better, so not to say. Speaker 1 (00:38:46): -- Jason Calacanis (00:38:47): on our face if they weren't fact doing this. So -- I think it's a tool for Speaker 1 (00:38:51): -- Jason Calacanis (00:38:51): Or we don't want to be in conflict with them because -- No. I think Americans and the West might demand we be in flick with China? No. No. No. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:38:56): I think it's I think it's what Friedberg said, which is like, look, what seemingly a low level request is made to basically delete an entry in a table. You do it. you know, not thinking anything of it. It I think it's pretty clear that this was something that leaked out of that lab. The thing that we will never ever know is how and why and whether it was purely accidental or something more nefarious than that. And I think this is why to Friedberg's point, we just have to put a pin in all of that and move on and try to figure out a way where we set ourselves up so that the the next time, for example, the like, you know, we we hear about the delta variant now. We're gonna hear about other variants in the fall. It's gonna be a tough winter. we cannot shut down. David Sacks (00:39:49): Yeah. Well, I I I agree with that. Speaker 1 (00:39:50): -- Jason Calacanis (00:39:50): to know what happened here in order to inform our plan for the future. So I think, to your point, walking and chewing gum at the same time, why can't we do both? David Sacks (00:39:59): Yeah. Well, I mean, think about it. If the so so I've never I've never heard anyone seriously argue that the lab leak was intentional. I mean, I think because that would have pose, I think, a risk to China itself. But but let let's say let's say it was an accidental lab leak What what that suggests is, look. The Chinese knew everything about this virus for months. While we were all here, pulling out our hair, trying to figure this thing out. What is it? Who does it affect? You know, what are the risks? We're all having these debates in the United States and trying to get the bottom of the sink. No. No. No. And they knew everything about it, and they were they weren't telling us. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:40:37): Hold on. Freeburg. I mean, the I think I think I read this somewhere, but Moderna had characterized the vaccine 48 hours after getting an email of the DNA sequence of the Speaker 1 (00:40:46): -- David Friedberg (00:40:46): Anyone can do that. Yeah. Within within 48 so so this was done in January as soon as we got Jason Calacanis (00:40:51): our 1st 3 hours. -- make it to David's point, why did they tell us how they made it? David Sacks (00:40:56): It it took us months it took us months to understand the pathology of the virus. Right? David Friedberg (00:41:00): Yeah. It's it's that's not what matters, Jake. You can read the code. It's very readable. you can read the code within a day, and then you can pick the area that the spike protein, which we already knew about. And you can say, let's go build some know, target. Jason Calacanis (00:41:13): So how they got there doesn't matter is what you're saying, Friedberg. How they how they created it, how they got to this doesn't matter. Speaker 1 (00:41:18): -- David Friedberg (00:41:18): the Chinese you're saying you're asking how the Chinese edited the virus in a lab. Is that what you're saying? Jason Calacanis (00:41:24): Yeah. How they was this like a 3 year project? Is this the 17th version they worked on or the second? You know? Like, there's so many things Speaker 1 (00:41:32): -- David Friedberg (00:41:32): Jason, you're speaking about you're characterizing this as if it was a design weapon. Is that what you're saying? Jason Calacanis (00:41:37): Well, I'm I'm saying it was designed, not as a weapon, but they were doing what it's not even evolutionary -- -- word names. Speaker 1 (00:41:44): -- David Sacks (00:41:44): function research. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:41:44): But yeah. Jason Calacanis (00:41:45): Yeah. Data function means that it there what So there is a gain of function in plain English Friedberg. David Friedberg (00:41:52): So so Speaker 1 (00:41:53): -- David Friedberg (00:41:53): When they say -- -- virology in virology, they're gonna study what changes in the genome might do to biology, to to an animal, to a biological system. And that's study gives them insights into how a virus may evolve or how certain parts of a virus may affect humans ultimately in different ways. And so understanding viruses and and really important when you're studying viruses is you wanna understand where they're headed, not just where they're coming from. And so to understand where they're headed, you may make genomic changes and study how those genomic changes affect Jason Calacanis (00:42:25): the biology. -- enhanced. Chi Chi, can I use the word enhanced or evolved David Friedberg (00:42:29): You could say evolve. You could say enhance. You could say engineered. But but very much, it's about understanding where the changes in the proteins and the virus can affect biology in different ways in the future so that we can better understand, you know, what these viruses are capable of and prepare ourselves Jason Calacanis (00:42:45): against here's a stupid Speaker 1 (00:42:47): -- Chamath Palihapitiya (00:42:47): We found out the implications of COVID Speaker 1 (00:42:49): 19. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:42:50): And thank god, we didn't have to find it out for Speaker 1 (00:42:52): 17 16, 15, 14, 13, 12, 11, 10, 9, 8. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:42:56): You know what I mean? Like Speaker 1 (00:42:57): -- Jason Calacanis (00:42:57): Yes. So that's my point, Friedberg, would it not be helpful to open kimono, look at every single enhancement they made and what the results of those were. Like, they did something in that lab for the last couple of years. Who's got that info? David Sacks (00:43:12): They knew. The name is the same. Jason Calacanis (00:43:19): name is his name. David Sacks (00:43:20): They -- The Wuhan that name is the laboratory. Jason Calacanis (00:43:24): The BioWeth is laboratory. Move on. David Sacks (00:43:26): What what what this database thing represents is, look, there was a cover up here, and that cover up has fingerprints, and the information is leaking out And we are seeing more metrics, and and more information is gonna come out. I actually disagree with you guys that we're not gonna learn more about what happened. Jason Calacanis (00:43:42): We're gonna learn a lot more. David Sacks (00:43:43): We're gonna learn a lot more. and it's gonna get worse and worse. It's -- It's gonna be Speaker 1 (00:43:47): -- David Friedberg (00:43:47): But, Saks, where does it head? So, like, let's say we discover Jason Calacanis (00:43:50): that was my original question. question. David Friedberg (00:43:52): Let's say we discover that there's an accidental lab leak out of the Wuhan Institute of Virology. A scientist got infected, left the lab, gave it to her boyfriend, people spread it in the street suddenly became a whole pandemic. What what do we do? What do you think the responsive? Do you think Americans basically now impose sanctions on China and we and we lead to a cold war? Like, where is this all headed? Jason Calacanis (00:44:12): And what David Friedberg (00:44:13): are the motivating principles of politicians who are gonna respond as that evidence comes out? Jason Calacanis (00:44:17): Yes. That's what I wanna know. David Sacks (00:44:19): Okay. Number 1, I've said before, we gotta reassure the whole pharmaceutical industry. We cannot be dependent on China for our pharmaceutical supply chain, our antibiotics, our PPE, that is insane. 2nd of all, I mean, we gotta be more realistic about the nature of the regime that we're dealing with. They knew everything about this virus for months while we were trying to figure it out. David Friedberg (00:44:39): Where does it take us? Like, let's say we find out that to be true. Where does this what what happens next? David Sacks (00:44:43): Decoupling. Decoupling. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:44:45): Here and here's another thing that I think needs to happen, which is that -- Decoupling. David Friedberg (00:44:49): But I guess Sorry. Shamal, one second. But doesn't decoupling happen either way? Like, why do we need all this? Because there is such a motivating principle on on both sides of the aisle to decouple from China. And there is a motivating principle -- No. Jason Calacanis (00:45:01): No. There isn't there is a reason to not decouple. It's called money there is a group of elites who do not want the decoupling to happen -- No. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:45:09): No. No. No. Speaker 1 (00:45:09): -- Chamath Palihapitiya (00:45:09): from the Jason Calacanis (00:45:09): NBA to iPhones -- No. -- Apple, the NBA and Disney do not wanna decouple they want to integrate these 2 societies so that we can make money. I'm not sure that they -- -- decoupling is my theory of what people are scared of. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:45:21): No. Okay. Well, people Jason Calacanis (00:45:22): are scared of a Chamath Palihapitiya (00:45:24): I just wanna say 2 things. I don't think that there's, like, a group of elites that want that to happen necessarily because I think that their lives are complicated and what they would love to have I think is actually 2 end markets. You have to remember. If you go from 1 global market, to a duopoly market and you're a seller of services, you actually have more pricing power in a duopoly than you do in a monopoly into a monopoly. So You know, if you're Disney theoretically and you have the ability to differentially price 2 different pieces of content, you're gonna do that. So I I I tend to think in general, it's better for economic systems to have this bifurcation. So the I just want to go back to the the thing that I wanted to Speaker 1 (00:46:10): -- Jason Calacanis (00:46:10): Wait. Wait. To find bifurcation, you're saying 2 different markets. But what if there is hey. We're going to sanction. We're not gonna send Disney movies in or they're not gonna let Disney and NBA and, like, they don't let Google and Twitter in, where iPhones are not gonna be made there. is gonna start making iPhones in Vietnam and Pakistan and Sri Lanka. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:46:25): I actually think what happens is it accelerates democracy. Because, again, You have an enormously difficult and thorny issue inside of China, which is they have a cataclysmic demographic bombshell going on. Yep. They have we have the average age in China versus the average age in the United States is now the same. Yep. Which is an unbelievable thing because China was -- One junior policy. Speaker 1 (00:46:51): -- Jason Calacanis (00:46:51): had that Chamath Palihapitiya (00:46:51): work. China was 15 or Speaker 1 (00:46:53): 20 Chamath Palihapitiya (00:46:53): years younger in the early nineties when all of this shoring started to happen in full scale. By the end of 20 ones by the end of this century, China's population, I think, is projected to shrink to about 700,000,000 people. So they are in a hugely difficult demographic situation where there's no young people People are getting older and older and older. And so there's just gonna be a lot of upheaval. You just saw by the Jason Calacanis (00:47:19): way -- -- triple cost a lot of money to -- Much much Chamath Palihapitiya (00:47:21): more money. Jason Calacanis (00:47:21): Japan has learned. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:47:23): China just, you know, relaxed their 1 child policy to 2. Then within a month, they relaxed their 2 child policy to Speaker 1 (00:47:29): 3 Jason Calacanis (00:47:30): And now they're gonna be paying people to have kids. I mean, we just like we give tax incentives. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:47:33): Well, and now they're they're floating a a policy which says unlimited kids. Okay. So so that's why you can -- I just I just wanna go back to what one of the practical things we can do coming out of Wuhan is all this new data comes out. is instead of vilifying China or trying to enter some cold war, which is stupid, we should just go and reassure everything as Saks suggested. One thing that you can say is wherever there is this kind of research happening in the world, every single variant needs to go to some basically open source repository that virologists all around the world can basically watch what's happening in lockstep. David Friedberg (00:48:09): Made you Chamath Palihapitiya (00:48:09): they do that. Well, right. I mean Speaker 1 (00:48:11): -- Jason Calacanis (00:48:11): What the Chamath Palihapitiya (00:48:11): fuck was going on here then? Jason Calacanis (00:48:13): Yeah. When they deleted Hector, it was deleted. But but but David Sacks (00:48:16): they deleted it. David Friedberg (00:48:17): But to be clear, Shamont, that that Jason Calacanis (00:48:18): is a clever job. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:48:19): What are they doing? David Friedberg (00:48:21): That is exactly the principle, and that is exactly what goes on within the academic and research Jason Calacanis (00:48:26): communities worldwide. There's very open and David Friedberg (00:48:26): cooperative dialogue with academic mixed around the world about these matters. And, generally, that is absolutely true in the way things are done because scientists don't care about politics. They care about, you know, human health and progress. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:48:39): Answer this question, please. is every single variant of COVID that led up to COVID 19, well characterized and well understood, by a broad class of scientists and virologists all over the world or Speaker 1 (00:48:51): -- Chamath Palihapitiya (00:48:52): Yep. -- or a small subset of people the plurality of which were working at the Wuhan lab for virology. David Friedberg (00:48:58): We didn't know the the argument goes, you don't know that you have SARS CoV 2 in those early days. And so you see some people getting sick, and then suddenly you put your head up and you're like, wait a second. What's going on here? Chamath Palihapitiya (00:49:09): That's not what I'm asking. David Friedberg (00:49:10): My point is you're not you're not running a genomic sequencing on all those people in those early days. No. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:49:14): No. I'm asking something else. You have this original virus that you've been testing and mutating and, you know, reprogramming, you're testing you're are all the intermediate instantiations of that virus well characterized? Okay. That's my point. Public -- They both -- -- crazy. Jason Calacanis (00:49:35): Yeah. Okay. If they weren't publicly available, wouldn't Chamath Palihapitiya (00:49:38): that be super dangerous? Also, Also, by the way, like, wouldn't it make sense then if if you were doing these iterations of these viruses that that the DNA sequences should go to places like Pfizer and Moderna where you are mandated to create vaccines just in case? David Friedberg (00:49:52): Well, we are gonna enter a stage here in the next decade where we will have vaccine printers around the world. They're gonna be small bioreactors. They're gonna be able to effectively ship code to them. They're gonna print vaccines. There are several companies pursuing this. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:50:05): I'm just I'm just gonna go David Friedberg (00:50:06): over the list. Jason Calacanis (00:50:07): I like Shamal, I like your idea, though. I'm just gonna be interesting. I'd say Chamath Palihapitiya (00:50:10): this system is immature, naive, and inefficient. And I think what if That's something that we can fix. David Friedberg (00:50:16): That's why what matters most, in my opinion, and based on the the comments I made a few episodes ago, is that we need to focus on how to get there versus trying to trace back the origins? because I think, honestly, tracing back the origins is just gonna put kindling on a fire that's already burning. And so my my this this this has been my point about this whole, like, you know, blame China. We we wanna get to a point where we can, quote unquote, blame China for this. But the decoupling in the onshore there is already enough motivation there, and there is already on both sides of the aisle. There is already kind of an an obvious trajectory that we're headed this way. I'm not sure. This is a catalyst maybe or it's a little bit more kindling. We're already headed there, and it doesn't actually answer our forward looking question, which is how do we secure our future? And how we secure our future is really more technology and industry and and some of these Speaker 1 (00:51:01): -- Jason Calacanis (00:51:01): FreeBird, let me let me build on Chamat's idea. What if the mRNA vaccine creation and the research laboratory were the same facility, and you had a cross disciplinary approach where -- -- idea. where they're making stuff and then they're curing it next door in real time so that they can trade notes. Why would that be a terrible idea? Seems like a brilliant idea. You could David Friedberg (00:51:24): just you could just transfer the date from the research and print the vaccines with the people that are really good at making vaccines. Right? You you don't you don't need to have intricate understanding of the biology to actually be effective at making vaccines. Right? Jason Calacanis (00:51:36): No. Isn't there something about scientists who are cross disciplinary sharing space and having collisions building relationships in that part of the science process that's worked over the last couple years. You talk about how in synthetic biology and all this, you want the mathematicians computer programmers you know, and the biologists in the same era in the chemists. David Friedberg (00:51:52): Resolving to a world where we have very cheap, very fast, and distributed production of vaccines is an engineering problem. And the the engineering work is what is kind of being undertaken now by several companies and and will be fueled by this this new bill that Biden's trying to get passed. This infrastructure bill is a ton of money and therefore. And as that happens, that engineering process is effectively think about them like printers, and they can take code and that code allows the that printer and that print whatever you wanna print. The question of what you wanna print is gonna be determined by the research that's being done over here, which is Here's what we're discovering. Here's what we should print. Here's what we should protect against and why. But I think that there's a separate engineering exercise with, you know, let let let let's build this distributed production system. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:52:36): I'm gonna go on a limb and say that these labs are immature, naive, and unsophisticated in the checks and balances that exist. And I think we've seen that and we need to fix it, and you need to do something more than just have a bunch of folks that are focused on science going ham in whatever way they want. Jason Calacanis (00:52:58): Alright. So just to wrap Saks, anything else on this as we put a cherry on it? David Sacks (00:53:01): Well, I just You asked the question. What do we do about China? I think that is a question that's a generational question. We're gonna be asking that for -- Totally. Speaker 1 (00:53:08): -- David Sacks (00:53:09): for decades. it's this is an area we would need Friedberg and Nuance because it's something that we're gonna have to navigate as a country for for decades. You know, a really good book about this is the Thucydides's trap by Graham Allison who's a Harvard professor. and he discusses different strategies we can take. He quotes Lee Kuan Yu, who is the, you know, president of Singapore, who has a great quote about this. He said Lee Kwan Yu said that the size of China's displacement of the world balance is such that the world must find a new balance. It is not possible to pretend that this is just another big player. This is the biggest player in the history of the world. That was that was the Lee Kwan you quote. So we were dealing with this issue even before COVID, but I do think that COVID has unmasked this regime a little bit and caused people across both sides of the full spectrum to look at this regime, I think, more realistically. Jason Calacanis (00:54:07): Alright. So in somewhat related news. Apple, obviously, building all their phones over there and now having servers and data over there. has led to a lot of scrutiny of big tech. But the more pressing issue is the antitrust bills that seem to be fast tracked on Wednesday, US House Judiciary Committee discuss 66 proposed antitrust bills. One bill sponsored by a Democrat from Rhode Island, would call for Apple to allow third party app stores seems reasonable and provide Iphone technologies to 3rd party software makers. So I think that means maybe opening up iMessage which would be delightful. I'm not sure exactly what they mean there. And so Apple and Tim Cook is in a panic. He apparently called Nancy Pelosi. and said, can you pump the brakes? Just to give you an idea of what's going on here, Apple's revenue even though it's a small percentage of just Speaker 1 (00:55:11): 10 Jason Calacanis (00:55:12): percent of their Speaker 1 (00:55:14): $274,000,000,000 Jason Calacanis (00:55:16): in 2020 revenue, it's obviously pure profit profit margin's gotta be in the notes here, it says 75%, but I would think it's even more. Clearly, services at the App Store inside of Apple is, I think, analogous to the AWS for Amazon. It is a money printing machine that's growing really fast. what do we think about Apple being forced to put other app stores on their phones just like you can on your Android phone? David Sacks (00:55:45): I support it. I've been blue billed on this issue. Actually, that's what the that's what the commenters on of our the all in fans have said is that Why Saks taking blue pills on this issue? And and, look, the reality is because I'm not in the business of of helping $2,000,000,000,000 MarketCap Companies. I'm in the underdog business. I'm in the business of helping the entrepreneur get started with a new company. And the fact the matter is is that Apple has the market power the same market power greater than Microsoft did in its heyday. with the Windows monopoly. They are total gatekeepers of what applications can be built on these iOS devices. Jason Calacanis (00:56:23): Windows. Windows, you could Speaker 1 (00:56:25): -- Jason Calacanis (00:56:25): Windows was open. I mean, David Sacks (00:56:27): was opened. Jason Calacanis (00:56:27): Right? -- have an app store. David Sacks (00:56:28): Yep. Right. So this this proposal by representative right. So this proposal by representative Siceline, the Democrat from Rhode Island, would allow this side loading. It would basically loosen the grip that Apple has over the apps that can be loaded onto Apple devices. it would at least, you know, create some degree, some potential Speaker 1 (00:56:49): -- David Friedberg (00:56:50): No. It would Jason Calacanis (00:56:50): create tremendous competition. And it's very easy to execute. Go ahead, Jema. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:56:55): I I think you said it really well. I am also in the underdog business. So I think the the faster they've ran this thing through, the better off it'll be. The thing that is important to recognize is that Apple will make this argument that well, look, there's always Android. And also look, there's the open web. And that's structurally not true for a couple of reasons. The overwhelming amount of development at least in Silicon Valley and broadly speaking in tech starts on the iPhone. Sure. And it's only then as an afterthought almost. Let me You have to remember it took Snapchat 3 or Speaker 1 (00:57:32): 4 Chamath Palihapitiya (00:57:33): years of being a public company before they actually had a reasonable Android app. Right? And so Android is has always been sort of the low ARPU afterthought even though it has meaningfully more users. They're just not as bad as -- -- revenue per user. And so exactly. And so, you know, it's kind of a baseless argument. The overwhelming revenue, the north star for developers where all of the venture capital money goes into is the funding and developing iOS apps and in that worldview, iOS is a complete monopoly. And breaking up the ability for them to basically dictate a 30% take rate and also loosening the technical guardrails, I think, is a huge step forward. There's only one thing that I would say. However, Apple has done an incredible job at parivacy, locking down the phone, sandboxing instances, and we'll have to find some technical alternative to fortifying Jason Calacanis (00:58:33): Oh, no. Actually, they don't trim up. Actually, I think what they do is when you go to your settings, You say, unlock iPhone. You now are not protected. Apple is not responsible. You've decided to siloed stuff. And it's basically like putting your mo your phone into jailbreak or dev mode where they are not gonna support you. That's the way I think Apple should execute it is that would be like they're you know, if you wanna load anything you want, when you get viruses and your privacy gets hacked, it's not on us. You just essentially, all the we have one warranty for people who are not jailbroken and side loaded and one warranty for people who decide to jailbreak their phones. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:59:08): What's what's incredible to me, the other point on this is how quickly these guys passed this bill and actually actually all six and then how reasonably well they were written. I mean, this is one topic where sometimes, you know, politicians can really kind of get it wrong or they can get lobbied in one way or the other, and these bills come out. They don't make sense. I mean, if you have to remember where how far we've come, you know, wasn't the first antitrust thing where, like, some guy asked Zuck a question about, like, a model t Ford or something? I mean, it was just so stupid. They were so dumb, and they've gone from there to this. It's really incredible how fast they've caught up. David Friedberg (00:59:42): I think this is just a terrible precedent. And I I think if you guys weren't gonna make money by weakening Apple and Alphabet, you guys put your free market hats on, you you kind of acknowledge that this is just a bad coincidence. Speaker 1 (00:59:55): -- Jason Calacanis (00:59:55): angel investors. We did not do the series a of either of those companies, Friedberg. David Friedberg (00:59:59): Yeah. I I I recognize that. And I think, like, if you guys had if you guys had a bunch of shares in Alphabet or Amazon or Apple, your your opinion would be a little bit different. But I'm just observing exactly what you said. David Sacks (01:00:10): I have shares I have shares in Amazon and Facebook. David Friedberg (01:00:12): Yeah. Well, look. I I think in this particular other case, Jason Calacanis (01:00:15): you know Speaker 1 (01:00:15): -- Jason Calacanis (01:00:15): He's in the process of selling them. No. It's At David Friedberg (01:00:18): the end of the day, if if Apple and Alphabet didn't make incredible product, for consumers and focused on consumer happiness, they wouldn't be as successful as they are. At much of if you remember kind of the early days of the Apple App Store, ideology, it was about curating apps and curating the quality of those apps so that the quality of the overall iPhone experience would be superior to anything else out there, and consumers would love it. It wasn't about blocking out competitors and blocking out rivals and blocking out other platforms. It was about making something that consumers would absolutely love. Incorrect. And and the same -- In the correct Jason Calacanis (01:00:52): Friedberg, they blocked 3rd party bookstores and book readers. They blocked browsers. David Friedberg (01:01:00): They want to watch Sirius, Jason Calacanis (01:01:01): VLC, and open source players. They did that because they wanted you to use their own products. David Friedberg (01:01:06): They said standards they said standards on the App Store, and as long as you met those standards, those apps got in there. So YouTube's in there. Google Chrome is in there. You know, I've got Chrome installed on my iPhone. I think it's a better browser. Chamath Palihapitiya (01:01:16): It took them years, Freepers. Jason Calacanis (01:01:18): Years, and they realized they to give that up. They had to give up the browser. David Friedberg (01:01:21): Because that's what consumers wanted. because that's what consumers wanted. No. Jason Calacanis (01:01:24): No. because they knew that Chrome is there. Speaker 1 (01:01:26): -- Jason Calacanis (01:01:26): on their back. Chamath Palihapitiya (01:01:27): No. The only reason that Chrome is there is because of the amount of money that Google pays Apple for search. David Friedberg (01:01:33): Yeah. I look. Chamath Palihapitiya (01:01:34): And that was a quid pro quo in that search deal I will bet you dollars to doughnuts if that's the only reason for supporting the island. David Friedberg (01:01:41): Yeah. I I don't think Apple I don't think Apple is that dumb. I'm pretty sure that these guys recognize that if consumers want something they better give it to them. And if consumers wanted a bunch of shitty apps on the phone that didn't work and broke down all the time, you Jason Calacanis (01:01:52): know -- -- then go through the process of jailbreak. Right? Should you be able to jailbreak phone and hack it, Friedberg? David Friedberg (01:01:57): I don't I I don't think that I should be telling Apple how to make their freaking hardware. They should make their hardware, and I, as a consumer, in the free market, should decide if I wanna buy it or not. And if I was Speaker 1 (01:02:06): -- David Sacks (01:02:06): It's not a full market. It's a monopoly. David Friedberg (01:02:08): If I want to do aopoly, I can go buy a freaking Samsung or I don't know if HTC still makes phones or, you know, Nokia or black I guess these guys are all dead because their product suck. Chamath Palihapitiya (01:02:16): But -- Okay. Speaker 1 (01:02:16): -- David Friedberg (01:02:17): at the end of the day, if there's an alternative out there, I will buy it. And if you guys wanna go fund a hardware company that builds a software platform on top of the hardware, and make it to the people. I'm not a monopolist. I just wanna have a lie. Jason Calacanis (01:02:29): Now I know why you didn't wanna say your opinion. You're a goddamn around. You're Chamath Palihapitiya (01:02:32): no. It's really it's really interesting that Freeport, actually, on this issue, is actually the the free market -- Monster. -- Redpill. No. And every and everybody else is sort of blue pill. But but, David, you're right. I'll point Jason Calacanis (01:02:43): out I don't think it's David Friedberg (01:02:44): about red pill blue pill, like, you know, going Speaker 1 (01:02:46): -- -- Chamath Palihapitiya (01:02:46): books? No. I'm speaking my book. I completely I I really Better for startups. Creative destruction. I think it's better for startups. I don't particularly have a lot of trust or faith that these big companies when they get this big are particularly well run or have the best interest of the broad market in their minds. And so, yeah, I'll I'll be honest with you. I hope these companies get broken up. I think it's great for what we do. I think it's great for entrepreneurship. I think it's super phenomenal for the innovation cycle we could be a part of. And I would hope to participate in that and make a bunch of money along. David Friedberg (01:03:23): I think the best way to destroy a monopoly is to build better technology that disrupts them. And that has always been the case throughout history. And anytime government gets involved and tries to break up a monopoly in a way that is not natural to the way the market forces might demand, you end up declining an innovation standard. You have to disrupt Apple. We have to disrupt Amazon. We have to disrupt Alphabet using technology if we wanna have an advantage to go win in the market. And by having government come in and intervene, I feel like it ends up being like like like, you know, this cronyism, which which ultimately affects markets in an adverse way. David Sacks (01:03:55): Here here's the problem, is that the developer network effects around an operating system monopoly are in Super Bowl. They you you cannot overthrow them. There are now 1000 and 1000, maybe even millions of apps have been developed on the i iOS system. And no competitor can ever get that kind of traction. It is the Windows monopoly all over again. And by the way, Microsoft and Windows might have dominated the Internet if it weren't for the government coming down with the whole Netscape litigation. Netscape didn't survive, but it kind of it kind of froze Microsoft in its tracks and prevented them from dominating the nascent Internet. And so, you know, I think that turned out to be a good government intervention in terms of allowing innovation to move forward. And and by the way, just on the sizzling proposals, I think part of the reason why they make so much sense is because we can't break up Apple. How would you break up Apple? Right? I mean, Apple sells one product, which is iOS, on different sizes of Jason Calacanis (01:04:51): shit watch. Speaker 1 (01:04:51): -- Jason Calacanis (01:04:51): breakup Apple is to force them to use their operate let their operating system be licensed on their hardware. David Sacks (01:04:56): That's not breaking them up. That's not breaking them up. So Jason Calacanis (01:04:59): then there -- It would certainly create downward pressure on their margins if Dell could make a competing Apple Desktop. David Sacks (01:05:06): Okay. Fair enough. What I'm saying what I'm saying is there's no natural fault lines within Apple like there are at Amazon or Google. Right? Jason Calacanis (01:05:13): Yes. There's nothing to chop off. David Sacks (01:05:15): Amazon could spin out AWS very easily. Google could spin out YouTube or maybe enterprise. Instabriars. Apple's not gonna to separate iPad and iOS. Yes. Of course. So so what that means is because you can't split up the company, if you want to address their power, the only way to do it is with proposals like side loading? David Friedberg (01:05:33): I feel like you you're you're either looking at a capitalist monopoly or you're looking at a government monopoly. So if you think about what's happened in financial services in the United States, the the regulatory burden on being a service provider in the financial services industry is so high that it is very difficult for startups to come in and compete. And look at what emerged, Bitcoin. Right? I I feel like there is always gonna be a consumer innovation model that will supplant the monopoly. And you can't just say, hey. The government's gonna come in and side load or or break up these big businesses. What ultimately happens when you do that is you create a regulatory burden that makes it equally difficult for competition to arise over time or to reduce innovation that's gonna benefit consumers. Jason Calacanis (01:06:13): This is the Princess Leia you know, basic theory. The the tighter you squeeze, the more galaxy slip through your fingers, and maybe TikTok and Snapchat are examples of that with Facebook, but there aren't many. And I don't know who's coming up to fight against Amazon at this point. David Friedberg (01:06:32): So -- And Shopify and Shopify's crushing it, and they're incredible. And they're gonna create this long tale of stores that ultimately could end up competing really effectively with Amazon. and we've seen it. Right? And and and consumers choose it. And this is because Jason Calacanis (01:06:44): just because Shopify is making a lot from SaaS revenue does not mean that the majority of goods are not gonna go through -- I David Friedberg (01:06:49): will tell you the the the consumer experience on Shopify Stores is fantastic. I mean, we all don't realize it, but we're buying it. Totally. with Shopify Stores is Jason Calacanis (01:06:57): pretty good. It's pretty good. David Friedberg (01:06:58): And it has forced innovation. You know? And and and I will also highlight that one of the benefits of these scaled businesses is that they end up having the resourcing to fund new and emerging businesses that otherwise wouldn't be fundable. I don't think that AWS would have emerged, and, therefore, Google Cloud and all these other alternatives wouldn't have emerged. If Amazon wouldn't have a sync yeah. It didn't have the chromium mobiles per project. And think about the industry that emerged from Waymo Land Rover. Chamath Palihapitiya (01:07:21): But nobody David, nobody's nobody's suggesting to have broken these things up in 2007. But it's 2021, and things have changed. David Friedberg (01:07:30): I don't know what's down the road that we're gonna miss out on. Right? I mean, I I I guess my point is, like, you know, let the consumer make the decision as opposed to create regulatory burden that that over time has its own cost. Jason Calacanis (01:07:40): What is the downside to allowing somebody who wants to put an App Store on their iPhone? What's the downside, Friedberg? What's the downside to letting me have Amazon's App Store or Android App Store and me to pick that I wanna just have one subscript set of subscriptions, and I prefer the Android store. David Friedberg (01:07:56): The Apple argument. I'm I'm not making it personally. The Apple argument that the quality of the the the quality of I think you I I just think it's a little bit shortsighted for us to all jump to say let's break up big tech. Like, the quality of what's happening over the last decade is incredible. And and the new products that have come out is just mind blowing, and, you know, we all kinda miss the fact that the these are the beneficiaries of scale businesses. And, you know, you can't really see a start up going Jason Calacanis (01:08:20): through the rainbow. Right? We are not saying breakup Big Tech. we're saying get rid of the 30 percent App Store fee because that negatively impacts our portfolios. Let's be clear here. This is screwing with the margins. and a lot of the companies we invested. We want that take rate lowered. I mean, listen, if Apple just made the take rate 15%, this entire thing goes away, Epic games feels great. Spotify's feel great. That's what they should've done. When you overplay your hand, and then all of a sudden, you create a group of enemies from Netflix to Spotify to Epic Games, that was Apple's big mistake. They should've given those people a lower rate and just slowly lowered the rate, which is what everybody's doing, now with creator percentages. And I think that's what YouTube should do now. The 45% they're taking, just lower that to Speaker 1 (01:09:09): 30. Jason Calacanis (01:09:09): just give up a little bit of the take rate, and and people will be feel more reasonable about what your take David Sacks (01:09:14): rate -- Can I can I bring in the that sub stack article by Antonio Garcia Martinez. It was David Friedberg (01:09:19): called back. Speaker 1 (01:09:19): -- Jason Calacanis (01:09:19): end on that? He's gonna end on the Cassidy getting killed by the police officer. I don't wanna just David Sacks (01:09:24): I wanna CC Pay. I wanna end the Apple segment on on on AGM's article, which was called Bad Apple. Although Great David Friedberg (01:09:31): article. David Sacks (01:09:31): greater -- Yeah. I mean, it was it was unbelievable. But but Speaker 1 (01:09:34): -- Jason Calacanis (01:09:34): David was so weak. I just wanna let people know how excited David was about this. David, I think, is, like, ready to be in a full blown romance with Antonio. I mean Speaker 1 (01:09:45): -- David Sacks (01:09:45): Which state are you talking about? Jason Calacanis (01:09:47): I'm talking about you, Saks. You are are you in love with Antonio? It's a big pause. Chamath Palihapitiya (01:09:56): Oh. Oh, okay. He lost Jason Calacanis (01:09:58): them on Zoom when I asked him if he said, Lob, Apple came David Friedberg (01:10:01): in and they pressed Paul, sir. Jason Calacanis (01:10:02): I have a press pause on the screen. Look at his frozen. Look at the frozen. Look at his eyes. Look how He's he that's the look Chamath Palihapitiya (01:10:09): of love. Come on. You read the article of love. I thought it was really well written too. David Friedberg (01:10:14): It was well written. Jason Calacanis (01:10:15): He's a great writer. great writer. Chamath Palihapitiya (01:10:16): He's a really, really good writer. Jason Calacanis (01:10:18): Well, here here's the thing. He is getting paid probably Speaker 1 (01:10:22): 300,000 Jason Calacanis (01:10:23): to $700,000 to write on Substack after getting fired and after getting a giant settlement from Apple, whatever. That's gonna be. So he is making out, like, abandoned. But -- Mhmm. that I thought the funniest part was like, I'm not being silenced here because I'm now being paid to talk about Apple for the next year by substack. But he I thought his most salient point was Steve Jobs would not have been able to exist in the apple that exists today. Chamath Palihapitiya (01:10:50): He would run run out of apples, what he said. Jason Calacanis (01:10:52): He would have been canceled. What I mean, Steve Jobs would have a 100%. David, you broke out when David Sacks (01:10:57): I asked Jason Calacanis (01:10:57): you if you were in love with Antonio. You just you I think you got Speaker 1 (01:11:00): -- David Friedberg (01:11:01): Now my -- -- cut you off. Yeah. David Sacks (01:11:02): Yeah. Exactly. No. Look. I think I don't agree with everything AGM writes, but I do think he is a fantastic writer with a lot of interesting perspective. And that ending of that article, the reason I want to mention it is it kinda goes to Friedberg point about how much innovation how much innovation is there really at Apple now that the that the genius who created it is gone. And he he ends his article by saying, when Apple Jason Calacanis (01:11:25): launched the Mac computer in Speaker 1 (01:11:25): 1984, David Sacks (01:11:29): They famously ran that Super Bowl ad that featured a solitary figure flinging a sledgehammer into a big brother like face spewing propaganda that the huddle ranks of some draft dystopia. And then AGM says the tech titans nowadays resemble more and more of the hurricane figure on the screen rather than the colorful rebel going against the established order, whether it be hiring policy or free speech, Silicon Valley has to decide whether it becomes what it once vowed to destroy. The reality is the great genius who founded Apple is long gone. It is run by HR people and Wok Mok. Jason Calacanis (01:12:04): Supply is run by a supply chain manager. David Sacks (01:12:07): Exactly. And and and so there is no more innovation there. They are just a gatekeeper collecting rents And, you know, Freeburger, right to raise the issue of what's gonna create the most innovation. But the thing that's gonna create the most innovation is letting entrepreneurs create new companies without needing Apple permission. Jason Calacanis (01:12:23): I David Friedberg (01:12:23): will tell you something. I think that over the next decade, because of exactly what you guys said, that Apple is run by managers who don't wanna see lost but aren't driven to gain, you're gonna end up seeing Amazon, Iqular, and Apple likely as well lose to the likes of Shopify and Square and Stripe. Shopify Square And Stripe are all formidable threats to Amazon over time. And now that Bezos is actually gonna step out, it is gonna be run by a bunch of managers, and you have these founders of these 3 companies still running all three of those businesses. And all three of those businesses are gonna be incredible competitive threats from different angles on Amazon. That is where innovation win. And you will see it because leadership driven by founders at those businesses could take them to compete directly with these guys, and you don't need the government to come in and intervene. All three of them are building and are gonna continue to build better experiences for consumers and for merchants that could end up disrupting the Amazon Jason Calacanis (01:13:16): or -- I'll David Friedberg (01:13:16): give you a Chamath Palihapitiya (01:13:17): different take. I think that all four companies are gonna win. David Friedberg (01:13:21): including Amazon. Chamath Palihapitiya (01:13:22): Yeah. They're gonna continue to win. And I think what it shows is that Shopify and Stripe and Square had to have very precise entry points in markets. And in many ways, the things that they are allowed to do is still quite constrained. because Amazon exists. I think that that's fine. That should be allowed, but I don't think that's what's gonna get, you know, legislated and then litigated over the next 10 or 15 years. It's a handful of very specific practices that constrain what folks can do. I think the app store is a constraint. The algorithmic nature of Facebook's news feed and Google search are constraints. and people are going to test those things. And I think that in testing it, you're probably gonna do what the government was successful as Saks said in 2000, which has just slowed these guys down. You have to remember, at some point, there were probably more DOJ lawyers inside of Microsoft product managers. And everything, if I remember correctly, from a feature perspective, had to go to the DOJ for approval for some time. That's probably the best thing that can happen to these companies, which is you completely gum up the product infrastructure. Then, you know, Freeport, you're right. the human capital equation changes, people leave. It's not that fun to be there. They go to start ups. But, again, you needed the government to step in. And they're not gonna necessarily solve it, but they can really slow down the overreach of these companies. for the next 20 years, and I think that that's net additive for the world. Jason Calacanis (01:14:54): Here's here's my prediction, I think. The pirates are a assembling themselves, whether it's Coinbase saying we're not gonna have politics at work or Antonio. And the end of cancel culture, the end of taking the historical left or the historic or the trolling right seriously, I feel like that is ending. And this great, like, nightmare of hysteria and is going to end. And the Overton window is gonna blossom and open up, and people are gonna be more innovative and accepting of new ideas and be reasonable and not cancel people who wrote something 5 or 10 or 20 years ago. Chamath Palihapitiya (01:15:29): Go reasonableness. Let's go reasonableness. Jason Calacanis (01:15:31): Well reasoned. Alright, everybody. This has been another episode of the all David Friedberg (01:15:35): in podcast talk to you about? Jason Calacanis (01:15:38): Nobody. What am I doing today? Yeah. What? You are you inviting us somewhere? No. I'm just wondering which Speaker 1 (01:15:44): -- Jason Calacanis (01:15:44): Or is this a flex? Are you -- No. You've gone kite or did you get an electric got an electric start before, didn't you? It's Speaker 1 (01:15:50): 8:30 Chamath Palihapitiya (01:15:50): PM for me, so I gotta go hang out with my family. Jason Calacanis (01:15:54): I've got the accelerator and a board meeting, and that's it. Chamath Palihapitiya (01:15:58): I'm in the Mediterranean general area. David Sacks (01:16:00): Yes. I'm actually -- It's Jason Calacanis (01:16:02): conquering Europe. I'm in my area. I but I Chamath Palihapitiya (01:16:04): did again, I just wanna say, I did go to the dentist and I feel pretty good overcame -- Zach, David Friedberg (01:16:09): are you hearing about people moving back from Miami this, like, little -- No. Speaker 1 (01:16:12): -- David Friedberg (01:16:12): thing going on about people saying, no. That's BS. David Sacks (01:16:15): People are so happy here. David Friedberg (01:16:16): Yeah. Jason Calacanis (01:16:17): Do you David Friedberg (01:16:18): think you're gonna end up living there? David Sacks (01:16:20): No. I mean, we'll see. David Friedberg (01:16:22): Just a -- Maybe? No. Maybe. Chamath Palihapitiya (01:16:24): Did you -- I see. Jason Calacanis (01:16:26): I see Chamath Palihapitiya (01:16:26): my underwear pass. Did you get orthopedic shoes when you bought that shirt? Jason Calacanis (01:16:30): My goodness. Did you join a golf club? Are you in a retirement community right now? David Sacks (01:16:38): Guys, I'm I'm on a I'm on a diet. I break by the end of the summer. I'll be thinner than Jason. Jason Calacanis (01:16:43): Yeah. Is there a way to act Chamath Palihapitiya (01:16:44): on it? Jason Calacanis (01:16:45): Go to Dexitrin. Wait. Okay. Let bring it. Go to Dexitrin. No Dexitrin. DeXis scan. Whatever. Go to DeXis scan. And let's go. Next episode. Show your deck scan. I'll show mine. And do it. Do it. Do it. Do it. Do it. Do it. Do it. Do do do -- What do you weigh Chamath Palihapitiya (01:17:02): out, Jake? Jill, what is your weight, please? Jason Calacanis (01:17:04): I think I'm 194 -- Okay. Speaker 1 (01:17:07): -- 195, Jason Calacanis (01:17:07): something like that. David Sacks (01:17:08): And what's your height? Chamath Palihapitiya (01:17:11): Five foot. Speaker 1 (01:17:13): 59. Jason Calacanis (01:17:13): What are you? You do look thinner. You do look thinner. David Sacks (01:17:16): I've had lots about £5 already. I'm about 185 right now. Jason Calacanis (01:17:19): And what's your height? David Sacks (01:17:21): For Speaker 1 (01:17:21): 59. Jason Calacanis (01:17:22): Oh, we're the same height and you weigh 10 pounds less. Chamath Palihapitiya (01:17:24): removable. You look good. Are you on Jason Calacanis (01:17:26): any pharmaceuticals to lose weight? David Sacks (01:17:28): No. I'm doing I'm doing intermittent fasting. I'm doing no carbs, and I'm trying to be as plant based as possible. So Speaker 1 (01:17:34): -- David Friedberg (01:17:34): Go sec. Nice. Chamath Palihapitiya (01:17:35): Good for you, Seth. Jason Calacanis (01:17:36): Awesome. You do look better. You do look better. David Friedberg (01:17:38): You feel good? More energy? David Sacks (01:17:40): Yeah. I mean, I yes. I was getting, like, just that extra £5, like, kinda tipped me over? I think I got, like, another 15 to go, but -- You think Jason Calacanis (01:17:49): you could be 170 for me? David Sacks (01:17:50): Yeah. Yeah. That's my goal. David Friedberg (01:17:51): Have you cut back on drinking? Jason Calacanis (01:17:54): Yeah. Well, yeah, you can only take on so many. David Sacks (01:18:01): We had -- It's a Speaker 1 (01:18:02): -- David Sacks (01:18:02): We had some incredible wine last night. You know? Jason Calacanis (01:18:05): Look, I I thought you were a vodka guy. Can't you just do, like, a vodka and soda and be good? David Sacks (01:18:09): don't wanna give a I can't give a wine. You know? David Friedberg (01:18:12): I can't wait till we explain poker and drink some more Tamaf's wine. That's so fun. Speaker 1 (01:18:16): Ugh. I can't wait other. Jason Calacanis (01:18:17): Love you love you, Saxx. Love you, Harry. Love you, Holly, all in stats. Back at you. Alright. This has been the all in podcast brought to you by, nobody. And if you'd like to join the all in chat, you can join our iMessage group. The first ten people, it's $10,000 a month. We're gonna monetize by allowing 10 people to be in the eye. I'm not just checking for 10,000 a month each and to break chalks. It's only, like, Speaker 1 (01:18:43): 300 Jason Calacanis (01:18:43): bucks a day to be in the I gotta figure out a way to monetize this. Alright. We'll see you all sign. Bye bye. We'll let your winners ride. Rainman, David. and it said We open source it to the fans, and they've just gone crazy with it. Love you. besties are gone. David Friedberg (01:19:15): driveway. Jason Calacanis (01:19:21): We should all just get a room and just have one be huge or if you could do all sorts of useless stuff. It's like it's like sexual friendship that we just need to release out now. What? You're the big bee. What? Clear feet. Sweets. Sweets. We need to get mercies are back.