SPEAKER_01: my stance really took over the comment board yeah sax how was your week off when uh you you gave up on the pod for a week and then did four media appearances for 90 minutes each on other pods you SPEAKER_02: did six hours of you took off from this pod to give your ratings to megan kelly and uh dave rubin SPEAKER_04: yeah i did a 45 minute hit with dave rubin on ukraine so be sure to check that out and then SPEAKER_05: yeah did i do no megan megan kelly uh freeberg and i did that the week was that this week or okay surprisingly she didn't invite you back yeah i don't know what could have happened SPEAKER_13: it was so great it was so great that was awesome i love megan kelly didn't she call you a prick SPEAKER_16: yeah she did she did and she only knew me for 45 minutes usually that takes like three or four days SPEAKER_26: she just got right to it sex we have not had such negative panning comments on youtube since jcal SPEAKER_30: um got brigadooned for his uh pro ukraine now i'm getting brigadooned for sex not showing up i get SPEAKER_32: brigadooned for asking him a question then i get brigadooned from him not showing up getting SPEAKER_35: brigadooned i don't know maybe it's just honest when will you guys realize that there are three to five million people a week that listen to this podcast a hundred nitwits who comment on youtube SPEAKER_36: they're neither right nor wrong they should just be completely ignored turn the comments off the only SPEAKER_37: thing that matters are the ratings if you care about that at all and last week was one of the best rated shows we've ever done i think it was highest rated after elon's episode it would have been even better with david so we should brigadoon the brigadooners those nitwits should be ignored SPEAKER_38: i think this is a little bit like a band where like you can't mess with the chemistry of the band SPEAKER_05: and yeah that's the lesson even though there's a lot of infighting in the band like it just works it works and so you don't want to second guess it too much well and then if somebody from the band gets SPEAKER_43: sick and somebody sits in even if it's like you get some incredible guitar players sit in people are like that's not the guitar player who i have the t-shirt of i need my guitar player back SPEAKER_47: all right anyway well i'm just glad ringo showed up 22 minutes late welcome back freeberg uh let's get SPEAKER_52: started sorry sorry i don't mean to fuck with the band i'm not gonna fuck with the band ringo was an underrated drummer freeberg you have a role here that's amazing i think you're more like the drummer SPEAKER_58: you know freeberg maybe bass maybe bass player you know i'm john lennon george harrison george harrison SPEAKER_60: yeah actually george harrison very underrated but i you know i'm i'm pretty clear have you guys ever SPEAKER_35: heard uh the version of blackbird that paul picartney did just with the ukulele no i'd like to hear SPEAKER_63: that maybe one of the best songs ever recorded one of the best records i've ever heard fantastic SPEAKER_66: incredible all right listen there's so much to start with but i think blackbird swimming in the SPEAKER_67: dead of night take these broken wings and learn to fly all size life sex were you at a building SPEAKER_72: on market street yesterday by any chance no fly zone the homeless shelter SPEAKER_63: well i think you can talk about abandoned homeless shelter SPEAKER_80: i think it's fair to say that there will be a lot of people SPEAKER_35: that we know that will go and help make market street better make market street great again SPEAKER_85: that make market street great absolutely absolutely i'm i'm looking forward to some tofu salads and SPEAKER_87: meditation namaste literally i think 8 000 square feet is meditation rooms that haven't been used in SPEAKER_35: five years quite honestly though like on the other side of this i would say parag agarwal does deserve a statue for shareholder value creation what he what 54 20 a share which by the way we said was going to happen and it did happen was ginormous in this market and i just want to see the look on that barista's SPEAKER_40: face when they're warming up the oat milk when a band a very very tough knuckled uh company builders walks SPEAKER_47: through that door yeah the only has left the building let's just leave it at that wow so i guess we can talk about it now uh elon has closed closed yes we can talk about it now well no i'm just saying SPEAKER_85: sax and i could not talk about this because we had you know we couldn't talk about it for legal reasons SPEAKER_95: they deserve a statue in front of the bronze statue for shareholder value creation market street in front SPEAKER_96: of that twitter building best um tech ceo of the year parag agarwal hold on a second so your theory is SPEAKER_05: that he did such a bad job in terms of suppressing viewpoints and and censorship that he actually induced elon to want to buy the company so he could fix their censorship problem no my theory my theory SPEAKER_36: is simpler than this which is they got great representation to do a very bulletproof deal SPEAKER_104: and it turns out that contract law still matters in the united states and elon did the right thing and just said you know what i'm going to own this thing and probably double or triple my money so i'm just going to go and do it and i'll do it for the benefit of everybody else but my point is more that SPEAKER_36: they and the board had the wherewithal to fight because you know that they could have easily gotten intimidated and capitulated and in doing that whether they were right or wrong or good or bad is irrelevant to me they represented shareholder values well and they got shareholders paid in a moment where the stock market is still down 20 30 40 percent where big tech is down 50 percent some of these big tech companies are down 80 percent these guys sold the company at a premium and so that just you know we just have to acknowledge that that happened that's all well and to just give SPEAKER_47: you a little bit of background on twitter historically you know in 2013 the stock was trading at 69 SPEAKER_110: dollars and it got sold for 54 like this company has been sideways for a decade essentially in terms of its market cap and so but there's no doubt that i think elon can turn this around pretty quickly and to make it massively profitable i think and clean up the bot problem very quickly if you can land two rockets at a time create self-driving cars i think you can figure this out this isn't rocket SPEAKER_94: science and elon's done rocket science so i think he's going to figure it out right yeah for what SPEAKER_05: it's worth i think elon's really excited about it and there is tremendous potential at twitter i mean the company's been sideways because it hasn't done that much in 10 years but there's so much you can do with that product it's just you know there's a ton of potential i think the best way to think SPEAKER_65: about it is he bought a quarter of a billion miles for 44 billion dollars and in the grand scheme of SPEAKER_104: things that is i think going to turn out to be pretty reasonably cheap especially if he can layer SPEAKER_95: in a few of his bigger ideas and uh and i think that those mouths the value of those monthly active users could probably double or triple pretty quickly right i think that was the so i just sent SPEAKER_98: you guys this link from this analyst and he said that twitter was bought at 172 dollars per monthly active user compared to 81 per monthly active user at meta uh where they sit today so but that's but SPEAKER_35: that's for a very different point which we can double click into because meta is its own bag of you know SPEAKER_123: it's a little bit of an unfortunately you know a bit of a dumpster fire already attached to it well SPEAKER_35: and i'll explain why because the met the meta problem is it's it's a deep and a very dangerous SPEAKER_36: situation that they've put themselves in which is why their mal values are this low but you know if you had done this analysis a few years ago the trade was looking at meta's mal values SPEAKER_104: being so high where you would have said why isn't twitter doing more so i know that this this is a SPEAKER_110: little bit in my opinion cherry picking yeah well i think making everything verified in a path to verification which ilan has talked about publicly many times and payments uh you know he's talked about publicly many times just those two things alone could make the experience of being on twitter absolutely delightful if everybody could verify themselves this thing could turn around so quickly SPEAKER_36: i'll say i'll say what you're saying in a slightly more i think the most powerful change that twitter could make today is there are two classes of users people who are verified rear world identity yeah and people who want to stay anonymous correct there is a hundred percent distribution fire SPEAKER_104: hose for people who are real and there is a fire hose for fake people or fake names that you need SPEAKER_36: to pay to amplify just that one simple change will cut through all the nonsense yeah because if you want to see where the money is being spent you will be able to see very quickly because otherwise there'll be virtually no distribution for anonymous fake people and it'll force those people if they really want to be heard that and that there's something valuable to say to spend against it well SPEAKER_110: this really is about the brigadoons and elon's been very clear about this you know it's pretty easy to get rid of the bots and if people are opting in to putting themselves into the top class of verified users well that's a revenue stream right and so all of a sudden you know i don't know how many millions of SPEAKER_43: people would instantly say i'll pay for this for five or ten bucks i think you're verified i think SPEAKER_138: you're right and i think like what we want to do is like you know no offense to all the people out SPEAKER_36: there although i don't really care but no offense but you cannot use twitter as a coping mechanism okay like i get that life is hard or that you know life hasn't lived out to your expectations or you know there's envy and whatever of other people but to go out there and spew hate doesn't solve SPEAKER_104: anything are you talking about brigadoons well there's also just a lot of people that are just SPEAKER_36: in general they're just they're just mean and i'll give you a perfect example there's a woman that i saw on tick tock and she's like uh you know been married for 13 years mother of two kids and she was she had a thing that went viral where she was talking about who's in charge her or her husband and it was a very funny little thing and so i followed a couple of her videos just to see what else she had posted and one of the videos was how she has some complicated health issues which she was very public about pcos and how it causes you know issues in losing weight and she posted a pre and post picture of her which takes a lot of courage and she was like brigadoon and it's like what is wrong with these broken people yeah that have to give this woman a hard time and it just it took so to me these social media channels are not coping mechanisms they were never meant to be and so you know if they have to go to 4chan or 8chan or reddit or whatever better to sort of create these honey pots of hatred than to have it spew everywhere because it makes for the rest of us these platforms SPEAKER_131: to be unusable well sax you were the coo of paypal with elon and ruloff and tl and everybody in that SPEAKER_110: crew over 20 years ago and verified you understand pretty well because you yourself have been brigadooned SPEAKER_43: of late and you've experienced this firsthand the psychological torture that made you take a week off from the show in fact because you were so under duress i'm kidding you had a planned week off so SPEAKER_110: you're allowed to have vacation uh which of the two ideas is the bigger idea payments making twitter into paypal uh including that x.com which was the original name of uh that was elon's payment company and he owns a domain x.com which is a bigger idea the payments or the verification which is the bigger SPEAKER_116: idea for increasing shareholder value which would you do first i mean payments is an entire road map SPEAKER_05: right so there's a lot that could be done there explain well i mean it's it's about i mean you could layer on a lot of services on top of that so it's not just like one feature look i think they're both compelling in terms of where they could lead i think what's amazing about elon as an entrepreneur is he always starts with a mission and then he figures out how to turn it into a great product and a great business so for example with spacex the mission was to get to mars to make life multi-planetary you would think that'd be a spectacularly unprofitable business but in the course of pursuing that mission he figured out the launch business and then the satellite business was starlink and i think starling is going to be a phenomenal business phenomenal and like and likewise with tesla he started with the mission of moving the world to sustainable energy yeah and in the process of doing that he created the world's best car not just the world's best electric car but i just think it's the best car in the world and tesla is this amazing business today it's so far ahead of every other car company so look i think what's cool about what elon is doing is he's starting with this mission of restoring twitter to being a free speech platform of being the town square it was always meant to be and in the process of doing that he's going to figure out how to make twitter into an even better product and into a great business which is not today i think twitter's losing you know a few hundred million dollars a quarter so there's work to do on all those fronts but um i think you know it's really impressive to see and you know he's still operating at the top of his game i mean 20 years after paypal some of us are just doing a podcast but he is uh he's still like some of us some of us are SPEAKER_158: exhausted i know i know we're tired but we're tired and he's like working 16 hour days he's been leveling SPEAKER_05: up for 20 years and at this point he's like a level 99 mage or something no he's like a crazy it's SPEAKER_110: that's amazing to to see freeberg the biggest issue i perceive in the short term for twitter is going to be what to do with people like trump and kanye west or yay and of course that's all going to seem like elon is making those decisions as an individual as opposed to for the platform etc should he let somebody like kanye west i'm sorry yay as it likes to call himself who is in the middle of an obvious manic episode back on the platform should he let trump back on the platform how do you think he should SPEAKER_163: handle those two polarizing individuals specifically look i mean i think this is what's going to be SPEAKER_72: really interesting to watch because there have been very successful very inspirational very intelligent SPEAKER_98: very creative entrepreneurs that have started and built generally kind of open platforms at the beginning only to over time be challenged with the content that doesn't feel appropriate and then they come back and they make the necessary kind of moderation guidelines and they make the necessary edits to the way the platform operates this is how google operated originally you know and then they ended up saying you know what if we're going to be in china we do have to create a censored version of the internet and they did that and that was controversial with youtube they've got a lot of censoring and it was supposed to be just a generally open platform for anyone to use and they were even larry and sergey were kind of flouting dmca at the beginning and they were like it's not our job to monitor copyright you have to file a takedown notice and they kind of waved their hands in the air over time they realized that that could actually damage and completely ruin the platform and they had to go in and create guidelines and moderation systems and um the same was true of ev and jack at twitter uh the same was true of the founders at reddit and i don't know if you guys you know remember that period of time when ellen pow was ceo of reddit and she went in and cleaned up a lot of the bullying and harassment and nastiness that was going on on reddit and she got a lot of controversy for SPEAKER_168: why are you closing it down why are you censoring it elon is a reasonable person and he's going to be faced with unreasonable people on this platform and when that happens he's going to have very tough decisions to make about what kind of platform he wants to have what's the quality of that platform going to need to look like and then all of a sudden he's going to have to look in the mirror and say did i step on the wrong side and you know he's he's idealistic and it's great and it's wonderful and i hope that he's successful but to some degree some amount of moderation is going to be necessary to SPEAKER_170: create a high quality product would you allow would you if you were in charge yourself freeberg would SPEAKER_110: you put trump back on the platform and under what circumstances and would you allow something like kanye west back on the platform at some point obviously yeah you personally yeah i think SPEAKER_168: that's from you personally on those two yeah look my content moderation guidelines i you know it's it gets very nuanced very quick what do you allow people to say what are you not allowing them to say and then if they violate them is there the opportunity for a lifetime ban SPEAKER_98: i don't think so i don't think anyone should have a lifetime ban on these platforms so SPEAKER_179: i'm totally how would you do that for kanye west who has been saying crazy anti-semitic stuff which SPEAKER_110: has real world danger that's already started to spill over where people are putting up banners like kanye's write about the jews and they're putting up banners like over the you know 10 freeway SPEAKER_179: as you may have seen in los angeles how would you deal with kanye specifically in a manic SPEAKER_72: anti-semitic episode that he's been look i think i think the question is anyone that's saying anything racist or what you know whatever might be deemed kind of uh to fall in that category there's a SPEAKER_98: tagging mechanism you have to figure out how to create the tagging mechanism based on that tagging mechanism the default is it's like when you go to google and you search for stuff they exclude porn so all porn content that's indexed on google's uh index servers um is uh indexes porn and it's default off there's a safe search thing you got to turn um i think off or something to access stuff that google deems inappropriate sorry how do you how do you how do you do that SPEAKER_168: no but i think and by the way i'll tell you when i worked at google we used to have pizza weekends where you would go into the office on the weekends they give you free pizza and everyone would tag you know you'd watch porn and you would tag porn and so you basically go through the indexing servers they show you images and google images and you click porn or not porn and it was just like hey come and volunteer come and help us do it and there was all these engineers sitting in the freaking cafeteria tagging porn but actually you know that happened to sacks SPEAKER_186: and he saw tucker cawson and he said yeah that's porn that's right i think that's my personal for SPEAKER_168: yes so i think i think the same mechanism is needed on these social networks which is that you have to figure out well you have to figure out a way to use ai to tag content and then think about them as cable just let me finish for one second you think about them as cable cable stations on a cable company so they're the cable company and there's different stations and you as a user decide what do you not want to opt into and what do you want to opt into what content do you want to exclude from your version and your experience of twitter and if you're okay with the stuff kanye says you're okay with the stuff trump says you can keep that stuff in if you want to exclude that type of content it's it's excluded for you and i think that's what twitter ultimately has to become what do you SPEAKER_191: think chamath would you put trump back on the platform and seeing you know kanye west having this manic episode and saying you know basically participating in hate speech explicitly how SPEAKER_163: how would you handle those two specific instances in 2022 going into 2023 i think that there has to be SPEAKER_36: a way where nobody is banned forever okay i think that when somebody is banned temporarily they can be banned for any reason that violates a term of service that's well understood and uniformly enforced SPEAKER_95: got it and i think that's the right of a private company but there has to be a way to get back on in the case of both of these folks there should be a way to basically you know have because of the the step uh the the quantity of their reach some sort of almost like tribunal or you know mediator that can understand what's going on SPEAKER_36: because if somebody's going through a manic episode it's absolutely right to turn that off i mean these guys should have turned him off much much sooner because when you're in the middle of a mania and i and i said this last week like you know like for example like this this relative of mine when they're in a manic episode it's 60 70 80 emails a day and text messages 100 texts that i get SPEAKER_199: and they're honestly they're vile yeah okay and they don't even remember them half the time and SPEAKER_36: they don't even know and and you know they go through paranoia they go through mania they go through these periods where they think they're completely right they go through these periods where they look completely sane and normal so yeah so the most important thing when you have a family member in mental health crisis is to get the phone away from them that is a weapon that only continues the loop and to re-regulate this person and then there should be a way to prove that you're back in a re-regulated state to get these tools back but i think that that needs to we just need to acknowledge that there's just a lot of people with mental health issues there's a lot of social media there's a lot of damage that can be done it's not to forgive these people but it's to explain that in moments you've got to shut these channels down and then give them a way to come back when they've re-regulated SPEAKER_202: sacks how do you think about it well with regard to trump i don't know what the continuing reason is SPEAKER_05: for him not being allowed on the platform remember that when he was banned it was considered to be a temporary measure because he was supposedly inciting a riot right so i think incitement to violence is legitimate grounds for taking down speech but once that breach of the peace is over i don't know why it would become a permanent ban as opposed to a timeout so i don't even know how the companies continue to justify the ban on trump except for the fact that they just think that he's a threat to democracy well i don't think that's for social networks to determine is that who gets to participate in our political process so it's not necessarily the first thing i would do but do i think that trump should be allowed back yeah i do with regard to kanye it's a little more complicated because like you're saying it's hard to know whether he's having a manic episode or he's just you know being kanye what he's saying right now is probably not in his own interest and probably it would be in his best interest to have a timeout but what i would look for guidance here is there is a supreme court decision and my general view on on the content moderation is that these social networking companies should be looking to for inspiration to supreme court decisions because supreme court's been wrestling for these with these issues for hundreds of years whereas social networks are just making it up as they go along and there are nine major categories of speech that the supreme court has said are not protected because they actually are dangerous speech so for example in this decision called chaplinsky versus new hampshire which came out in 1942 the supreme court held that so-called fighting words were not protected and they defined fighting words as speech that tends to incite an immediate breach of the peace through the use of quote personally abusive language that when addressed the ordinary citizen is as a matter of common knowledge inherently likely to provoke a violent reaction so you know i would use that type of decision by the supreme court as inspiration to say that racist misogynistic homophobic and other racial racial and ethnic slurs yeah shouldn't be allowed on these networks because it doesn't do anything to enhance the public debate now there is a question like could kanye SPEAKER_206: frame his arguments in a way that is still incredibly offensive to us but doesn't use slurs yeah for SPEAKER_136: example he could say hey here are the top 10 media companies here are the executives here's the percentage that are SPEAKER_01: jewish and this is you know my concern is that this is a and here's the percentage of people who are jewish SPEAKER_51: in the population you could some bullshit like that and then you're like okay did he say something anti-semitic right you know and you're kind of in this bubble area and there's always going to be edge SPEAKER_05: cases and people are always going to be pushing the envelope and so listen just because we find it offensive and you know it's specifically offensive to me uh that doesn't mean that it should automatically be banned so i think slurs slurs banned are out but but arguments i don't know that we should be banning entire categories of arguments and and look part of the problem here is that lots of people are hearing the arguments that yay is making whether he's making them on twitter or not and because he's there's a total ban people can't really engage with him on twitter and so he's not getting off ramped from this rabbit hole he's falling into and nobody else who might be a fan of his is hearing the other side of the argument so i don't know that it's ultimately in the long-term interest of the town SPEAKER_110: square to be banning you know the argument the you know aclu and other people have is like hey you put a little sunlight on these bad opinions at least everybody knows who has the bad opinions and you can fight them paradoxically while we're talking i mean do you really want these folks going to the SPEAKER_05: dark web and you know being untraceable there is some value in kind of knowing who's getting radicalized and hopefully exposing them to other opinions in the same conversation that can off-ramp SPEAKER_163: them yeah i mean paradoxically while we're talking uh elon just tweeted at 11 18 am twitter SPEAKER_110: will be forming a content moderation council with widely diverse viewpoints no matter no major content SPEAKER_01: decisions or account reinstatements will happen before that council convenes so he's going to take the same approach that facebook has they have a council as well that zuckerberg tried to set up so i think he realizes this should be a thoughtful uh discussion sex are you going to be on that council SPEAKER_110: i have no idea that sounds like a uh the worst purgatory you could ever be in is to be the person who has to make these decisions like talk about a no-win situation i'm curious chamath we talked last SPEAKER_01: week about kanye and then lex friedman dropped his episode lex came at it with uh he pushed back on kanye i don't know if you watched some of the highlights i saw some of the highs he pushed back pretty hard i watched the whole thing okay so he pushed back really hard on the anti-semitic stuff and we had a discussion last week i said hey you can't platform this guy but it looks like lex had a specific point of view which is he has a friendship with kanye of some level and he wanted to try to convince him in this manicness that he's wrong about things did do you think lex succeeded and he should have done it i obviously we won't question lex's intent we know it's good i i have had SPEAKER_95: replaced lex with me and kanye with my relative wasn't on television or whatever but i've had SPEAKER_36: these same kinds of i'll call them interventions and like i said this person goes through periods of lucidity periods of mania periods of paranoia periods of anger and so that's all i saw when i was watching this thing is just what a lot of people in the united states deal in the world deal with when they have relatives who are suffering from one of these things and you know my relative has said the same SPEAKER_104: thing there's nothing wrong with me you know i don't need medication i'm not on these meds blah blah blah and i don't want to judge because i don't know him but i'll tell you in my situation trying to like you know for example like this person thinks that you know myself and one other person like we hacked into a computer system of the place that they worked to manipulate the financial records to point to this person as having committed a fraud and has and then thinks that people are now listening and SPEAKER_36: bugging the phone i mean there's all kinds of stuff over and over again and then sometimes they don't think that and sometimes they do and it's like it's mad so what i'm trying to tell you is like when you're not when you're in a normal state a regulated state and you're talking to somebody who's dysregulated it's not two normal people having a conversation where you're trying to get them to see the logic of your ways so again i just think that it's not it's not a thing that should be litigated in the media i think it is a thing that is where people that care for this person need to surround them and get them with a doctor to help them rebalance in in in the in the case of our family what it turns out is that this person needs to constantly be retitrated the drugs for them to be regulated that may be different for other people and i don't know kanye's situation so anyways i see i see all that and i and i and i and i go to my own family situation which i'm which we actively deal with today and i don't have much of an idea of what to do about kanye because it brings up too much stuff about what i'm dealing with in the real time with my own family i'm sorry you're going through that SPEAKER_230: and i uh yeah like i said i mean i think lex had good intent i don't think it's worth doing no he's SPEAKER_233: somebody he's incredible you know he's a really beautiful empathetic person lex is in general SPEAKER_05: yeah so i think he tried to do the best job he could so i saw i saw part of the the lex interview it was two and a half hours and i wasn't going to sit through two and a half hours of it you know that's i went to i went to the chapter titles and i was in the middle it was like holocaust SPEAKER_44: i'm like right and i was like okay let's just go right to the train wreck SPEAKER_05: yeah so i skipped into there but anyway i think the argument that that lex should have made or pointed out to kanye is like go see the the new elvis movie which is all about how an artist basically got taken advantage of by his business manager and you'll see that this idea is a very familiar trope in the music business but that manager uh colonel tom parker he wasn't jewish he was a dutch con man pretending to be a southern hick so this can happen and it's a very common story and it's got nothing to do with the uh religion or race or whatever of the the business people so and in fact the person in that movie who has the best advice for elvis is bb king who says to elvis at a very early point in the movie he says if you don't do the business the business will do you and so look i think kanye if again if i was to sort of steel man and respond to it is listen you know what you're describing is a pretty common of artists being taken advantage of is is a common issue it goes back a long time and it's got nothing to do with religion and quite frankly you know there's probably a lot of other jews in your life who've helped you i mean i wonder the last time you went to a doctor did you notice whether they were jewish or not you know and so he's developed a little bit of a fixation here of noticing that some people are jewish but probably he's not noticing when other people are jewish who've probably helped him yeah so that's probably like the argument i would have made with him you know if i were conducting that interview and you SPEAKER_43: make the argument to a person who's in a manic episode and they just there's no way to reach and they don't even realize what they're saying they forget what they say when they get through SPEAKER_244: the manic episode these parent these paranoias don't tend to come up when you're in a regulated normal SPEAKER_110: state exactly all right let's talk about uh meta brad gerson was on last week we've had an ongoing discussion about big tech entitlement spending the number of employees at these companies on monday brad i i think you know got a little worked up on the last pod maybe and dropped an open letter some might say activist uh he would say constructivist to zuckerberg and the team over there hey maybe pump the brakes on the capex maybe do a riff maybe become profitable anyway the uh revenue and the third quarter was a complete utter disaster for meta and the stock has plummeted and been under a hundred dollars a share i don't know who wants to SPEAKER_35: start on this one but okay look there's a lot to unpack here so i think i think we should take our SPEAKER_104: time because i think one part of it is meta okay but one part of it is actually about what we talked about a few episodes ago which is like this big tech put right where they define SPEAKER_36: the rules of the game on the field for every other startup and i think the third part is just about like the era of big tech being over and what it means for the stock market if if i think if you SPEAKER_104: section it out in those three ways jason we can have a pretty rich convo i'd love to SPEAKER_36: tease some where do you want to start okay so let's let's start with meta so nick can you please throw up apple versus meta for a second and let me just give you guys the the talk track and then maybe we can go from there so when you look at apple versus meta there's this really interesting thing SPEAKER_104: that comes up which is in 2016 you know and we've said this before you could not give apple stock away they were generating a ton of cash it was sitting on the balance sheet in many ways facebook was doing SPEAKER_36: the same thing and there was this famous dinner i don't know if it was a dinner that ever happened SPEAKER_104: but that's how the the lore is told between tim cook carl icon and i think luca maestri the cfo and in it what carl icon said is listen i have a below the line suggestion for apple and what does that mean if you look at a p l you have your revenues that's above the line you have costs that's also above the line and then you have your profits and then it's what you do with the profits so what he was suggesting is below the line after the fact he had no suggestions for how the business should be run he just said give us back the money and we will reward you the stock price will go up and what's interesting to note here is the black line is the performance of apple stock as as they've given back and they've used a ton of their own balance sheet cash to buy back the stock okay so they've spent SPEAKER_36: 396 billion dollars since 2016 to buy back stock in the same time facebook has spent almost 100 billion SPEAKER_104: now here is here's where you start to see the divergence so you would have said well shouldn't SPEAKER_36: facebook's stock have reacted in the same way and for a very long time it actually looked like it was right until about september 21 and then obviously this thing fell off a cliff and the reason why it started to fall off a cliff was somebody started to notice that hold on a second even though you're buying back all these shares the bottom of the funnel right you're leaking all of these shares to all of these new employees why are you hiring so many people and this is when people started to uncover what was happening above the line at facebook and is what caused this massive dispersion so nick if you go to the first chart so what has actually been going on above the line here's what's going on if you look at the light purple bar facebook in the last two years have spent 25 billion dollars on reality dabs and they said that they're going to spend you know meaningfully more in 2023 and then sustain that investment for a while so if you do a little bit of math if they spent you know they spend around 4 billion a quarter right now so 16 billion a year that'll go to 25 billion in 2023 and then they'll sustain that what that means is that over this you know 12 or 13 year life of reality labs as we've seen it these guys will have spent a quarter of a trillion dollars and what i did here was i just wanted to understand hilarious i wanted to understand a quarter of a trillion dollars in the context of other major leaps in humanity so at the left is what apple spent in its entirety by the way these are all inflation adjusted dollars for today apple spent 3.6 billion dollars to create the first iphone and what they did was they said every subsequent version of the iphone would only be funded from the cash flow and profits of the generation before it right so they used consumer demand as their guiding principle so it was a very incremental approach iphone 1 iphone 2 and now we're at iphone you know 14 or whatever 13 but the point is it took 3.6 billion to get that juggernaut off the ground um the manhattan project will cost 23 billion in today's dollars to create the atomic bomb tesla in its entire life spent 25 billion to get free cash flow profitability and they SPEAKER_104: took this incremental approach as well we'll create the you know the the coop uh the roadster then the model s then the model x they iterated their way they used customer demand and all of that revenue to fund future growth the cum spend on tesla was 25 billion boeing spent 32 google and other bets has spent 40. the only thing that i could find in history that is comparable to what meta has SPEAKER_36: basically said they're going to spend is the entire apollo program which cost in today's dollars a quarter of a trillion as well so the problem is that below the line meta was doing the right things above the line they've created i think an enormous set of pressures for themselves which is you know if you think SPEAKER_104: about the apollo program this was 13 years of building rockets getting to low earth orbit then SPEAKER_36: getting to be able to you know orbit the earth then eventually building an entire infrastructure and capability to land on the moon and get back so there was a lot of incremental progress there i think what people don't understand is where is this quarter of a trillion dollars going and is it going to be a leap in humanity at the scale of the apollo program because it now is becoming the single largest capital allocation program in capitalism history nothing comes close so i think that that is a really interesting maybe jumping off point to talk about what's going on inside of this business it's i think they're doing all the right things below the line but there's this one major big red flag above the line that has to be probably better explained by them if they want to have long-term SPEAKER_95: shareholders and basically what happened was when people heard this they said this is a dumpster fire SPEAKER_38: we're out of here sacks what do you ask a question what happened with the whole uh brad gerstner's uh proposal was that actually discussed on the call on the earnings call they you know they ignored SPEAKER_36: well i i don't want to say it was totally ignored because i i do think that they should be given credit for a couple of things i think that the core business continues to march forward and they basically said look we're gonna slow headcount growth some teams will shrink i think the problem is really in this reality labs the amount of investment that they're making is so outsized and so abnormal and doesn't compare to anything anybody's ever seen i think everything else in the business seems to be actually quite functional so the problem is that this above the line thing though has become so big it could sink the business you know it's very very hard to see an investment case for a quarter of a trillion dollars of money in the door before you really start to see something magical now they may have something super magical that nobody knows about that they're going to unveil and say ha see told you and maybe there should be a set of outcomes where we plan for that but the reality is it's you know 25 billion dollars a year for the next umpteen years and it's it's and i think people 10 billion where did the 25 billion come from no this number it's 4 billion a quarter right now so 16 billion a year and they said that they're going to significantly increase it to 2023 so i just assumed it was a 50 increase maybe significant means 100 but 16 goes to 25 and they said they're going to keep going at that pace and so if you run that out till 2030 that's how you get to 250 billion SPEAKER_259: you think there's a business here in vr ar sax you think this will be the next platform i guess SPEAKER_96: that's a a key question to ask here yeah i mean i i like i actually like these oculus products i think SPEAKER_05: it's a very cool product the question is really just about the magnitude of the investment level but i think there is a future in vr and ar and it is a you've you've tried the oculus headset before SPEAKER_260: it is like a very magical you know experience with software one of the most magical that i've had the question is just we're talking about magnitude and time frame and use case i think also comes to mind SPEAKER_01: for me sax like uh i everybody seems to you know try and then say oh my and then say goodbye to these headsets like people buy them they try them and they're like this is incredible but there's no use case for them i see very few people just use them on a regular basis we just invested in a company that SPEAKER_05: is creating professional flight simulators using vr as a component and education yeah i think training is actually a huge use case huge huge and by the way these are not like video game flight simulator programs these are actual they create physical cockpits with knobs and dials and stuff it's just that the pilot is using a professional grade vr headset and so they're able to load you know a lot more training programs and scenarios and they're able to train on more planes they can like change up the SPEAKER_260: cockpit by the way the the cockpit's on gyros so it actually moves around let me put a decent in a SPEAKER_233: different way i think that we should assume that vr and ar is going to be a really important part of our SPEAKER_36: existence and i do think that as david said many of these experiences are magical i think what investors reacted to was spending 25 billion dollars a year needs to be measurable somehow and i think what they said is the things that we're seeing don't necessarily tell us that this bet is going to make any sense at that level of spend so if you were spending two billion a year or three billion a year i don't think people would have said anything um it's just the magnitude relative to the progress that's being demonstrated publicly and and that's the thing that i think the tesla program got right the apple phone program got right the boeing program even the apollo 13 program for that quantum of spend so it's not to say that you can't spend a quarter trillion dollars over the next decade but SPEAKER_89: you got to eat what you kill you have to be able to show progress in a way that says oh this this SPEAKER_168: investment is tracking freeberg i think the biggest issue he's having is he's trying to build a moonshot that you'll only get to see when i'm done it's like hey i'm behind the curtain over here i'm willie wonka i'm gonna come out with the most amazing chocolate bar in 10 years and after i spend 100 billion dollars but don't worry it's gonna be awesome trust me shareholders it's gonna be amazing and with SPEAKER_271: consumer products in particular not guys you keep saying 100 it's 250. yeah whatever it ends up SPEAKER_72: being in general i think consumer products you want to see them in the market and you want to SPEAKER_168: iterate to success tell me one consumer product that launched and didn't iterate after launch and SPEAKER_98: didn't kind of evolve over time in a way that responded to what the market was telling the SPEAKER_36: builder or that product but freeberg in fairness to them they're doing that too it's just i think what people can't square is we see the next gen oculuses and then we see the spend and we think that they're upside down relative to what we're seeing in terms of progress i think that's what people are reacting SPEAKER_34: if he was spending five billion a year this wouldn't be an issue chamath right a nothing burger a nothing burger people would say good idea throw a long ball i think that there's two kind of ways SPEAKER_168: to think about the distinct things that they're building one is this hardware platform with oculus and a better kind of experience for immersive experiences whether that's vr or ar the second is what's all the software layer look like and what goes on in that platform that's where this thing seems to be pretty short and where people seem to have a lack of confidence and conviction the hardware seems super interesting but i gotta tell you epic games just raised money earlier this year at a 31 billion valuation if zuck was a smart guy he would go to tencent and cut him a check and buy the whole thing for 50 billion and you know buy those guys because that's a platform that SPEAKER_98: has a couple hundred million active users is making money has a really deep immersive but SPEAKER_168: two-dimensional experience it's not three it's not on vr right and on top of fortnite and on top of their um their engine that they've built um there are just countless experiences and worlds and interactions and models that exist today that are already active that are being iterated that have been evolving for years and if you look at where fortnite and some of the tools and experiences that have been built into fortnite over the past couple of years sit relative to when fortnite was first launched i don't think that tim sweeney and that team would have ever said hey this is where we're going to be in a couple of years this is what we're going to be doing it was part of an evolutionary experience of building a great platform and having an engaged user base and unfortunately there doesn't seem to be a great engaged user base in the software layer of what he's built here today making it very difficult to track a path to get consumer feedback and to identify where that goes over time the hardware experience totally understand that that takes time to build something incredible also should be in the market and getting iterative feedback but really that that software SPEAKER_36: piece is what would feel short to your point i think that that's another great example of a below the line decision that they could have made with all of this money you know if you compare what SPEAKER_104: brad asked facebook to do on monday versus what icon asked apple to do in 2016 you know icon basically said just make this below the line change and everybody will be happy it's a do no harm solution none of us are getting in the way we're not telling you how to run the business the thing that i think SPEAKER_36: that you know what facebook had to react to was brad's suggestions were fundamentally above the line it's like you know firing 20 of the people or 30 or changing the capital allocation would require some changes to strategy and i think this is a a good moment to recognize that as as much clarity as brad's letter had and as much sense as it probably makes to outsiders looking in the minute you have to tell companies how to change above the line it's just a good reminder to me that no it's not going to happen because these folks will not want to make those changes they don't you're saying zuck SPEAKER_37: won't make the changes i think it's natural human psychology i think you want to make those changes yourself you don't want to be told what to do got it sacks what do you think this is going to do to SPEAKER_110: governance in silicon valley writ large probably nothing really so it's not going to change well SPEAKER_05: it is it is interesting if you look at um elon's twitter deal there is no dual class everybody has this is one class of security this is one type of stock so it's simple majority voting elon actually had the choice of doing dual class and he decided not to so that's pretty interesting so if people SPEAKER_287: want to follow elon's example then they would you know not not necessarily go for that doesn't have SPEAKER_85: super shares either and you said it many times if you want to vote me out you can vote me out right you don't think i'm doing a good job so he's basically spacex either SPEAKER_292: yeah he's putting his neck on the line right i don't know i has a spacex shoulder i have no idea i don't know spacex class structure yeah i can't remember spacex isn't public yet so maybe it doesn't SPEAKER_44: matter like they haven't reached that decision point yeah yeah yeah yeah i will tell you i just SPEAKER_110: i think starlink has such a huge opportunity i just got starlink for two locations as a backup because SPEAKER_01: you know you lose your internet a couple times a year and you can get these routers now that'll fail over so since i'm doing business like i can't really lose the internet so for a thousand bucks a year i can have starlink as a backup and i started using it and the speed is getting pretty compelling already uh like zoom calls you can't tell the difference right now most of the time and certainly for web browsing or watching a movie you know it just works so i i could see many companies SPEAKER_148: putting in starlink even if they have a fiber line or whatever just as a backup that business alone SPEAKER_05: could be ginormous just to provide both sides of the story here i mean the reason why dual class emerged and was seen as viable is that if you look at the historic performance of internet companies the ones that have done the best perform the best are the ones where the founder stays involved for a long time and the ones where the founder checked out like after a few years and hired a professional ceo those are the ones that went off the rails it happened again and again so there there is an argument for dual class in the sense that you keep the founder involved and you avoid a power struggle SPEAKER_102: that's not what happened well but that was why it was considered acceptable well i think it was SPEAKER_36: considered acceptable because in the google bake-off all these banks were clamoring so hard and you know there were two vectors of iteration one vector was on the way that you know google wanted to do this uh ipo process they picked credit suites they did this dutch auction the other one was the bankers basically pitched them on a dual class voting control structure and morgan stanley morgan stanley and once google got that everybody else was able to copy because all the bankers realized that if you want to win a bake-off you're not trying to win over the cfo you're actually trying to win over the ceo and giving that person control turned out to be an incredible commitment uh and a way to win the deal and so i actually think it was never a governance issue or a reflection of how value was created it was just basically a feature that you that one banker used in an ipo bake-off to try to differentiate versus another this is why you know like i said like elon has never cared about that stuff because it's like if i'm not doing well vote me out which is so clarifying because he realizes that that's actually the best check on him making bad decisions you know and i think part of it is why he's done so well you know one class of stock he was able to negotiate an incredible compensation package and it's he's he has clarity on the few things of the business that matter but i think he's also more compelling than SPEAKER_168: some of these other guys and there may be some degree of feeling like this is a mechanism that other people need that elon has a degree of confidence and a degree of charisma and salesmanship SPEAKER_98: that gets him what he wants i just want to read you guys the excerpt from larry and sergey's founder's letter from the ipo in 2004 as a private company we've concentrated on the long term and this has served us well as a public company we will do the same in our opinion outside pressures too often tempt companies to sacrifice long-term opportunities to meet quarterly market expectations sometimes this has caused opportunities to manipulate financial results in order to make their quarter and they go on and on and on and they say look you might ask us how long is long term usually we expect them in a couple of years and they go on many companies are under pressure to keep their earnings in line with analyst forecasts therefore they often accept smaller predictable earnings rather than larger and less predictable returns sergey and i feel this is harmful and we intend to steer in the opposite direction i think that the statement that they made really resonated in silicon valley at the time particularly SPEAKER_168: during this era of what people were calling web 2 and the internet was being rebuilt and all these businesses were starting to thrive and it was like we have this massive road ahead of us this long road ahead of us and we can really change the world but in order to do it well in order to do it effectively we have to as entrepreneurs as engineers be able to have the freedom to operate for the long term i don't think it had anything to get stuck in the short term but i think that that you had nothing Chamath Palihapitiya: to do with anything that there was no pressure on them it's not like they shied away it's not like that SPEAKER_271: super voting control allowed them to make one seminal decision there were quarters chamath where google SPEAKER_168: was getting a lot of heat for the amount of money they were spending on capex because they were building their own data centers they were building their own servers they were building their own um eventually d-ram they started to build their own switches every element of how google built a competitive advantage over time was difficult for analysts to understand you're not saying that you're not Chamath Palihapitiya: saying the obvious thing the reason why they were allowed to do it in the end was because more SPEAKER_36: and more users use their product because it was better and better and they consistently meet SPEAKER_37: and beat every expectation they literally didn't need to use this option this was not they didn't need to call this option this is not a company that went back and forth between meeting SPEAKER_89: and missing expectations okay they were up into the right they were they were up into the right is SPEAKER_168: correct that is the general principle but the time to return the roic the time frame to hit their roic targets was long and it was hard for people to get that when they not true that is not youtube they bought youtube and they spent tens of billions of dollars investing in youtube before it SPEAKER_89: generated cash i get it i think that that would yeah but you're not math you're not what you're Chamath Palihapitiya: saying is not true it is not mathematically true what you're saying there was no 13-year roic play SPEAKER_168: that they executed on not true and you can just i disagree they put their own they put their own fiber optic lines across the oceans the capex i understand scrutinized and not well understood i get it you can read but you can read the analyst reports and see how difficult this was all i'm asking for you to do is look at they had voting shares is what gave them the ability to do this SPEAKER_36: bullshit i think that if you look at their performance their ebitda margins and their roic was exceptional when they were making those investments in fact i would say the opposite i would say that they were surprised by high how by how high quality their business model was they were generating so much cash what they were probably thinking back in the day was oh my gosh we need to make sure that we are actually making long-term investments and now we have the ability to do it because we have all this cash we didn't expect and we should probably bleed off cash so that we don't show 50 gross margins to raise all of the attention of regulators and everybody else and so what do you think zuck is doing what's different today i think that they have an incredible core SPEAKER_168: business because he's got good business good ebitda margins good revenue growth what's different they SPEAKER_36: have an incredible core business and they have decided for whatever reason to make an enormous bet and that bet could be a very good bet but the way that you make a bet and you've said this well is you have to look at incremental progress and you have to demonstrate that all of these bets make sense because the problem is when you get compared to the tesla program look tesla is reinventing an entire category trillions of dollars of energy generation and transportation but they did it on in one year of meta reality lab spend apple reinvented an entire compute platform on one quarter of meta's reality lab spend that's not a judgment that's just a numerical observation so if you want to get Chamath Palihapitiya: people on your side you just have to be able to double click into that in an elegant articulate way and say here are all of these things that justify 25 billion dollars a year hey guys let me show SPEAKER_37: you a chart here's a chart of alphabets capital expenditures by quarter and here is their revenue SPEAKER_230: the blue line at seven billion dollars right now this is my point yeah they struggled this SPEAKER_269: great business they struggled to find ways to spend money exactly i mean literally they SPEAKER_324: they created project loon they were going to do balloons guys they wanted to build fiber they SPEAKER_328: wanted to build they wanted to build they wanted to build at one point a ladder to the moon a ladder SPEAKER_332: they thought they could go from ted it was an elevator but yeah yeah whatever an elevator is in that seven point to climb there right the elevator was in the purple line yeah and somewhere in there SPEAKER_298: they spent a billion or whatever on maps and it ended up being a phenomenal asset when the whole SPEAKER_336: world moved to mobile i think we're not saying the obvious thing we spent a lot less than we're not SPEAKER_36: we're not saying the obvious thing which is great leaps of progress and humanity are not correlated to dollars all the time in fact most examples are the exact opposite which is it's more about small and extremely nimble and talented management teams that generate human progress and again if you go back to that first chart of apple versus meta you know the fact that you've hired so many people to work on a category with so much money it just violates a lot of pattern recognition that people have historically seen so all i'm saying is maybe this is a great bet they just need to do a better job of explaining this SPEAKER_163: would have been so much easier if he had just put cheryl sandberg sorry just i'm saying this could be SPEAKER_191: this could have been such a better transition he should have put cheryl sandberg as ceo SPEAKER_01: of the facebook corporation he should have became ceo of meta and then he should have ran that other business to print even more profits and then if you look at some of their forays into building a super app they added facebook marketplace to facebook and it was a huge hit they started to pull the e-commerce string over at instagram it started to work there's just no focus on those products if you look at the facebook collection of billions of users what apps could you add to that you know whether it's payments they did the whole crypto thing they gave up on that it seems like there's no leadership on the facebook side that actually wants to take swings over there they just are SPEAKER_127: obsessed with this one thing it makes no sense to me i i think that there's probably part of it which is SPEAKER_36: that you know when you're working on a thing for a long time there's a certain personality type that loves the mastery that comes from working on the thing for a long long time yep and then there's a different personality type that likes more shiny new things yeah and you kind of have to have a balance of all of those different people um and so maybe what we're seeing as well is that you know you're right maybe the boring business was just labeled too boring internally and there wasn't enough heat around wanting to work on it forever nobody wanted to keep grinding so you wanted to throw these big hill mary's all i'm saying is you just need to explain the hill mary all right let's SPEAKER_98: let's let's by the way let me just ping you on this so the um meta spend in the quarter relative to their revenue it's about 15 or the the virtual reality stuff it's about 15 billion 15 does that sound right i don't know but they said it was 4 billion this quarter yeah so 4 billion out of 27 of revenue so it's about 15 and alphabet's last quarter revenue was 70 billion and they spent about a SPEAKER_344: billion billion let me show you this i actually actually have this chart handy because i was talking SPEAKER_168: about it on which is 1.4 so on a relative basis alphabet is spending one tenth of what meta is per dollar earned or top line revenue earned um on their other bets category so chamath do you think it's SPEAKER_98: a relative spend problem that because they're spending 10 times as much as a percent of revenue that it's causing so much heartache even if it is directionally correct if you want to see the capex versus revenue SPEAKER_01: here's that uh on the screen right now yeah no we know we know we know what we haven't shown this SPEAKER_110: is google and meta on the same chart the blue line on the red on the bottom nine billion in capex SPEAKER_351: for facebook 7 billion for google is this your new like charting tool that you guys have built yeah SPEAKER_352: no no we just i've been doing it on this week in startups all the time yeah it's what do you use what is SPEAKER_355: this yeah actually beep it out because i don't want to give them a free sponsor yeah i uh i'm not giving a free promo oh they didn't let you invest whatever i mean they're they wanted to sponsor man SPEAKER_04: the truth comes out they didn't let him invest no no they've been around forever they've been around SPEAKER_63: forever okay it's a good product i've used it just a beep it's a good product listen if we're going to SPEAKER_360: promo something it's gonna be call in or nick can you throw up the histogram super gut super gut SPEAKER_127: this is super gut charts so look this is the new charting feature on colin i think the problem is look here's the problem let's just say that you're an analyst that works at a large hedge fund or a SPEAKER_36: mutual fund and you woke up on wednesday and you you know had a decent day and then you went into the earnings call believing that you know there's a this is there's a value play here and there's a lot SPEAKER_104: of upside which i think there is actually you know this company can throw off an enormous amount of cash but then what you hear is okay we're spending four billion a quarter that's going to go up materially and then we're going to keep 23 spending levels roughly the same in the to the future so SPEAKER_36: then you have to go back and build a model you're going to be hard pressed to not get to this number maybe you don't get to 250 maybe you get to 200 my point is all of a sudden you have to go back into SPEAKER_104: your you know portfolio manager and say uh you know they're going to spend all of this you know after tax cash flow on this stuff or sorry not after tax cash flow but you know below the you know above the line spending on this stuff which won't come back to us as shareholders and we're going to dilute the stock two or three percent a year so that's another 20 dilution and it just becomes what SPEAKER_36: i again i've said this before it you move the stock into what's called the too hard bucket you know from the it's obvious to wow that's really tough and i'll just take a wait and see approach you know i think yesterday there was a quarter of a i think a quarter billion shares SPEAKER_127: that traded hands uh of facebook just a ginormous number and so you know i think you think that's SPEAKER_34: tax loss harvesting too at the end of the year maybe some people want to take the loss so there's tax loss harvesting for individuals by the way there was a couple comments which we should talk SPEAKER_104: about and explain what tax loss harvesting is but a bunch of these mutual funds year ends are actually october 31st so to your point jason you know the stock basically gets decimated 20 you know 25 in a day the t rows and the fidelities are like all right book the tax loss and be done we'll we look at it next year quote unquote next year so you know if you put on the spread trade so we talked about the spread trade there was a big hedge fund manager that you know november 6 right when SPEAKER_36: we were basically calling the top of the market and told people to sell one of the trades that he put on nick if you want to just throw it up was this long google short meta spread trade he called SPEAKER_104: to tell me that you know he closed it out yesterday this is how that trade did so yeah there was just a lot of folks that just kind of like went to the exits and said you know what we're kind of done for SPEAKER_36: the short term i just think that it's it's a it's a moment in time where those folks have to realize that they just have to explain a little bit better how they want to spend the money and show a little bit more incremental progress that justifies that level of spend otherwise people will be a little skeptical they'll build their own histogram and it'll violate too many rules and so SPEAKER_126: it goes into the too hard bucket okay we got macro we got ukraine and i think i think that you should Chamath Palihapitiya: talk about big tech because amazon puked as well jason the can you just throw up the big tech chart SPEAKER_36: because i think like you guys should see this because i think this is very important for silicon SPEAKER_191: valley amazon reported their q3 earnings yesterday thursday total revenue 127 billion of 15 year over year five percent quarter of a quarter net income was 2.9 billion and they're predicting uh they're they're giving slower guidance going forward i mean what's incredible on this chart is that SPEAKER_36: you know when when everybody talks about being long the s p 500 it was always really a proxy for being long amazon facebook google microsoft and apple and at the peak you know in may of this year it was still you know 25 cents of every single dollar of the s p 500 were these five companies and you know we always said the market bottom will be when the generals quote unquote get shot you know to borrow a phrase from gavin baker and it looks like the generals have been shot yeah and what's incredible is this week every single one of those companies other than apple really reported pretty crappy earnings they got totally taken to the woodshed the percentage of the of these companies as a percentage of the s p is now you know off by 500 basis points it's down to 20 yet the markets are ripping higher today so i think it's kind of what we talked about three weeks ago like the bottom is kind of in for the short term you know so it's really exciting actually to see i think this is the point where you have to now start to get pretty constructive about where things are going because if this stuff could not bring the market down it's hard to see something other than an exogenous event probably some russia ukraine David Friedberg: event really having a negative impact so to me i'm kind of like i don't know it seems like pretty SPEAKER_110: bullish for me also gdp was 2.6 so i mean the this this very weird conflicting data we had two negative SPEAKER_179: quarters of growth we're in a recession then we have a the third quarter is up 2.6 so okay but remember SPEAKER_298: jason i i said that we were gonna have a double dip that was i sure that was most likely SPEAKER_05: thing so we had this sort of mild technical recession based on nominal gdp growth not being bad but simply not quite keeping up with the inflation rate yeah now things are a little bit better but i still think the huge recession is to come next year because all the interest rate increases we've seen so the fed is you know pedal to the metal on interest rate increases just like they were pedal to the metal on printing money and so first they you know they were too loose and now they're probably being too tight too fast so i think we're headed for a huge recession next year and i think you're seeing that in in the softness of all these forecasts yeah look at that look at look at SPEAKER_102: the the mortgage uh rates right now something like 7.1 percent mortgage rates are crazy they they broke SPEAKER_360: the backs of the housing market the the inventory and prices inventory shot up prices have shot up new SPEAKER_191: mortgages have gone down and you know we we talked about job openings here's the the fred chart for job openings real quick you can see the the peak we were talking about we were wondering if that would come plummeting down well here it is folks yeah plummeting down from 11 million uh losing a million in a month yeah job openings coming smashing down there's the fed fund rate you know that's a pretty SPEAKER_110: high ramp so you think double dip recession what do you think freeberg chamath in terms of what 2023 looks like you're sort of saying chamath a bottom is forming i kind of agree with that SPEAKER_95: i think the stock market is going up then it'll go back down because i think what david said is right SPEAKER_338: but for the short term this thing is going up short term up and you know we've generally been SPEAKER_370: positioned for it to go up and uh and at some point we will reverse and position for it to go back down SPEAKER_126: but it's going up sax it seems like you took a week off from the all in podcast and people stopped SPEAKER_191: talking about ukraine uh you want to give us an update i mean obviously the war is not over but it does seem like it somehow has fallen out of the public's consciousness a bit i don't know if i go that far SPEAKER_05: there was um the big event in the ukraine war debate this week was that the house progressive caucus put out a letter signed by 30 progressive members to merely suggest that while we continue to fund ukraine on a virtually unlimited basis we also in parallel open up a diplomatic track with russia to mitigate against the threat of us being drawn into the war and specifically a nuclear war and just that very i'd say anodyne letter that very um tepid sentiment really they weren't questioning in any way the providing again of virtually unlimited support to ukraine that met was such a fierce reaction on social media and in the traditional media that i think all but one of the signatories recanted or walk back the letter and kudos to representative rokhana for not being one of the people who recanted he stood tall and gave an interview on cnn and msnbc saying why has diplomacy become a dirty word i voted for every single appropriation to give aid and weapons to ukraine i'll continue to do that but i don't see a problem with us maintaining diplomatic relations we might need those to avoid an unwanted escalation well and here we are kudos to him for standing tall but it's amazing to me that the SPEAKER_260: progressive caucus which used to be one of the groups in congress that questioned american involvement in foreign wars like the iraq war they basically they they have moved off that and they they threw in the towel so quickly on this it was really kind of pathetic to see i mean it really like this is back SPEAKER_108: to shakespeare like politics makes for strange bedfellows you find yourself aligned with the SPEAKER_110: most left part of the democratic party in trying to just say hey maybe we should negotiate peace a SPEAKER_05: little more further i want us to pursue the right foreign policy and i don't really care which party SPEAKER_110: has you said you would you would actually donate to anybody who is pushing for that so did you SPEAKER_208: actually make any i mean i i just happened but i i plan to donate to members of both party who push SPEAKER_05: for a correct foreign policy which i believe needs to be a little bit more restrained a little bit more questioning of what is in it for the united states and we need to be careful about overextending SPEAKER_260: ourselves and we need to ask what is in america's vital interest and listen you can support aoc be SPEAKER_396: coming to the uh where they will aoc be doing oh she she's pro she recanted so she's one of the SPEAKER_37: ones that recanted what do you think happens in a situation like that how do they get them to recant yeah like why what is the point of recanting something that was so benign it's not totally no SPEAKER_36: but what what do you think like what what's happening behind the scenes like why are people so afraid to say that you know you can be in support of ukraine but also still try to find a resume why was that SPEAKER_05: turned into such a scarlet letter it's a great point and i think it just shows the heat right now on the SPEAKER_35: issue here's what i think does it does it do that or does it just show the progressives as just kind SPEAKER_05: of clown tones i mean it's it's kind of sad i mean jaya paul who was sort of the leader who put SPEAKER_260: out the letter through her own staff under the bus and i guess there was this snafu where the members all signed this letter in july and then held it for a few months and then they put it out two weeks before the election i can see why that timing didn't make sense i don't know why like they released it now not two months ago not three weeks from now after the election i can understand all those political considerations but once you put the letter out to stand by it don't throw your own staff under the bus because like you're saying the letter was really a pretty anodyne statement of hey listen do you think we can just have diplomacy on a parallel track at the same time that we're arming ukraine i just don't see the downside but look here's why i think they took so much heat is there's a lot of people on this issue who start with the end result of what they want and the end result that they want is that putin and russia leave ukraine with their tail tucked between their legs and they basically don't get one square inch of ukraine they believe that is the only acceptable moral outcome here and they may be right about that but then what they're doing is they're kind of reverse engineering all the beliefs that they have based on that outcome that moral outcome they want to get to so for example for the longest time you heard things like putin is definitely bluffing about using nuclear weapons well how do they know that they don't know that they can't say that for sure but it's what they want to believe because if you believe that nuclear war is a possibility you might not go all the way for that maximalist position of the only acceptable outcome here is russia leaving with its tail tucked between its legs and hold on and and i think i think the same thing is happening here with diplomacy is people who want a certain result in the war are afraid that diplomacy might result in something less than that but that's not a reason not to engage in diplomacy and it's not a reason SPEAKER_400: to deny the potential of this war to spin out of control potentially into a nuclear war SPEAKER_95: sax sax is like a walking thesaurus so jacal for you i looked up anodyne and it means not likely to SPEAKER_36: provoke dissent or offense inoffensive often deliberately so yeah like uh it's like oh i know you SPEAKER_138: were looking you were looking at the screen like a confused little puppy when he said anodyne whatever SPEAKER_406: i mean listen i got a thesaurus over here also i didn't know what it meant so thank you SPEAKER_43: uh but seriously what is the i want to know the fallout from two things and then we're going to do science corner so number one what is the i've been getting a lot of oat milk stands emailing me different brands of oat milk have been emailing me this week just give us an update generally speaking SPEAKER_110: on the alt milk milk crowd and your inbox jamal oh they're trying to they're definitely trying to SPEAKER_36: brigadoon me but what these people like you know what's so funny about these folks they have no judgment clearly because they can't even say you know what it actually tastes much crappier than these alternatives but i choose to for xyz reasons that i could respect it's the oh my god it's SPEAKER_408: incredible it tastes so much better you know look at my little mustache it's disgusting it doesn't SPEAKER_360: foam properly it tastes like dishwater it's ridiculous uh and then sax disgusting this SPEAKER_110: horrific uh illustration of you in the new republic i saw um look like dolly broke and they used dolly to SPEAKER_37: make that illustration no offense to the illustrator we got paid a thousand bucks well it was like SPEAKER_43: it was pre-ozempic sax i thought it was yeah that's the problem if you're chubby sax or chubby jcal it sucks when people base an illustration on a previous one but sax looks like a deranged sociopath SPEAKER_05: i mean you look like alex jones in a suit well look they got elon and peter up there too it's SPEAKER_46: such a stupid hippies elon looks like hugh grant uh peter teo looks like he's rolling on uh freebergs SPEAKER_37: molly he's got molly jaw and also he's uh he you you show a lot of stubble which you also don't have SPEAKER_421: but look how fat they make you look look at your chin you look like yeah the chin is jesus my lord SPEAKER_01: but what i mean what's going on in terms of the general reaction to the amount of attention you're SPEAKER_37: getting for political commentary now sax david sachs will be our next secretary of state well no SPEAKER_423: i'm here for it i can't wait i'll go long that david sachs will be our secretary of state within two or SPEAKER_34: three presidents 100 i'll take he's got to make a little more cash my views my views are so out of SPEAKER_05: step with the foreign policy establishment that's why you win that's why you that's why i wouldn't feel the need to be so out there on this issue if the foreign policy establishment was doing its job SPEAKER_260: if you actually had you know people from the policy elite going out there saying sensible things about ukraine it wouldn't fall on me or other people like and china like elon basically posted that straw poll on twitter which was totally reasonable got condemned for it and then bill ackman actually who's been in twitter spats with me before we've been on opposite sides of issues actually came out and retweeted something i wrote as basically being supportive because the weird things want this war to SPEAKER_110: escalate out of control i think the weird thing is people are there's a group in the in the media class other podcasters other journalists who are saying you have no right to talk about this topic SPEAKER_43: and i what i said is you know hey listen sax and i could disagree about things on the margin here there but i'm glad we're having the discussion shouldn't all americans be having a discussion about our foreign policy and what our goals are that's our civic duty is to have this discussion so whenever you hear the political class the podcasting class the coastal elites which we are part of when they tell you you can't participate or this person can participate in the discussion because they're successful in this other aspect of life that's complete everybody should talk about this and disagree or agree and try to work towards some common understanding you're right so first of all whenever they say SPEAKER_05: listen to the experts and you're not an expert first of all they're expressing an opinion themselves and they are expressing equally passionate opinions on the other side about the soul ukraine war so first of all why are they allowed to have an opinion so whenever somebody uses this SPEAKER_260: you're not allowed to have an opinion argument it's always very selective and it's only applied to people they disagree with not to people who are equally in expert on their side of the debate so that's point number one hold on point number two is i've listened to plenty of experts okay i've listened to the ir scholar john meersheimer i've listened to the international development economist jeffrey sacks i've gone back and listened to our former ambassador to the servant union jack matlock i've read george kennan's interviews i've read bill burns our current cia director on this matter there are plenty of experts who warned that our policy of trying to bring nato right up to russia's border would eventually blow up in our faces it would poison our relations with them and lead to conflict and this war so there are plenty of authoritative sources going back many years on this topic and the problem is that the people on the other side of this debate simply want to memory hole all of these warnings and deny that they that this war was ever predicted because if this war was predicted it means it could have been avoided and they don't want to admit that this war could have SPEAKER_110: been avoided or how about this how about war is messy resolving things internationally with dictators SPEAKER_43: uh can be very hard and nobody wins in some of these cases no there's no perfect outcome here and you could hold in your head two things number one putin's a dictator we need to hold the line and make sure he doesn't invade other countries and number two yeah you probably want to keep normal relations with these people and negotiate with them to resolve conflict i'm getting a little concerned about the saber rattling on both sides in china you know we're escalating all this chip stuff we're escalating and xi jinping is taking complete control i'm wondering who's going to meet with him who's going to talk to xi jinping about how we could collaborate together who's left to talk to SPEAKER_95: him tim cook there's a there's a bunch of unforced errors happening in china how do we de-escalate SPEAKER_278: well there's a bunch of unforced errors that you have to let play out because they have SPEAKER_301: huge economic implications so i don't think this i don't think this is a time for again i think david's SPEAKER_36: generally right we do not have time for adventurism right now because even before we engage in some of these other places there are a lot of you know uh headwinds that are working against for so for example in china you have these massive demographic headwinds that are just building um we have to see SPEAKER_278: what the chips act does in terms of follow through to china's ability to expand militarily or SPEAKER_127: technologically there are all of these things that that you owe as a citizen of the united states to see SPEAKER_36: some more data on the ground in terms of its empirical impact before you re-underwrite a different strategy right now the strategy is working you know we we we are observing this you know one SPEAKER_278: china policy i think that's the right thing to do and now let all of this other stuff play out can i say SPEAKER_05: one thing about this so what the administration did in banning uh china from buying from us or any of our allied countries these advanced semiconductor chips that's what they did they not only banned the sale of chips to china they banned the sale of equipment that can make the chips and they even prohibited american citizens and companies from working in china to basically help them set up their own foundries and chip fabrication so they are essentially cutting off china from advanced chips that's the goal here and you know we've talked about on this pod before how chips are the new oil SPEAKER_260: right these advanced semiconductors are the new oil so this is almost like an oil embargo of china if you go back and look at it yeah if you go back and look what's the reason why the reason why is SPEAKER_275: they don't want these in weapons correct that is the stated reason no it's just that's the tip of SPEAKER_36: the spear but i think the more impactful mechanism is to prevent an entire layer of infrastructure to be built in china that allows them to advance all of these next generation cyber capabilities including a whole bunch of things in ai that we want to make sure that as often and as often as possible is is for Chamath Palihapitiya: the united states and our allies as we choose so all this next generation silicon will do a lot more SPEAKER_36: to push that forward and so if you put that in the hands of chinese technology companies or chinese governments or the chinese government in the parts that are actually technological SPEAKER_104: you actually increase the surface area in which you compete by preventing that technology to go to them you decrease the surface area in which you're competitive and they are one or two steps behind SPEAKER_191: and have and are forced to build it themselves so friedberg if that happens do you think that china SPEAKER_98: escalates and says well why are we building iphones here no i think china makes decisions a little differently than perhaps u.s policy makers and foreign policy makers make decisions they think forward and calculate the series of events that will follow from that decision whereas we are typically reacting to some event that's happened in the past not necessarily always thinking through the second and third or third order effects and consequences of our decisions so the china calculus would likely look something more like if we were to say stop making iphones here we would estimate that the u.s would do the following to retaliate back against us and as they do through that calculation you end up realizing pretty quickly that there isn't as much to gain as there is more to lose by doing that that would be my guess i'm no china expert i'm no foreign policy expert but from my understanding of how chinese policy makers do think and do make decisions it's much more about what's the rational calculated set of outcomes that will emerge and evolve from this decision and in my experience talking with people in the united states that are in various communities of influence it's much more about let's do what we consider to be the right or moral thing right now and in response and retaliation and let's do an eye for an eye so that's why i don't think that they're likely to be the first step in an escalation escalatory ladder there probably be a few more series of provocations before that may happen at which point it may need to be kind of an inevitable step that they'd have to take but what do you think SPEAKER_208: sacks i don't know i mean so so in terms of the motivation for this i think it's pretty clear SPEAKER_05: this is an attempt to hobble the chinese economy not just that all their weapons programs but their economy itself and hold them back and slow down their rise and their rapid growth now is that a good idea i mean i think what this shows is we've moved from sort of economic logic which is about finding trade surplus and win-win scenarios to geopolitical logic which is about balance of power and this sort of ban on sales of semiconductors to them it's very much geopolitical because it's hurting our companies SPEAKER_260: but it hurts china more and so it's about it's about it's about increasing our balance of power against them and now listen i think you can make the argument that we were overdue to be thinking in terms SPEAKER_211: of great power competition and geopolitical rivalry and this is an attempt now to correct the bad decisions that were made 20 years ago in terms of how we fed the chinese economy until it became a pure competitor the united states so i think you can make those arguments the the thing that concerns me most about it is do our leaders really have the bandwidth to manage a second front in the sort of SPEAKER_400: great power competition right now while we've got russia and ukraine going on on the one hand are they really ready to manage an escalation of the competition with china and to freeberg's point have they really thought through all the second third fourth order consequences of this have they thought through the incentives this may create on china for example to take taiwan i mean if taiwan is the place that makes all these chips through tsmc for example and we have now cut them off we have now embargoed them from these chips does it strengthen china's incentive to go after taiwan does it strengthen china's incentives right now to help russia in its war in ukraine in retaliation because they don't want to see they don't want to see russia decisively defeated and then they will solely be in the gun sights of of u.s hawks so i think there's a lot of things that could go wrong here when the u.s is now escalating geopolitical tensions and competition not just on one front but on two fronts and and especially given how weak the u.s economy is and that we're headed into a major recession next year it just feels to me like they are you know they are um kind of putting their foot on the accelerator in terms of geopolitical risk at a time when we're not really in a great spot to be SPEAKER_110: taking those risks also on a foreign policy basis there is there no common ground are there no things we could collaborate on and work on together right and that's the thing that seems to be missing in the foreign policy for the last couple of administrations is are there things that we could be building together are there things that we could be working on the environment energy sustainability education i i don't know what it is but it felt like you know with china for a couple decades we we felt like we were working in a very collaborative way and now it feels like every David Sacks: single instance is adversarial right because the problem is that those policies of constructive SPEAKER_400: engagement that you're talking about fed the chinese tiger until it became a dragon yeah now it's the SPEAKER_448: size of uh vegar or something that that's a level dragon and the u.s policy establishment in the SPEAKER_400: pentagon look at the rise of china and they're like what have we done we have created a peer competitor the united states we need to stop their economic rise and i think that again i think there is a geopolitical logic and strategy to what the administration has done but i question the timing of doing it at the same time that we have this unresolved war in eastern europe well it is nice SPEAKER_110: that we seem to be getting some of this onshoring of chips and that money is actually starting to flow it does seem like we're thinking a little bit like in decades and strategy say the other part i SPEAKER_278: think biden and blinken have done a good job they've done a good job on this right now they've they've SPEAKER_400: played it well well i don't know about that i just come on first of all i think did a horrible job hold on a second biden and blinken did a horrible job the tiger hold on hold on you poke the tiger SPEAKER_260: no hold on they i'll tell you where they did a bad job is last year they had a whole year to negotiate to avoid this ukraine war from happening biden even had a summit with putin on june 16th last year they never engaged in diplomacy and now they have stacked this geopolitical risk with china on top of the risk they've already created in ukraine i this policy may or may not ultimately turn out to be correct i like i said i can see the strategy behind it but i do not believe that biden and blinken have thought through the second third and fourth order consequences just like freeberg said so i think it's a little early to be giving them credit SPEAKER_110: on this all right uh freeberg you got anything in the science corner we gave we gave saxes red meat SPEAKER_458: and he ripped it to shreds now it's time to give you your soy tofu burger i'll give you guys a quick SPEAKER_168: uh a quick science corner please please so we've talked in the past about the human gut biome 10 trillion bacterial cells living in our gut biome and it turns out and there has been this theory for many years that a lot of human disease actually originates in the gut and there's increasingly evidence of how and why this happens so it turns out that your immune cells can sometimes see a protein on the outside of a bacteria that sits in your gut and it attacks that bacteria and it tries to get rid of it that protein can look a little bit like a human protein at some cell in your body and so that then triggers an autoimmune reaction meaning you are now making these antibodies to proteins that look a lot like your proteins in other parts of your body and then your cells start to destroy yourself and you end up having inflammation and disease and they found evidence of this across a lot of disease states so just the other day published in the journal science translational medicine was a really interesting paper by a team that identified a very specific bacteria that we find in the gut that can actually trigger rheumatoid arthritis and so you know i think two million americans have rheumatoid arthritis it's a really debilitating inflammatory disease and we never understood where the inflammation comes from why is the human immune cell creating antibodies to attack its own protein in the joints of the body and now it looks like that the protein that we find in the joints of the body has some overlap or three-dimensional structure that looks similar to the protein we'll find on this very specific gut bacteria that they found which creates obviously a path now for if we can stop that gut bacteria from proliferating or um you know existing SPEAKER_98: in the gut over time that can have a reduction but sorry incidence rate of rheumatoid arthritis did they SPEAKER_271: guess what the mechanism of action was so so this techno so the mechanism of action is typically what's SPEAKER_168: called generally speaking protein mimicry and so protein mimicry means that there's some so think about a protein as being like you know a clumpy rock and there's some part of the clumpy rock that looks a little bit like the part of another clumpy rock and that's the protein think about that as being the protein on the bacterial cell and the protein in your joint cells and so your body makes an antibody to that little part of the rock on the bacterial cell to get rid of it and then it that there's some overlap that looks a little bit like your own cell and so that's called protein mimicry and because of SPEAKER_98: the ability now to do dna sequencing and now with um you know some of the alpha fold technology we can SPEAKER_168: actually take the genome from that bacteria predict the 3d structure of the proteins created that by that bacteria and then potentially identify that there's a mimicry or an overlap between our own protein and our cells and the protein of the bacteria which is why we're having autoimmunity which now our immune SPEAKER_461: cells are not just attacking the bacteria we could solve arthritis we suffer arthritis and so there's SPEAKER_168: a lot of disease states that are starting to look like this so the combination of dna sequencing and our ability to identify organisms in the gut biome and by the way so much of this goes back to the gut biome we're finding all these disease states from lupus to show grins to rheumatoid arthritis that have some linkage back to some bacteria that shows up in your gut and so now we can be very targeted potentially about eradicating that bacteria from the gut or you know kind of changing our gut biome in a way that um ultimately resolves to eliminating that disease risk um and so it's really fascinating SPEAKER_301: yeah chamath any thoughts on this gut biome i mean i always knew the solution was either in freeberg's SPEAKER_466: gut you know or his anus in his gut or on uranus SPEAKER_468: all right do it again do it again the joke didn't land all right here we go one more time uh so SPEAKER_463: chamath any uh any feedback on this is pretty pretty great science going on here i mean it was always SPEAKER_80: 50 50 that the solution was either your guts or uranus okay you can't laugh till after you SPEAKER_474: land the joke come on do it again i saw it coming it was coming around the corner and by the way i SPEAKER_355: think you guys should leave this leave leave this all in i started peeking out let's get this right for the fans okay here we got three two all right chamath it seems like very interesting science uh SPEAKER_482: they're coming out of science corner 50 50 50 50 you're better uranus can't even get it out i mean SPEAKER_483: you tried to get it out of his anus it was poking was like a little turtle coming out of his anus but you couldn't get it out oh my god 50 50 50 you're better uranus it's like the entire science corner is just here for us to beat up the nerd and throw him in a locker oh my god SPEAKER_491: why somebody's hurting oh my god oh i needed that you ever see smokey and the bandit where they have SPEAKER_490: the the reels at the end sacks like dom de louise and burr rattles i just keep losing it that's what this is oh my god it's like i'm gonna say science quarter and people are gonna just start laughing and thinking about free briggs aides all right listen welcome home sax we miss you for your week off SPEAKER_163: uh uh and uh we missed you david thanks guys thanks and uh we'll see you over on market street no announcements right now no testimonials no announcements i'll see you at yoga we're going to SPEAKER_501: do a doing the homeless shelter we're volunteering today right yeah volunteering i'll see you over at SPEAKER_355: the homeless shelter you're pouring soup yeah if you could get me a tofu salad with extra tempeh before uh free burger don't don't go don't get me started on tempeh i'm gonna go i'm gonna pour all the SPEAKER_43: oatmeal out i'm going right to the cavity i'm going right to the cafe and getting all the oatmeal SPEAKER_80: right down the train there should be there should be one milk non-lactose alternative and then one black coffee and that black coffee that's it if you're lactose intolerant yeah lactose intolerant milk no have one have one thing without lactose so whatever that is can we wrap the show now SPEAKER_504: no we're having too much fun what's up can you imagine can you imagine the distribution of gluten-free snacks i mean they should have a few but you know all kinds of different snacks and by SPEAKER_80: the way the keto snacks have horrendous amounts of chemicals in it the xylitol what is xylitol SPEAKER_126: xylitol will screw up your stomach man do not have that horrible free break you want to tell everybody about xylitol and the impact it has on your anus no it seriously does but i think xylitol SPEAKER_09: is the thing that gives you a lot of gas and you just keep ripping i think it's really bad for you SPEAKER_513: here's an idea way to go jacow yeah now he's gonna turn into a school shot well that's your fault you SPEAKER_515: were mean to him you came up with the anus jokes that was all i've been doing that joke for five years with him you're a bully i'm not no no no freeberg off the shelf you brigaded him we SPEAKER_09: created him on the show we bring it we bring it doing to our bestie sorry bestie all right SPEAKER_355: for the dictator himself jamal palihapitiya going into sweater season i might know it's going to be a big big q4 for us big q4 and the beep of the beep corporation david sachs oh if you mean the general partner of craft ventures yes the general partner of craft ventures that's it and the queen of kimwa the prince of panic attacks the ambassador of uranus david freeberg we will see you next time i'm jacob SPEAKER_126: loving you boys