00:00:00
All right, everybody. Welcome back to your favorite podcast, the AllIn podcast. Today we have a conspiracy
00:00:08
corner episode for you. We're going to go over the 9/11 inside job. We're going
00:00:12
over flat earth, JFK assassination. It's going to be all conspiracy all the time
00:00:18
after our amazing blockbuster episode during Ski Week. We're going all conspiracy here. Our guest today, Alex
00:00:24
Jones. >> How many views did it get? Nine views. I mean, it's tough when you have one out
00:00:30
of four besties. It doesn't Michael Tracy is on standby. >> Not true. I can carry an episode for at
00:00:36
least 400,000 views. >> I mean, you might. You might. I like your Hey, for people who don't know,
00:00:40
Jimoth has his own YouTube channel. He's got his escape hatch for when this train
00:00:44
wreck burns to the ground. He started his own YouTube channel. He's hedging his bets. Freyberg's working on his solo
00:00:50
project. Everybody's doing solo project. The band's got a lot of solo projects.
00:00:54
>> The Beatles are experimenting. The Beatles. >> They're experimenting. We had a little
00:00:57
Yokoono situation going on here. You know what the number one topic for this show was by the all-in AI bot sacks.
00:01:04
>> What's up? >> The number one was Daario versus Hegs, the uh Department of War versus
00:01:10
anthropic was the number one topic selected by our AI bot as a programming note for folks. That decision will be
00:01:16
made end of the day Friday when this podcast comes out. So, we will talk about it next week. But, let's get to
00:01:20
work. We've got a full docket. The clawed kill list has expanded and an AI fanfiction substack tanked your 401k on
00:01:28
Monday. Let's get into it. Anthropics generational run continues. They're now
00:01:33
three for three in tanking different market sectors in February. Congratulations. This is like they they
00:01:41
took the the mantle from Brad Gersonner uh tanking the market. >> The Enthropic list.
00:01:46
>> It is February 3rd. Anthropic announces, hey, we got a legal plugin for Claude
00:01:50
Co-work, Thompson Reuters, Lexus, Nexus, Legal Zoom, all down at least 10% since
00:01:56
February 3rd. Then on February 20th, Claude Code Security is announced in a limited research preview. Stocks tank
00:02:03
again. Crowd Strike, Cloud for Octa, all down. Then February 23rd, Anthropic announces Claude can modernize Cobalt
00:02:12
databases. If you don't know Cobalt, that's the like oldest coding language
00:02:16
in the world. That's where Sachs learned code when he was in college in the 70s.
00:02:19
It's used for banking, payroll, government, >> healthare. >> Healthcare runs 95% of ATMs in the US
00:02:27
and it powers social security payments. 85% of all coal code runs on IBM machines. So IBM decided they would tank
00:02:34
13% on Monday, their worst day since 2000. 31 billion in market cap losses. So let's stop here before I get into the
00:02:45
fanfiction piece. What's your take here of what's happening in the market, Shmath? Is this
00:02:52
simply people are looking for an excuse to trim their positions because things have been top ticking all-time highs and
00:02:57
people are just looking for an excuse or is this reality? Is this the go forward
00:03:01
reality that AI is going to compress these kind of stocks because it solves a lot of problems?
00:03:08
>> I'm going to give you two explanations. I don't know what percentage I would
00:03:14
allocate across the two, but I think one is tactical and one is much more strategic,
00:03:20
but I think both are happening. The tactical one is that we are at a moment in time where a lot of the smart money
00:03:29
hedge funds are starting to massively degross. And what that means is they're
00:03:36
trimming a lot of positions and they're just taking on a lot less risk. Why? I
00:03:42
don't exactly know. It could be motivated by the second thing that I'm going to talk about. But the point is in
00:03:48
a deg risk and making your position sizes much smaller. So the longs become less long,
00:03:56
the shorts become less short and you just shrink. And so there's just general
00:04:00
downward pressure. That is a clear behavior right now. But I think the structural change is the more important
00:04:07
one. And this is sort of what I talked about this morning. In a normal functioning market,
00:04:14
what we are always debating is when a set of cash flows go from becoming highly confident to less highly
00:04:24
confident. It's a when conversation. So when will Coca-Cola's cash flows be
00:04:30
impacted? When will Eli Lily's cash flows be impacted? When will Meta's cash
00:04:36
flows be impacted? And the answer to the when gets translated by the public markets
00:04:42
into three things. Your price to earnings multiple where if you invert that number what that is equivalent to
00:04:50
is the yield on the money that you get. Okay. So if you you know 20 times PE that's a 5% yield.
00:04:58
The second is a revenue multiple. And the third is what's called your weighted
00:05:03
average cost of capital. Which is to say, if you look at the next 20 to 30 years of earnings and you want to figure
00:05:10
out what that is worth today, you have to discount all of these back and you have to assume
00:05:18
a percentage of interest effectively that it takes to get there. And the basic math of this is that when you have
00:05:25
a high whack, it's called, you're massively discounting these cash flows.
00:05:29
When you have a low whack, you're assuming that these things are very durable. Okay. So, what is happening?
00:05:36
We used to debate when this is no longer a when moment. The market is very much in an if mode.
00:05:43
Are these cash flows durable at all? >> Could they fall off a cliff in year
00:05:48
three? Is there some AI model that's going to come around the corner and obliterate this business without me
00:05:54
knowing it? And because they've shifted into this if mindset, your risk becomes totally different. You
00:06:03
have this event risk that you don't know how to price. And whenever the market
00:06:08
shifts into that mode, what you see are that the holders of those equities want a massive margin of safety. What does
00:06:16
that mean? They have to take pees way down. If you used to trade at 40, you should trade at 20. If you used to trade
00:06:23
at 20, you should trade at 10. They take revenue multiples down. You used to trade at 10 times revenue. Now
00:06:29
you're going to trade it three times. You take the whack way up. Used to be a
00:06:33
6% discounted weighted average cost of capital. You know what? I'm taking you
00:06:37
to 12 or 13. That's the market's way of saying, I'm now debating if these things will even exist and so I
00:06:47
need to give myself a huge buffer to own this stuff. >> That's what's happening right now. It
00:06:53
has a lot of ripple effects that we can talk about. Freeberg and I have talked about this a lot. The most obvious
00:06:58
impact is how these tech companies recruit and retain talent because the biggest thing that it starts to eat into
00:07:05
are the cash flows of a business which really directly tied to stockbased comp and all this other stuff. But let me
00:07:10
just stop there. So we are we have moved away from a when >> to now an if and I think that that is a
00:07:17
very smart question to be asking. The answer may be from any of these companies that they will survive, but we
00:07:23
don't know how long. And until that becomes clearer, you have to give yourself room to be wrong.
00:07:28
>> You said when, then if. Did you mean if? >> No, no, no. >> To when?
00:07:32
>> We we've always debated when. When will these cash flows disappear? Now it's
00:07:35
like >> will they even exist? >> Got it. Okay. So the second part of the
00:07:40
story Friedberg and Sachs is that a Substack post fanfiction uh taking place in the fictional 2028 uh
00:07:51
global intelligence crisis went mega viral. 28 million views on X. It was posted Sunday night. It made the market
00:07:58
tank on Monday. In this fictional Substack post, the author said there's going to be essentially a death spiral
00:08:07
that happens because of AI. How does that work? Well, first, companies embrace AI. Everything goes right.
00:08:13
They're able to cut staff. Their margins go up, similar to how Amazon has, you
00:08:18
know, trimmed their white collar staff. Then they're so successful at this that
00:08:23
they lose their customer base because consumers don't have discretionary funding to spend. Then it creates a
00:08:29
death spiral where the companies keep deploying AI to try to hit the margins, cutting staff, and the entire economy
00:08:34
collapses. Dr. Doom level stuff. Unemployment's at 10%, S&P goes down from 38% highs. After this piece came
00:08:41
out which speculated that agents would get rid of all the 3% interchange fees and move everybody to settle
00:08:47
transactions on stable coins. All the financial stocks got hit on Monday. Amex down 8%, Capital 1 down 8%, Mastercard
00:08:54
6%, Visa 4%, yada yada. Finally, this piece got a lot of push back. There was a silly piece in it or a section in it
00:09:02
where they said AI agents would vibe code their way to displacing Door Dash. And uh that's kind of silly if anybody's
00:09:11
run a networkbased business knows. Sax, I assume you read this piece or at least
00:09:17
saw the fallout from it. What's your take? And then we'll go to you Freeberg.
00:09:21
>> Yeah. Well, I I know that this uh Catrini article got passed around like a
00:09:25
join at a Grateful Dead concert, but I'm starting to question how legitimately
00:09:31
viral it really was. There's some information that just came out that the attribution of the article has been
00:09:38
amended, meaning the co-authors have been amended to include a short fund that was shorting some of the names
00:09:45
mentioned in the article. This is according to another post that just came out. According to this post, the
00:09:51
authorship attribution attributed to market moving was changed after publication of the co-author is the
00:09:59
managing partner of a $262 million SEC registered hedge fund who confirmed short positions in the companies the
00:10:06
report named. So I think that's point number one is I just wonder did this article truly go viral or did the
00:10:13
authors do anything to kind of amplify it and we just don't know the answer to
00:10:17
that question. But regardless of that, let's just take the arguments on their
00:10:20
face. I think one of the best responses to it was by another writer named Derek Thompson who wrote a article called
00:10:28
Nobody Knows Anything, which I think is a reference to a famous take by legendary Hollywood writer William
00:10:35
Goldman. >> Yeah. >> In any event, what the article says is no one really knows what's going to
00:10:40
happen with AI in two years, never mind 20 years. And so they resort to science fiction writing masquerading as
00:10:47
analysis. And the author here, Derek Thompson, says that the conversation about AI is really just a marketplace of
00:10:55
competing science fiction narratives. And he says, "That's not to say I think
00:10:58
the technology is a parlor trick, but rather that the level of uncertainty is so high and the quality and supply of
00:11:05
real world real-time information about AI's macroeconomic effects so poultry
00:11:10
that very serious conversations about AI are often more literary than genuinely analytical." So in other words, what
00:11:17
he's saying is, look, this guy is writing very compelling science fiction, but there's no real analytics behind it
00:11:25
to defend it. And yes, this could happen. Here's a prediction market on whether people believe the Catrini
00:11:30
report's going to come true. Something like 12% believe the Catrini scenario is
00:11:35
going to happen. But the truth is, no one really knows. I mean, there's other
00:11:38
dueling science fiction narratives where AI is going to create such a world of abundance that we're not going to need
00:11:45
for anything. And just by the way, Derek Thompson is one of the abundance guys with Ezra Klein.
00:11:51
>> This is why the market's getting whacked. I think that you're right,
00:11:53
Saxs, nobody knows. So, if you can get 5% for owning government bonds, why are we taking excessive risk here?
00:12:00
>> Yeah. Let me just build on your point about SAS. So the reason why there's so
00:12:03
much uncertainty around SAS is that SAS used to be such a easily modeled and predictable category and you know I saw
00:12:13
as a VC we saw the same story play out across many many different categories of software. You'd have this initial period
00:12:19
where there'd be this experimentation phase you have a bunch of different products that come to market. There'd be
00:12:24
a battle and then the market would eventually settle and they'd be a category leader and they would capture
00:12:29
most of the market share and the vast majority of the market capitalization and they would have very very
00:12:34
predictable metrics. It was very easy to grade a SAS business. You look at ARR, you say annually recurring revenue. You
00:12:41
look at the net dollar retention you want to see depending on the phase >> RPO RPO revenue under performance.
00:12:48
>> And so you know these things began to be seen as like a annuity with growth right
00:12:52
because >> they were rock solid. Yeah. >> Yeah. Because a good net dollar
00:12:57
retention would be something like 120%. Which means that your sort of cohort of existing customers on balance would all
00:13:03
renew the next year and actually they would renew at 120% of the previous year's contract values. And the reason
00:13:10
you got that extra 20% is they would buy more seats or there'd be additional
00:13:15
products or features they would upsell. It got to be very very predictable. And so when people were buying software
00:13:21
companies at I don't know 13 times ARR, they thought they were buying a growth
00:13:25
annuity. And now all of a sudden you got to factor into that. Well, wait a second. What if AI disrupts the whole
00:13:33
market? What if it doesn't eliminate? I don't think AI is going to get rid of
00:13:36
Salesforce, but it could eat into their growth opportunity. We just don't know
00:13:40
what if it changes the pricing model. I mean, it just creates a whole lot of unknowns. And I I actually don't believe
00:13:45
in the Catrini or or the doomer take on this, but I can see why the market would
00:13:52
feel this level of uncertainty >> 100%. >> Given how predictable a category SAS
00:13:59
used to be just say a year ago. >> Yeah. Well, chaos is a ladder, Freeberg,
00:14:05
and this means opportunity. So, if we look at this and SAS has headwinds, then is there a winner? Is open source the
00:14:13
winner? Or is this all deflationary in your mind, Freeberg? And we just make less money and the earnings of these
00:14:19
companies get compressed, the size of them gets compressed. How do you think about it? I think fundamentally if
00:14:25
you're driving productivity with AI, you're driving leverage on human time
00:14:32
and leverage on capital. The question is how quickly can you drive that up? And that's a function of
00:14:38
how much consumption there is, how much capacity there is for consumption. So on
00:14:43
the one hand, I'll just speak broadly. I think like humans have this desire to
00:14:48
improve their livelihoods by roughly 10% every year. Meaning like your income and
00:14:53
your ability to purchase stuff that's new relative to where you were last year
00:14:56
has to go up by 10% for you to be happy. If it's less than 10%, you're probably
00:14:59
unhappy. >> Is that that's your anecdote or that's like >> that's just like an anecdote. Like I
00:15:03
think I think that's sort of like my rubric for thinking about like why are people unhappy? You're happy. So if your
00:15:08
earnings are the same but things are getting more expensive, you're not happy. If your earnings go up by 10% and
00:15:13
things stay the same price, you got 10% more than you had last year. You're you're going to be happy. I just think
00:15:18
like all humans are driven by this need to consume more each year than they did last year. So I think for me that's like
00:15:25
the lower limit on consumptive capacity in the world. The question that we're now facing which
00:15:33
we've never faced in human history before is there a upper limit >> on consumptive capacity because AI
00:15:41
creates such a profound shift in productivity and in leverage that normally you would say hey when we get a
00:15:49
new tool or we get new leverage in a system we build a new technology we can make more with less. Therefore, everyone
00:15:55
gets access to more things for the same price or the cost of things that they consume come down by a certain price.
00:16:01
But there may be a situation now where the ability to make stuff exceeds the capacity to consume stuff. And that is
00:16:11
something that I don't think we've faced before. And I think that's sort of where
00:16:14
a lot of the models start to break. Just general economic models, just general productivity models, and general social
00:16:20
models. And this goes to the point about like what is everyone going to do? In the same way that I think we've argued
00:16:26
that maybe SAS was a transitory business phenomenon that existed between the foundation of the internet and the era
00:16:35
of AI. It may be the case that knowledge work in general is also a transitory phenomenon that only existed between the
00:16:43
foundation of the computer or computing tools and the existence of AI generally speaking. And if all of that goes away
00:16:50
very quickly and all of those people can be redistributed and recast into doing other higher level, more creative
00:16:57
things, their productivity goes up by 100x. Is there really a consumer on the other
00:17:02
end of all of that productivity? Is there really enough consumptive capacity? And I think that's the
00:17:08
profound question that we all face. I don't think that there's any limit.
00:17:11
>> Is that your way of saying that SAS goes to zero or that's your way of saying
00:17:16
these companies go to zero? I'm just saying knowledge work in general like the the like what is the implication
00:17:22
>> is this just another dueling science fiction take I mean or what's your
00:17:26
evidence for this >> I think it's fine to have a sci-fi take intuition I think is data because I can
00:17:33
show you some data that I think contradicts what you're saying >> and I have some firstirhand sort of
00:17:38
>> in the sense that there's more leverage stacks that people are able to actually
00:17:42
>> well Jake I want to hear what you have to say because I know you're
00:17:44
experimenting with this but let me just show you a few data points real quick um
00:17:47
because I think this is relevant. So we're really talking about the disruption caused by coding assistance,
00:17:53
right? This is like the first big killer app of AI. I mean I guess after writing
00:17:57
and research for chat bots and we'll have agents later, but really it's all
00:18:02
about coding assistance, right? And the ability to more easily create code. That's what's creating the disruption to
00:18:07
the SAS category. Well, so let's just focus on the data we see right now around that. And there are a lot of
00:18:14
people who are pointing this out that Enthropic right now has a job listing for a software engineer on their website
00:18:23
right now for $570,000. And a lot of people are kind of pointing out, okay, so wait, so what Anthropic is
00:18:30
saying is they're still trying to hire software engineers at a very high wage,
00:18:34
but somehow they think these jobs are going to be eliminated. >> Timoth might apply for that job. is.
00:18:40
>> Yeah. Austerity measures sounds pretty good to me. >> That's a lot of money.
00:18:44
>> Jim might take that job and then just have AI do it for him. >> No, I'm I'm I'm worried like I hope my
00:18:48
8090 team doesn't see that offer. That's a >> that's a big number.
00:18:53
>> Our equity is way higher, but our salaries are not that high. I mean, you
00:18:57
look you put these things together, it's like that equity is money good. The
00:19:00
reality is like those guys are doing 5 to6 billion structured secondaries every year now or they're starting which means
00:19:06
that they will. That's like cash compensation. So for for me to match that, I need to be 3x higher than that.
00:19:13
>> Right? And I think a lot of people are kind of pointing out, well, this is a
00:19:15
contradiction. Anthropic doesn't really seem to be practicing what they're
00:19:18
preaching if they're paying enormous amounts still for software engineers even as they claim they're obsoleting
00:19:23
the entire category. Something doesn't quite add up. Citadel Securities did a
00:19:28
new report that rebutts that Catrini report and they show a couple of stats here which I think are really
00:19:35
interesting. So, job postings for software engineers are rapidly rising. They're showing, I think it was roughly
00:19:42
a 10% year-over-year increase in the demand for software engineers. On a related note, they also show that
00:19:51
company formation is also rapidly expanding and that may have something to do with AI making it easier to start a
00:19:58
business or to get leverage to your point, Freeberg. So look, there's a couple of competing effects going on
00:20:04
here. And I think Aaron Levy had a really good explanation of why you might see something very counterintuitive
00:20:11
happening. And again, it all goes back to Jeban's paradox. But what Aaron says
00:20:16
is that when you lower the cost of something that was previously supply constrained, demand for that thing goes
00:20:22
up. Software engineering is just one of the easiest examples to contemplate, but
00:20:26
there are going to be many other jobs like that. But think about software engineering. Even among startups in
00:20:31
Silicon Valley, which I think are probably some of the most attractive places for software engineers to work,
00:20:37
there's always been a chronic shortage of them. Then you've got the Fortune 500
00:20:41
companies, non- tech companies, which have always had an even harder time hiring technical talent. So, you have
00:20:47
this massive unfilled need for software engineers across the entire economy. Now, you're going to be able to get a
00:20:55
lot more leverage out of software engineers. It doesn't mean they're going
00:20:58
to get fired. It just means that now maybe you can have a lot more 10x software engineers and they're getting
00:21:05
those jobs are now being spread throughout the whole economy. You know, I also think just to put some numbers on
00:21:11
this, I think the cost structure of the average Fortune 500 business is something like 5% it includes all of
00:21:18
their IT, not just their software. You know, what should it be? What should the percentage of software be in an
00:21:26
enterprise cost structure? Elon describes companies as cybernetic organisms that are part software, part
00:21:32
human. >> If you think about the current Fortune 500 company being one or two percent
00:21:37
software, maybe they should be 50% software. I think what Aaron is saying here is the market for software and
00:21:44
software engineers was so constrained by the lack of availability that even if we 10x or 100x the
00:21:51
productivity of software engineers, the demand will be there to absorb this new supply. And so it could lead to this
00:21:57
explosion in productivity without the massive job loss. >> I think you're right. I think the the
00:22:02
thing that I would look at is I would expect OPEX as a percentage of revenue to fall off of a cliff but within that
00:22:10
opex the percentage of it that you allocate to technology and technology related things probably goes way way up
00:22:17
than what it is today. Okay, Jason, the batch of people that are applying for launch,
00:22:23
has SAS stopped? Has software stopped? >> It's AI first companies obviously and
00:22:28
people >> are they rebuilding traditional SAS tools just cheaper? >> Basically, everybody's building the
00:22:35
great, you know, as we talked about at the all-in summit like some of these companies are trying to build the best
00:22:40
pilot in the world or Whimo's trying to build the best driver in the world. People are now trying to build the best
00:22:45
SDR in the world, the best salesperson, the best executive coach. And so we have
00:22:50
been like obsessed with claude co-work, but mainly OpenClaw. And so what we did was and and I think it's not developers
00:22:59
that are going to do all this work, it's knowledge workers. So we had we have 20
00:23:04
people in our firm. We had 15 of them come in this weekend and they all got trained over like six or seven hours had
00:23:10
to have their own openclaw agent and we started building it. Every piece of software that we wanted to buy or build
00:23:16
over the last 10 years that we never got to my people are building in the last 30
00:23:22
days. As an example, you know, when you're selling ads for a podcast, you want to check all the other podcasts and
00:23:28
what advertisers they have. We trained an agent to go take the top 100 podcasts, look through the transcripts,
00:23:35
figure out who the advertisers are, check those advertisers in pipe drive, tell us when the last time we contacted
00:23:40
them and put it into the sales room. That was an SDR job that we wanted to fill and software we wanted to build.
00:23:45
Then we wanted people to have >> hold on that was a that was a human that you were paying money and now you've
00:23:50
replaced with software or that human still exists but now they just do it in a better way.
00:23:54
>> Redeploying that human. We had a human doing it. we're going to redeploy them
00:23:58
to do other things and the consistency of this chimoth and the accuracy and then it's doing it all night long. So we
00:24:05
have like seven of these agents in these kind of roles. The next piece we did was
00:24:09
we gave my agent which is like the ultron root access to Gmail, calendar, zoom, notion, slack. And what it's doing
00:24:18
is it's giving each person here's what you got done this week with their
00:24:21
manager. Here's the emails you sent. Here's the meetings you took. Here's the
00:24:24
contacts. here the threads you were involved in and then it's helping manage
00:24:28
those people and so we are >> okay but all that all that to me says you Jason despite all your dumerism
00:24:36
seems like you're growing and you're going to be hiring more people and you're more productive am I getting this
00:24:41
wrong >> I'm not dumerous what I think's going to happen in this position is
00:24:44
>> but you're growing and you're going to be hiring more people >> no no we're not going to add more people
00:24:48
definitely not adding people we have are becoming 10 or 20% more efficient every
00:24:54
week Because the software we would have paid for or built from another vendor if
00:24:57
we had the time or we wanted to build custom software we had 10 engineers it's
00:25:02
being built by our openclaw agents. As an example when we make clips for this podcast other podcasts we have it go and
00:25:10
look at like uh this weekend startups episode from 10 years tell us the three best moments and it makes the clip it
00:25:16
puts the subtitles on it and then it puts the clip into the Slack room. That was something that was going to be a
00:25:21
full-time job. So, we're getting 10 20% more efficient. Then I started doing it
00:25:26
at home. So, I had to take our Instacart, pull out the last 10 orders we did, and then tell us what we order
00:25:32
most of time. And then it's going to automatically build a car for us. Every
00:25:36
single knowledge work job is being automated right now. And you can take it and if you're a business process head,
00:25:43
where you know how to like do a business process and you can structure it and write it with an agent, it'll just run
00:25:49
it every day, every week. We did another agent, how do you make better thumbnails? And we said, every Saturday
00:25:57
in your skills, so when you build an open claw, it has like a soul file and it has a skills file. In the skills
00:26:03
file, we told it sax every week go out and look for people discussing how to make better thumbnails on YouTube, how
00:26:10
to make better titles. It found this week, Chimath, somebody at Mr. Beast company talk about how they're using
00:26:18
heat maps. It was an article I would have never known. It added it to its skill and now whenever we post a
00:26:24
thumbnail, it tell tells us based on its skill that it refineses every week how to make that thumbnail better. And it's
00:26:30
starting to make the thumbnails. This is becoming recursive. So you keep the same
00:26:34
number of people, but they get 10 or 20% more efficient. I don't know what this
00:26:38
means for the larger economy. All I know is it's the most exciting time I've had
00:26:42
online since the web came out, since the internet came out. It is so much fun to
00:26:47
automate all this stuff. The big question that I am thinking about that I haven't gotten a good answer about so I
00:26:54
don't I don't know what you guys think is all these businesses are going to need
00:26:58
to batten down the hatches and give themselves room to figure this all out right like if you take Sax's point like
00:27:04
if you take your point Jal which is the young nimble companies like yours are going to be rapidly experimenting the
00:27:12
bigger larger companies are going to slowly onboard themselves to start experimenting All of that means we're
00:27:18
going to get much clearer answers to all of this. But what it also means is that
00:27:22
you're going to have to have time so that you can figure this all out. >> And
00:27:28
if you want to buy yourself time, you're going to need a ton of cash. And if
00:27:33
you're going to think about saving cash, the one place tech companies literally
00:27:38
incinerate cash is how they do compensation. And so I kind of think like at some
00:27:45
point the next shoe will drop and all of these tech companies have to really look
00:27:48
at stockbased comp because they literally incinerate most if not all of their free cash flow fighting the
00:27:55
delilution from stockbased compensation. So if you want five or six years to just
00:27:58
be in the arena on the field figuring this out, you're going to want to kind
00:28:03
of be very cash flow generative and really conservative in how you spend your money. Yeah, Saxs, the people who
00:28:09
embrace this, I think, become five or ten times more valuable than the people who are not. That's where I think the
00:28:14
opportunity in the economy is. So, unless you think humanity is going to run out of problems to solve, I think
00:28:20
it's going to be boom. It's going to be boom town. And I think people are going
00:28:23
to start more companies because the the barrier to start a company is no longer three or four million dollars. You can
00:28:29
just have two or three people and you start setting up these agents and man you can
00:28:34
>> make software, you can do sales, you can do PR, everything is getting faster and
00:28:38
faster and faster. So the time between like conceiving of a product and publishing it and finding a developer,
00:28:45
you don't even need a developer, you can just publish software, the the wakeup
00:28:49
moment for me was we were talking to our agent about, hey, we want to get this functionality out of Slack. And it's
00:28:56
like, "Yeah, Slack doesn't have that, but have you considered Matterpost?" I'm
00:29:00
like, "What's Matter Post?" Like, "Oh, it's an open source project. I can spin
00:29:02
it up this weekend. Export your Slack instance and put it there." And I was
00:29:05
like, "Oh, don't do that. We're only spending 6K a year on Slack or 10K a
00:29:10
year." But the software is building CRM systems for us. It's building agents for
00:29:15
us, and it wants to just build all the software stack. So you could when you renegotiate with Slack or HubSpot or
00:29:24
whatever company you're working with, you're going to be able to say to them,
00:29:28
hey, we could roll our own and uh when you want to upsell us on this latest thing like you talked about SAS,
00:29:33
upselling is such a big part of SAS. You're like, I can actually build that software myself internally. I don't need
00:29:38
you to do it. >> Ryan Peterson just posts on XC Claude for legal seems to work just as well as
00:29:45
Harvey by the way. Now it's the SAS apocalypse is going after private companies now too.
00:29:51
>> Well, I think for a while now there has been a question of which layer of the
00:29:54
stack is going to capture all the value. >> So is it going to be the model companies
00:30:00
or could it be the applications that are built on top of the models or you know if there's a lot of competition at both
00:30:05
those layers of the stack did the chip companies get it all? I think it's a unclear question but
00:30:10
>> totally >> yeah I think you know for any given vertical application you do have to
00:30:16
defend why you think your value prop will be sustainable as the underlying foundation models get better themselves
00:30:25
>> and it's open source like this week we put up Kimmy 2.5 it can do about 80 85%
00:30:31
of the jobs so we lowered our token bills massively when we stood that up all right listen this is TBD We got a
00:30:38
lot more to think about on this topic. >> Just on this point of a lot of these
00:30:42
debates about AI are dueling science fiction narratives. I just think that the doomer narratives are inherently
00:30:50
more appealing to people. I mean, I think it's partly just you look at most sci-fi movies are dystopian, not
00:30:56
utopian. In addition to that, I think we have a bunch of heristic biases in favor
00:31:01
of the dumer narrative. So, one of them is the scene versus the unseen. It's a
00:31:05
lot easier to see the jobs that already exist that could be obsoleted than it is
00:31:11
to imagine the new jobs and the new business models that haven't been created yet. And that will likely take
00:31:17
some great innovator or a genius to think of in order to create. So we have that huge heristic bias of not being
00:31:24
able to see the creation that's coming. It takes way less creativity to think
00:31:28
about the potential destruction. And then finally I think you know the other heristic is just the whole fixed pie
00:31:34
fallacy. Most people do tend to think of the economy as a fixed pie. This is why
00:31:39
you see so much anger against you know millionaires and billionaires is because of this idea that if someone's getting
00:31:45
rich it must be at the expense of someone else. That's not actually the case. The economy itself could be
00:31:50
growing larger as a result of someone inventing something new that increases production. A really good line from
00:31:56
another article that was written just a couple weeks ago was the economy is not a a pie, it's a garden and technology is
00:32:03
rain. So again, you know, all of this technological innovation is going to increase the growth rate of the garden.
00:32:10
It's not a fixed pie. And just because you see an expansion and productivity in
00:32:17
one part of the economy does not mean that you're going to see job loss in another part of the economy.
00:32:21
>> Yeah. I think the job people are not seeing but I'm seeing right now is the
00:32:25
person who creates agents, manages them and is the maestro of the agents. The person who can take the business
00:32:34
process, explain it and train the agent to do it. And there are certain people in business who are just really good at
00:32:39
operations. You were one of them Sachs running companies and like that person who can fire up an agent, train the
00:32:45
agent and figure out how to manage them and figure out how to increase >> with any new technology. Great job. and
00:32:51
it's not a developer. >> Look, with any new technology, there's always a huge change management aspect
00:32:56
with enterprises because it's hard for them to adapt and change. And the people
00:33:01
in the organization who can lead that change management are the ones who are going to create an amazing career
00:33:07
opportunity for themselves. But it's hard to do and that's going to slow down
00:33:10
the rate of change just the amount of inertia in the economy. And also one other constraint is going to be that at
00:33:16
some point here we may be token constrained, right? I mean, we may not have enough energy like we've talked
00:33:21
about, even though the chips are getting so much better, that tokens per second,
00:33:26
tokens per watt, and tokens per dollar are all increasing very fast, but we're
00:33:31
still going to probably be constrained in the next couple of years on some dimension, whether it's land, power,
00:33:36
shell, or just energy production or maybe chip production. There are real world constraints on just how fast we
00:33:43
can scale the infrastructure and that will mean that these like hyper utopian or hyperdystopian narratives will be
00:33:50
wrong. I don't think there's time in the next few years for the whole economy to
00:33:54
change in the way that the extremes would present. >> I think you're right. I think you're
00:33:59
going to see a 10xing in the demand for tokens, but I also think you're going to see a 90% price
00:34:08
reduction in the cost of an output token probably by the end of this year. So, I
00:34:12
think that to your point, like it's it's going to just create an enormous upswell
00:34:17
of demand because we're going to be able to cut the prices of an output token so
00:34:21
dramatically. And I think by the way >> that discussion we had Shamath last week
00:34:25
when we talked about co the tokens outpacing the employee salary and just where are these tokens all going to come
00:34:30
from that was our most viewed clip or one of the most viewed clips in the history of this podcast. So people are
00:34:36
actually really focused on this. >> I had my team at 89 we we redid our cost
00:34:40
model and now we have that as a line item. When we think about fully burdened cost of employees, we now factor that in
00:34:49
because we're we're at a place where some of our engineers are just racking
00:34:53
up ginormous bills and then separately just general runs that we do for general purpose stuff that we need to just run
00:35:00
our product is it's so expensive. So I am waiting with baited breath for what
00:35:05
Zach said which is like we need an explosion in the capacity that's available because I do think that the
00:35:12
the silicon solutions are coming that will cut the cost but we need a large block of land power shell ready to then
00:35:20
turn all of this stuff on so that we can actually take advantage of it. >> Rumors the new Mac Studio is coming will
00:35:26
have an M5 chip in it and will be language model ready. So that's the rumor is that they're building it for
00:35:32
models. So that could be an incredible turn of events. Everybody's desktop running the local model. Sax, you want
00:35:38
to have the final word here? Uh Free or Freeberg before we >> just to go back to what Jamath was
00:35:42
saying there. I mean, you've got political forces that want to stop the construction of all data centers in the
00:35:47
United States. So >> if that gains steam, then that's going to be a huge constraint on any change
00:35:52
whatsoever. >> Can I tee this up for you, Jal? So I I went back this weekend
00:35:57
and I looked at the number of data centers that have faced local opposition and whether there were patterns. And I I
00:36:05
posted it on X. So Nick, maybe you can put this up, but it was really a a very small
00:36:14
behavior which was pushing back on data centers and getting them cancelled. We had about 25 projects total of which
00:36:22
20 were just in Q2 alone. There are 100 data center projects right now that are facing some form of local opposition.
00:36:29
>> So interesting. >> If you take that 40% number and you apply this and then you multiply by the
00:36:37
number of megawatts that they have announced. Last year we lost almost 5 gawatt in terms of cancel projects.
00:36:46
This year coming in 26 we have about seven that could be cancelled if you use this math. If then you flow that through
00:36:55
open AI Sarah Frier said this that every gigawatt for her for open AAI is about 10 billion of revenue. So if you if you
00:37:03
assume that that's roughly accurate plus or minus a billion here or there. What
00:37:07
that means is that 2025 the industry as a whole lost 50 billion of revenue and this year if 7 gawatt gets canceled
00:37:18
it's about 70 billion. Now you're talking about 130 billion of lost revenue over these two years that'll go
00:37:23
forward in time that we miss out on. I think that that's really bad. We need to
00:37:28
figure out a way to nip this in the bud. >> So confounding because we were sitting
00:37:33
here 5 years ago, 10 years ago, local municipalities were fighting and giving discounts to try to get these data
00:37:39
centers open to get the jobs and get the revenue. And now we've got people trying
00:37:43
to stop them. This is a perfect transition for the State of the Union. Before we get there, two important
00:37:49
programming notes. All-In is going to host two events in 2026. One of them, liquidity, May 31st to June 3rd, uh, in
00:37:56
Yonville, uh, up in Wine Country. Chimath has taken control of the event and he has set a standard for who gets
00:38:03
on stage. >> None of you mids can control the programming. I just >> That's it. Chimath came in and he
00:38:09
dropped the hammer. Who do you got so far? You want to tease a couple of people who you invited to come speak?
00:38:14
>> I'll tease two. The first is an incredibly dear friend of mine, >> the axe of axes,
00:38:22
Dan Loe, who founded Third Point, who is an unbelievable investor in literally every domain, private credit,
00:38:33
public equities, private tech. He's he's just a he's >> a beast. So, he'll be doing a really
00:38:41
important keynote. He has not done one of these public speaking slots in a very long time. And then the second is the
00:38:47
CFO of OpenAI, Sarah Frier. >> Oh wow. >> Unbelievable start. And we're going to
00:38:54
double click into the entire business model of OpenAI on stage in front of everybody.
00:38:57
>> So uh go to allin.com and then for those of you who plan ahead for travel,
00:39:01
>> more coming more coming every week. >> If you are an All-In Summit fan, I can't
00:39:07
believe it. Freedber, we're going to be in our fifth year September 13th to 15th. only gets better. Gets better
00:39:13
every year. I could have some good parties, too. I mean, that Back to the Future and the Bladeunner parties, those
00:39:17
were epic. >> allin.com/events. Hey, can I give a plug to friend of the pod,
00:39:23
>> Bill Gurly? He's got an amazing new book, Running Down a Dream. Please,
00:39:26
>> wait, wait, wait, wait. Before we start, >> before I start, >> there it is. Running down a Dream, I
00:39:30
just want everybody to just stop the pause the podcast. I want you to buy three copies, give it to two young
00:39:35
people and a parent. You know, >> this book is incredible. >> It's a great book. It's a great book. It
00:39:40
It really is. inspiring for kids and uh Bill Gurly, friend of the pot. He always
00:39:44
shows up for us. >> Jal, do an impression for us of what it would be like if you and Bill Gurley
00:39:48
started a podcast together. >> All right, everybody. Welcome to the JCBG podcast. I'm your host, Jason
00:39:53
Calakanis. and I'm Bill Gurly and we're here in Texas at Terry Blacks where
00:39:58
we're getting some beef ribs and we're going to discuss investing in marketplaces
00:40:04
as well as my new book running down a dream which will teach your kids how to not be fuckups and if your kids are ups
00:40:14
you can hit them in the back of the head with the book Texas style. One of the big topics uh and I think
00:40:22
something you're working on with President Trump's acts is uh this energy
00:40:28
pledge. I've been seeing uh rumblings about this. Explain what's going on in
00:40:31
terms of getting the country in sync around these data centers and energy. Well, the president announced in the
00:40:38
State of the Union last night that he supports a rateayer protection pledge which requires uh the major tech
00:40:47
companies to provide for their own power needs for AI data centers so that residential consumers do not see their
00:40:53
rates going up. I think this makes total sense. I think Chamas, to your point, this is the reason behind a lot of the
00:41:00
opposition to new data centers is that the local residents fear that their electricity prices are going to go up
00:41:05
and that shouldn't be the case. And so the president has said that he's committed to not allowing residential
00:41:11
rates to go up as a result of data centers. It's pretty straightforward. You get the big tech companies, the
00:41:16
hyperscalers to pay for the increase in the electricity cost or you let them set
00:41:22
up their own power behind the meter. The president's been talking about this for
00:41:25
over a year that our biggest AI companies would also become big power companies because we would let them uh
00:41:31
stand up their own power generation behind the meter. So these data centers don't even have to connect to the grid.
00:41:38
They could just do collocation themselves. But also, I think that with this rateayer protection pledge, what
00:41:45
you're going to see is that it could actually bring down consumer prices because what happens is that when these
00:41:51
data centers then set up their own power and connect to the grid, they can give back the excess to the grid. Also, they
00:41:58
will make investments in scaling the infrastructure. So, although electricity is priced at a metered rate, the costs
00:42:05
to generate it are not all variable. There's a lot of huge fixed costs in there. So when you increase scale then
00:42:12
you can actually reduce the the metered rate. So again you know this is really I
00:42:17
think the rebuttal to Bernie Sanders who just wants to stop all progress whatsoever.
00:42:22
I saw a funny post calling it bananas which is build absolutely nothing anywhere near anyone. So this is the
00:42:30
>> bananas is replacing the new nimi. So you just can build absolutely nothing. I
00:42:34
think the president's approach finds a very good balance here, which is look,
00:42:38
>> we can have progress. Just don't make residential consumers pay for it. Let
00:42:41
the big tech companies pay for it themselves. And I think you'll see more coming out about this from the White
00:42:46
House next week. >> Quite a deaf move. Freeberg, how should America be thinking about this great
00:42:53
data center buildout, energy usage, you know, if you expand it out over the coming decade? And how do you sell that
00:43:01
to the backdrop that you talk about the socialist movement? You got a great interview coming out with Ray Dalio and
00:43:06
the all-in interview program next week. How do you think about those competing forces? You've got the socialists saying
00:43:13
bananas, nimi, slow down, del, and then you've got this incredible race we're in
00:43:20
for efficiency and this opportunity and abundance. How would you sell it to kind
00:43:25
of bring these two sides together? Or is it just impossible. The data coming in and out
00:43:32
of data centers moves at roughly the speed of light. So you could put them anywhere. And I think that our policy
00:43:40
makers need to be very cognizant of that fact. You have and we do connect the internet using high-speed cable,
00:43:50
high-speed fiber optic throughout the world. And so theoretically if we don't embrace and
00:43:58
allow the economic development of the data center industry and it will fundamentally be an industry because it
00:44:04
is almost like the new sort of oil. Where are the oil rigs going to go? Where are the railroads going to go?
00:44:11
Where are the telegraph lines going to go? Where are the factories going to go? If we don't put them here, someone else
00:44:16
will put them on their shores. Someone else will put them in their country. Someone else will put them in their
00:44:20
jurisdiction. And a lot of the economic value that arises from the people that will build those facilities, the energy
00:44:28
that will be installed to produce power for those facilities, and then all of the second and third order industries
00:44:35
that emerge as a result of those installations, that value will acrue elsewhere.
00:44:40
>> Such a good point. >> So, >> yeah, >> it's not going to like just go away. The
00:44:44
the demand is there. The economy is moving forward. AI is moving forward. We live in a world with 196 countries and
00:44:52
data centers do not take up a lot of space. They're very small relative to the economic value that they produce. If
00:44:58
you zoom out on the map of the world, all the data centers in the world fit under the tip of a pin. And so this is a
00:45:06
very small footprint and if we're going to give up hundreds of thousands of jobs
00:45:11
and many billions of dollars of economic value creation, we're being pretty silly
00:45:15
and pretty obtuse in our view of the world. I would just like encourage the system that I think is the right system
00:45:21
and we talked about this last time where provided data centers are producing their own electricity. That means that
00:45:27
you're taking electricity consumption off the grid because they otherwise are
00:45:32
not being used on the grid and that will reduce the cost of electricity for other
00:45:36
residential and industrial users. So, it's silly to think that we need to put
00:45:40
a moratorium on data centers. As soon as you do that, the companies that use data
00:45:44
centers are not going to slow down. they're going to go put them somewhere else and we're going to miss out.
00:45:47
>> And it's such a good point, Chimamoth, because you were recently in the Middle
00:45:50
East and I've been there a bunch in Saudi, UAE. These are the folks who built a large portion of those oil
00:45:58
refineries. And they are savvy to this. And what are they doing in Saudi, UAE, Qatar, all of these regions? They're
00:46:06
doubling down. They're 10xing their data center builds. So to your point, Freedberg, either we build them or
00:46:13
they're going to go somewhere else. And there are people who are willing to underwrite these and they're willing to
00:46:18
take out the red tape from the process here and move quicker than us. So we I think this is a pretty
00:46:24
deaf move by President Trump to say, "Hey, you guys should all just guarantee
00:46:29
that consumers don't get impacted." The water thing is a total hoax. Like the
00:46:33
water is recirculated. That's a hoax. I think this is really smart. I think that
00:46:37
what the president's doing and what Sax is doing is really smart. The thing to
00:46:41
keep in mind is that there's still a risk that prices go up and it has nothing to do with these data centers
00:46:47
and it has everything to do with the business model of being a utility because what happens is in order to get
00:46:54
a license a monopoly license in an area to provide energy to generate energy for
00:47:01
a community. The exchange works in the following way. You go and you present a capex plan to
00:47:08
the public utilities commission. That's effectively your budget that says here
00:47:12
are the lines I'm going to upgrade. Here are the generators I'm going to upgrade.
00:47:16
Independent of data centers. The reality is the draw the electricity consumption
00:47:21
of individual Americans is going up because we have more devices, we have cars, we have all of these other things.
00:47:27
So what we also have to do is we have to look at how utilities's business model
00:47:31
actually incentivizes them to increase prices by making all kinds of investments. So we have to do a good job
00:47:39
of making sure we hold everybody accountable because otherwise what you could see is that the data centers
00:47:45
taking on the burden for themselves but price is still continuing to escalate because a utility says I need to spend a
00:47:51
billion dollars this year to upgrade my infrastructure. And what that allows them to do is take that billion dollars
00:47:56
and essentially invest it for a return. That's the business model of utility.
00:48:00
And this is really happening in blue states. Micron has a hundred billion dollar mega fab in New York. And there's
00:48:08
a lawsuit by six 1 2 3 4 5 citizens. >> That's shameful. >> And the project has taken 12
00:48:17
>> 1200 days. 1,200 days >> between their announcement and the groundbreaking. And they spent 612 days
00:48:24
on the environmental impact study. People wake up. Just go to Texas. Elon built his factory here, the Gigafactory,
00:48:33
in under like 18 months. This is the great state of Texas. Come here. We'll build it for you and you'll be done.
00:48:40
>> Yeah. I don't know why anyone bothers with the blue states anymore. They make
00:48:43
it too hard to build. >> It's [ __ ] It's so dumb. It's such a
00:48:46
self-owned, too. Like, what? Don't you want to be part of the future? You're
00:48:49
literally ankling the entire country to scratch the odd. >> By the way, there are a lot of people in
00:48:55
New York who want to work. This is not a case actually of this new fab being unpopular.
00:49:02
The majority of people in the area actually want this plant being built. They want the jobs that are going to
00:49:07
come there. A lot of people say data centers don't create a lot of jobs. This
00:49:10
is actually a chip fab. So, it will create a lot of jobs. A lot of good high paying jobs. People want it. But six
00:49:16
people can stop it with a lawsuit after it's already been through a two-year
00:49:20
environmental review. >> It's not blue and red states. These are nonprofits that get organized to create
00:49:24
this kind of chaos. I remember looking at a massive lithium investment in Nevada. And the whole point was to
00:49:34
domesticate lithium production. And what was interesting is this enormous deposit
00:49:40
that's just sitting there ripe for development right before they were about to get environmental approvals or right
00:49:45
after there was a lawsuit by people who wanted to protect the upper land grass. It's seared in my mind that the upper
00:49:52
land grass of Nevada is the reason why we do not have domestic national security around lithium.
00:49:59
And you have to ask yourself why is this possible? And it's possible because you
00:50:03
have these environmental nonprofits that can go and create this chaos with absolutely no risk to them. Zero. They
00:50:11
can fund raise around it and they can create this chaos. I mean, Nick, to this point, this is an example of Greenpeace.
00:50:17
And specifically here, they were pushing back on an oil pipeline to such a degree
00:50:22
and they created so much chaos that they were sued. And a North Dakota judge just
00:50:27
said that he's going to order Greenpeace to pay damages. That should total almost
00:50:30
$350 million in connection to those protests. >> And it should not be the case that six
00:50:36
people can slow down a hundred billion investment package. That's not right.
00:50:40
Well, I think there's and I just want to highlight this important point. There's
00:50:44
not a lot of logic and reason. You guys are right. But I do think there's a lot of emotion and there's a
00:50:52
huge aversion to big tech, a huge aversion to wealth creation by select individuals, select companies, a huge
00:50:59
aversion to economic growth that doesn't benefit everyone. There's a fundamental
00:51:03
kind of underlying left behind emotion that drives a lot of this. And I've said
00:51:08
it before, but I think unless there's systems or mechanisms that get folks to
00:51:12
come along with the value creation ahead and and help them connect their own lives to the value creation that's being
00:51:18
realized, they're not going to be supportive because there is this kind of diametric opposition towards big tech,
00:51:25
towards the wealth gap, towards value acrruel to a select few companies or select few individuals and this fuels
00:51:31
and feeds that. So I think fundamentally maybe it's not just about giving the
00:51:35
data centers their own power capacity but there's got to be mechanisms and tools that helps the broader population
00:51:42
understand or recognize or get some benefit from it as well where they're an
00:51:46
owner in it or participant in it because they have the power as we're seeing they
00:51:50
have the power to stop it. Therefore they want to have some benefit for providing authority to do it. And these
00:51:56
six people are concerned about housing costs, worker exposure to toxic chemicals, pollution in air and water,
00:52:04
greenhouse gas emissions, energy consumption, flooding of the wetlands, all these things that obviously could be
00:52:10
mitigated. All right, let's keep moving here. We got a lot more docket to get
00:52:13
through. State of the Union came in at 108 minutes and it's the longest in 60 years.
00:52:20
actually the longest since they started tracking this. The theme of President Trump's State of the Union this year,
00:52:26
America at 250, strong, prosperous, and respected. Trump took a bunch of victory
00:52:32
laps, inflation, jobs, closing the border, all those have gone really well. But this comes to the backdrop of
00:52:38
Trump's approval rating being super challenged. He started his first year at
00:52:44
plus 11.7%. Now he's negative 14 14.3% 26 point swing. Economy started plus 3.4
00:52:52
down to 18.2 and trade started at 5.9% and we'll talk about the tariff stuff
00:52:57
later and went down to 22.7. So let's call balls and strikes here, gentlemen. Favorite moments. What were
00:53:05
your favorite moments from the State of the Union and just general impressions of 1 hour and 45 minutes of Trump going
00:53:14
to town? I thought it was great. >> Favorite moment? Favorite moment or two?
00:53:21
Well, I had a couple. One was the Elon Omar Rashida Tlay death stare and them just like losing their minds and
00:53:34
and screaming. I just thought it was so unamerican. The second was when he was calling for law and order where and
00:53:43
focusing and prioritizing on American citizens and >> illegal uh aliens >> and none of the Democrats stood up. I
00:53:52
thought that was kind of foolish. It was like obvious things and the Democrats wouldn't applaud but this time they did
00:53:57
like they did for the hockey team which I thought was like the right thing to do. And then the fourth thing is just a
00:54:01
a shout out to our friend Brad Gersonner who got a big shout out from the president. I don't know Sax if you
00:54:05
engineered that or not but that was >> that was fantastic. He got like a double shout out. It was
00:54:10
like a double tap. >> Yeah, that was really cool. >> That was surreal.
00:54:14
>> Our group chat group chat went crazy. It was really That was really cool.
00:54:18
>> Those are my four highlights. >> Great. Here's your uh here's your clip
00:54:22
of uh yeah, Democrats not standing for Americans uh over illegal aliens. 20 seconds.
00:54:31
>> If you agree with this statement, then stand up and show your support. The
00:54:36
first duty of the American government is to protect American citizens, not illegal aliens.
00:54:52
>> Why wouldn't you stand for that? That's an easy one to stand for. Doesn't make
00:54:56
any sense. >> Would you stand for it, Chico? >> Yeah. I mean, I I'm I'm pro I can be
00:55:02
anti-ICE, but I'm pro-American and I'm pro reasonable immigration like 90% of
00:55:08
the country is. So, it just doesn't make any sense. Uh, do you have any highlight?
00:55:12
>> Do you think American citizens should be prioritized over illegals? >> Well, of course, of course. Yes. Of
00:55:18
course. Yes. And then I I also think there should be a path to citizenship for people who have been here for a
00:55:23
while. And I think that's what the majority of the country thinks as well. >> Your point is I can hold two thoughts in
00:55:27
my head. I would have stood if he asked me. >> Yes, obviously we should take care of
00:55:32
American citizens first. Yes. And we should deport violent criminals. We've been over this like a million times
00:55:37
here. This is like consensus. >> But what do you what do you think is going on in everybody else's head when
00:55:42
they're like we got to we cannot stand for this? >> These two sides I mean I think it's like
00:55:46
the tariff thing. It's like the ice thing. These two sides cannot work together. It's just the most polarized
00:55:52
it's ever been. Trump is not like the kind of guy to reach across the aisle.
00:55:56
the Democrats are now digging in. So, we just have a dysfunctional government where, you know, in a more functional
00:56:02
time period, like under Clinton, let's say, or Bush, people would have gotten
00:56:07
together, and I'm I'm jumping ahead to the tariff discussion. And they would
00:56:10
have said, "Yeah, of course, tariffs are done in Congress. That's the law.
00:56:13
Whatever. What are your thoughts, Mr. President? How can we support your tariff program?" But now it's like, "Oh,
00:56:18
well, we don't work together. We don't actually have discussions anymore.
00:56:22
There's no bipartisan, you know, collaboration. All these politicians are disgraceful descriat
00:56:28
across the board. They should be working together for the American people. If the
00:56:31
president wants to do tariffs, >> they should be reasonable about it and give him the power to do reasonable
00:56:37
tariffs and he should be reasonable and say, "Hey, I understand that's your
00:56:39
power. Let's get together and we'll we'll chop it up and let's have dinner
00:56:42
together." But they're just too polarized. It's just disgraceful where
00:56:45
this country has gotten to. I blame both parties. Whenever the Democrats get smoked out as
00:56:52
being radicals and extremists, you always want to basically say a pox on both your houses and blame the
00:56:57
Republicans and Democrats equally. The fact of the matter is the president said to the audience, to the members of
00:57:04
Congress, hey, if you agree with the statement, stand up. And of course, every single Democrat sat there
00:57:10
stonefaced and refused to applaud or acknowledge what he was saying. This was a very easy test for the Democrats to
00:57:19
pass. >> What I just said, >> in fact, it was what I said. >> In fact, it was a political risk for the
00:57:24
president because it was so easy for the Democrats to demonstrate that they're
00:57:29
operating in good faith and that they're willing to be bipartisan and they're not
00:57:32
extremists and they're actually common sensical and logical and they completely
00:57:37
failed the test. And by the way, it wasn't just on that one. I mean, let me just tell you some of the other ones
00:57:42
where they refused to applaud. So they refused to applaud the grieving families of innocent American women and children
00:57:50
murdered by criminal illegal aliens, including the mother of Ireina Zeritzkaya. >> That was very sad. That was sad.
00:57:58
>> That was unbelievable. They refused to applaud for securing our homeland and uh
00:58:03
ending the invasion of criminal illegal aliens, killers, rapists, gang members, and traffickers. They refused to applaud
00:58:10
for unifying against political violence. So, the president mentioned the assassination of Charlie Kirk. They
00:58:16
would not even do a polite clap for Erica Kirk and unifying against political violence. They refused to
00:58:23
applaud for keeping violent criminals locked up. They even refused to applaud for lower prescription drug prices for
00:58:30
millions of Americans because it was President Trump who orchestrated that policy. And there were so many other
00:58:35
examples like that. And you know, I think the reason why this speech was so effective, and by the way, it's not just
00:58:41
me saying it. something like twothirds of the people that CNN pled, so twothirds of CNN watchers said it was
00:58:48
highly effective and something like threearters of CBS news viewers said it was highly effective is because the
00:58:54
president laid out 8020 issue one after another, right? Or even 9010 issues or 955 issues. I mean, these were all
00:59:03
issues where the overwhelming number of Americans, I think, agree with the policy the president laid out. And in
00:59:09
every single case, the Democrats supposed to wouldn't even give it applied applause. And that is different
00:59:14
than than in the past. And you can say that's because of hyperartisanship and
00:59:18
polarization, but it's also because of another thing. It's because the Democrats have become a party of
00:59:24
radicalism and extremism. And the viewpoints that they expressed through their aesthetics the other night, they
00:59:33
do express those things in policy and in speeches all the time. So it's not just
00:59:38
like a oneoff or you know somehow like we have a misconception of who these guys are. I think you know the big line
00:59:45
of the night was when Trump just sort of said these people are crazy. I mean he said it in like almost mournful and
00:59:51
regretful way. He doesn't want them to be crazy. He wants them to be rational
00:59:54
so he can work with them. I mean, >> but I think that point re I'll I'll
00:59:57
still point the other side, which is this has been going on for a couple of, >> you know, state of the unions here
01:00:03
across this. The Republicans didn't stand for the Democrats often and uh it's a bit of showmanship. But the truth
01:00:09
is Trump is the divider and chief chief. He always is attacking people. He's
01:00:13
always mocking people. So, they don't want to play ball with him. So, I do think you can both choice in politics.
01:00:19
You got to counter punch. >> Uh no, I don't think so. That's actually
01:00:22
the that's actually the problem with the that philosophy, Trump's philosophy of
01:00:27
we have to counter punch, we have to attack, we never have to apologize, we never have to be reasonable. That's part
01:00:32
of what's broken down in our politics and these two sides should work together. We should go back to a
01:00:36
bipartisan. >> Are you going to work with Helen Omar when he is when the president going to
01:00:40
be easy, but she is the mirror. Hold on, I'll finish my statement. You asked a
01:00:44
question. I think Trump is the mirror of that. He has been hostile towards these
01:00:49
Democrat. He doesn't give them an inch. they should be more collaborative. That
01:00:52
that's what the balance of power between the executive branch, you know, and and
01:00:58
these uh you know, congressmen and and the Congress and the Senate. Like this is how it's supposed to work. And these
01:01:04
two sides need to learn how to get back to listening to each other, understanding each other's positions,
01:01:09
and then finding a middle ground. And that's why the Democrats lost last time
01:01:13
because they didn't have the common sense to say, "Hey, everybody wants the
01:01:16
border closed." To your point, it's a 90% issue. and Kla Harris was too dumb
01:01:21
to just say, "Yeah, we should have closed the border. It's closed now." And
01:01:24
uh we've got it. Anyway, the whole thing is a mess. I understand you got to fight
01:01:28
for your team. I don't like the >> count. You just actually made the key
01:01:31
point. You made the key point which is underlying the optics and the polarization. You have issues and on
01:01:37
those issues, President Trump is on the side of the American people. the issues where 80% of the American people agree.
01:01:44
Some huge percentage, I don't know exactly what it is, thinks that the Somali daycare fraud in Minnesota was an
01:01:51
outrage. And the president is right to point that out. And what's the Democrat's reaction? You've got Ilan
01:01:57
Omar screaming from the audience at him. >> Yeah, she's alone. I mean, at the end of
01:02:02
the Democrats are not that different. You did have you did have Elizabeth Warren stand for uh stopping Nancy
01:02:10
Pelosi from trading stocks and that gave Trump his best oneliner of the night. That was his best oneliner clearly and
01:02:15
they stood for Iran too and stopping Iran from being a nuclear. >> I give Elizabeth Warren credit for that.
01:02:21
>> There you go. You don't have to punch her back. >> Stop insider trading act without delay.
01:02:27
>> Yeah. See, that's something bipartisan. Look at that, Zach. That's what you need
01:02:31
to get the country back to. But that hold on. But this this disproves the point you were making before. You said
01:02:37
that it was polarization. >> You stood up for that. I can't believe >> can't believe Nancy Pelosi stand up if
01:02:44
she sing pal. Good job. >> That's why he's so good is he's in the
01:02:49
moment and he's reacting to what's happening in the chamber. He's not good.
01:02:52
He's not just reading from a teleprompter. And he nailed it. But look, that moment disproves what you
01:02:57
were saying, Jal, because this is not just about polarization. On that issue, Elizabeth Warren was willing to stand
01:03:02
because she actually, to her credit, wants to ban insider trading by members of Congress. Yes. But on the rest of
01:03:08
those issues, like securing the border, she did not stand. Why? Because she does
01:03:11
not agree with the president on that issue. >> We just have to get back to these sides
01:03:16
working together. That's my personal feeling. uh Freeberg, any thoughts on the uh
01:03:21
theatrics and uh Trump's first year at large and you know the sort of back and
01:03:26
forth and is there any hope that these two teams could collaborate at some point on something like say the
01:03:34
ballooning deficit which Trump has not gotten under control in his first year and it's going to be $2.5 trillion
01:03:40
dollars added. What are your thoughts here on them collaborating on anything important? Friedberg, that's probably
01:03:45
one thing they can agree on is just keep the money flowing. Got it. They'll both
01:03:49
give a They'll both give a a standing ovation for burn more capital and put us
01:03:53
more in debt. Well said my guy David Friedberg, sultpan of science, it is your time to shine. The world's greatest
01:04:03
moderator has decided we're going directly to science corner. This is your time to shine.
01:04:09
>> Sax's time to drop a deuce. >> Sax went immediately off camera.
01:04:12
>> Yeah, he has to drop a deuce. >> What's up? >> But what do you need me for? This is
01:04:17
very important for you. >> Freeberg's going to talk. >> Lightning round for science corner. Go
01:04:21
Freeberg. >> Wait, wait, wait. Are we doing any more topics after this or can I just leave?
01:04:24
>> Yes, tariffs. >> Yes, we're doing tariffs. >> Wait, why would we do that?
01:04:27
>> Because I want to get the audience to sleep. I'm not saying Science Corner
01:04:32
doesn't have its audience. >> Listen, you can go. >> Why wouldn't we do Yeah, exactly. You're
01:04:37
screaming. >> Let him do his work. >> Let him let him cook. Let him cook.
01:04:40
>> Freeberg, tell us about this Harvard scene. >> Speaking of science, I think that
01:04:43
there's a very important moment happening right now. We've talked a number of times on the show about
01:04:47
Yamanaka factors. These are these four proteins that were discovered by Shina Yamanaka that we found later that when
01:04:56
applied to cells, mamalian cells can actually reverse the age of those cells, reset the epigenetic clock, reset the
01:05:04
epiggenome, which is the little markers on top of the DNA that turn genes on and
01:05:07
off back to a youthful state. extraordinary groundbreaking work that was done that won the Nobel Prize led to
01:05:14
the foundation of several companies. There's a Harvard uh scientist named David Sinclair. He's a bit of a
01:05:20
controversial character. Do you guys know him? I think you guys one one or two of you may have met him. Chim, you
01:05:24
ever met him? >> I I I followed him. I've seen his stuff. So Sinclair is kind of bemoaned a little
01:05:31
bit by the scientific and academic community for being a little too overhypy snake oil salesman as some of
01:05:38
folks have claimed because years ago he sold a company to GSK saying resveratrol
01:05:43
would reverse aging and you know he made $720 million on that and it didn't end
01:05:47
up working and he's promoted certain supplement companies and so on. So, I want to preface with that before I kind
01:05:52
of underwrite what he's saying with this next thing, but he's a co-founder of a
01:05:56
company called Life Biosciences, and they've reached a major agreement with the FDA to be the first company to treat
01:06:03
humans with Yamanaka factors. Specifically, what they're doing is they're going to be delivering these
01:06:09
Yamanaka factors, these are these proteins that rejuvenate cells and make them youthful again into the eye. And so
01:06:18
their their first indication is to actually inject them into the vitrial fluid in the eyeball and they'll affect
01:06:24
the retina in the eye to address people that have gotten blind from glaucoma or one of these kind of stroke like
01:06:33
diseases that happen in the eye. And the expectation with this phase one clinical
01:06:37
trial is that the delivery of these Yamanaka factors into the eye will rejuvenate the retina, make it youthful
01:06:44
again, and restore vision. If it works, which it's expected to because we see
01:06:48
this result happen in animal models, it could be an extraordinary breakthrough, not just in terms of blindness, but in
01:06:55
terms of the first human application of Yamanaka factors to reverse aging. The way they're doing it is they're actually
01:07:03
packaging up DNA that will make these proteins into viruses, AAV virus that is delivered into the eye. The virus will
01:07:14
then go into the retinal cells and then will deliver this payload for this DNA to make these proteins in the eye uh
01:07:21
cells and it can be turned on and off. Amazingly they've created a switch mechanism in it where the protein
01:07:28
production the production of these Yamanaka factors can be turned on and off by taking an antibiotic called
01:07:34
doxycyc. So the person that gets the delivery of this drug takes the antibiotic turns on the production of
01:07:40
these Yamanaka factors and then theoretically their eye cells will deage will get youthful and their vision will
01:07:46
be restored. So phase one clinical trials underway. First time in human history we're seeing Yamanaka factors
01:07:52
being delivered into humans. Literally the tip of the iceberg. There are now over a dozen startups that are trying to
01:07:59
deliver Yamanaka factors which are these proteins or some other sort of protein that can actually reverse aging by
01:08:05
restoring the epiggenome and cells and make them young again. So this is the beginning of a wave of what I think will
01:08:11
be the most extraordinary revolution in human therapeutics and ultimately could lead to
01:08:18
you know some people would argue the fountain of youth. Is this just a talk study? So is it mechanism?
01:08:25
>> They're not. Yeah, they're they're well they'll see results. They'll see
01:08:27
results, but they're going to they're going to keep dosing low. But you will
01:08:30
see results. >> God, that's going to be incredible. >> It's going to be incredible. By the way,
01:08:34
the number of other folks that are gearing up for phase one using if not the Yamanaka factors, other factors that
01:08:41
they've identified or designed as an alternative to Yamanaka factors again to
01:08:46
rejuvenate the cells. And just to remind folks, the way this works is it was discovered that these proteins when they
01:08:51
go into a cell, they take all of those little markers that sit on top of your DNA that turn genes on and off and they
01:08:58
create a system that causes them all to move to the right place. So, it resets the markers so that those cells will
01:09:04
start to operate like they're supposed to when they were young again. >> That's going to be
01:09:08
>> it's going to be incredible. Yeah. Do you think like No, in all seriousness,
01:09:11
people's knees or joints or what where do you think it could flow to next in
01:09:16
arthritis? >> Yep. Um and and by the way, when applied and if it's distributed in the skin,
01:09:21
they've seen some results in monkeys where like wrinkles go away. >> It like literally makes these cells all
01:09:26
work youthful again. And so a lot of the damage that happens over time is not damage to DNA. It's damage to the
01:09:33
epiggenome. It's the parts that sit on top of the DNA that turn genes on and
01:09:38
off. And they get moved to the wrong place as you get older. And by resetting them and getting them back to the right
01:09:42
place, boom, the cell is young again, the organ is young again, and suddenly you look and act and feel young again.
01:09:48
It's an incredible technology. We're just at the early stages, the early
01:09:52
innings of turning it into therapeutics. Again, the discovery goes back to 2006 and now we're starting to see it get
01:09:58
into clinic. >> All right, let's rejuvenate. Let's rejuvenate some hairlines on this
01:10:02
podcast. Uh, that would be next up. >> Speak for yourself. >> I don't know. You got You got a little
01:10:07
uh You got a little peaks going there, my brother. A little peak. >> What are you talking about, bro? My
01:10:10
hairline's incredible. I'm 50. >> I mean, it's not bad for 50. I give you
01:10:14
credit. You're You're holding your own. All right, let's talk about our final
01:10:16
topic. Scotas struck down Trump's emergency powers tariffs. Last Friday, Scotas voted 63 against President
01:10:25
Trump's tariffs. Six judges voted against. three conservatives, Roberts, Barrett, Gorsuch, uh, and three liberals
01:10:33
via Bloomberg. This is the biggest rebuke of existing executive policy in 91 years since Scottish struck down
01:10:41
FDR's first new deal in 1935. UPUP Wharton Analysis says the tariffs collected about 175 billion to date, 50%
01:10:51
of all tariff duties, um, might wind up being refunded. This is going to take some time to sort out in the courts.
01:10:59
2,000 importers have already filed for refunds. We we talked about it here. I think the majority of people felt like
01:11:05
this is the way the decision would go. And we talked about here that there were other options for President Trump to
01:11:12
pursue. He immediately said he was not deterred and invoked a 15% global tariff across the board via section 122 of the
01:11:21
1974 trade act. Here's your poly market. Will the court force Trump to refund tariffs?
01:11:29
18% chance but spike to 40% after the SCOTA's decision. How will Congress react? Poly market says 3% chance.
01:11:37
Congress passes any tariffs by March 31st. So again, as I referenced earlier, these two sides just can't seem to work
01:11:46
together. And that would have resolved the whole thing. Saxs, you want to um give us your take here?
01:11:52
>> First of all, I don't think that the tariffs are going away. What the court
01:11:56
basically indicated especially the 70page Kavanaaugh descent is that there's multiple alternative bases in
01:12:02
law for the tariffs in existing law. So for example section 122 of the trade act
01:12:10
of 1974 enables temporary 150day tariffs of up to 15% to address balance of payments
01:12:19
issues and the president has already invoked this. So we are now operating under that. What the 150 days is going
01:12:25
to do is buy the administration time to substantiate via studies and agency reviews. What it needs to prove in order
01:12:34
to invoke more sweeping tariff authority under section 301 of the trade act and under section 338 of the tariff act.
01:12:45
Section 301 authorizes tariffs responding to unfair foreign trade practices. Section 338 of the tariff act
01:12:52
allows tariffs against countries discriminating against US commerce. The Kavanaaugh descent actually provided a
01:12:59
roadmap for the administration to put in place tariffs using one of these alternate uh bases. So, I think that one
01:13:08
way or another, the tariff policies of this administration and the favorable trade deals that they allow us to strike
01:13:13
with many nations, they will continue. And I think the court seems to know that because the majority's opinion as
01:13:20
concurrences collectively said nothing about how the administration should go about refunding the tariff revenue
01:13:27
already collected. I think that if they expected this decision to end the tariff
01:13:31
policies altogether, they probably would have said something about that. And I think that brings up a really important
01:13:37
point just on the merits here, which is why would we want to give back hundreds of billions of dollars to a bunch of
01:13:44
importers when we're trillions of dollars in debt? And I'll just say that
01:13:48
the people who originally predicted that somehow these tariffs would be catastrophic for the economy. Those
01:13:53
predictions all prove not to be true. So I think that this is ultimately, I think, going to be a popular policy. The
01:14:00
administration will figure out a different way to do it. And I predict that future administrations, whether
01:14:04
they're Republican or Democrat, will keep some version of the tariffs in place, but I think that they will be
01:14:10
ultimately popular on a long-standing basis. Chamathy, your thoughts? >> I think we've proven the experiment has
01:14:17
been successful. >> What was the experiment? We needed to smoke out what the right
01:14:25
balance of trade should be between the United States and all of its partner countries. I think that what we
01:14:31
uncovered is that for the most part they were structural imbalances that were made not because they made economic
01:14:37
sense for America, but it was just part of a hodgepodge of globalist dril that people just bought into. And if you
01:14:45
strip all that stuff away, we had a hollowedout manufacturing class and we have a hollowedout middle class and the
01:14:52
tariffs will create more equality for the American worker in the end. So now I think the debate should be about how to
01:14:59
implement these in a structural and permanent way. I think we talked about this before
01:15:04
Jason that this was sort of expected and >> there are many other mechanisms. I think
01:15:10
the president activated one of them immediately. >> I don't think this is going away and I
01:15:15
don't think it should go away. So I think now the point is Congress really should ratify these
01:15:21
things because it is clear that it was the right thing to do and if they don't then you know the
01:15:28
president still has a lot of room to get these done but these make smart economic
01:15:31
sense in my opinion. >> Freeberg any thoughts on the ruling? Does it give you
01:15:37
some I don't know um respect for the courts that they made a judgment not along party lines for once? Uh does it
01:15:45
Yeah. Okay. Exactly. >> Yeah. And I think I think that all I think all Americans
01:15:50
should feel assured and comforted in the fact that I think a lot of people view the Supreme Court as having a high
01:15:56
degree of partisanship. The fact that the president despite having a majority of what others would
01:16:03
think were kind of politically aligned appointees on the court had a ruling that he did not want.
01:16:10
I think should give everyone good faith that the system that the founders set up
01:16:14
is working that there is a judicial branch that adjudicates the law against the executive branch when they think
01:16:19
that um it doesn't map and I think that that was very important to see. So, you
01:16:25
know, I clearly you the the debate about tariffs, the economic effect of tariffs,
01:16:29
the security structural trade relationship effect of tariffs and the importance of that is a separate
01:16:34
conversation, but I do think that the read of the law being what I would say is nonpartisan with respect to the
01:16:39
court's action is important and probably very valuable. I'll reiterate that this
01:16:44
is a great moment, I think, for uh the Supreme Court to make a thoughtful decision. And I think we need to think
01:16:51
about executive power a whole bunch. Whether it's Biden with student loans or
01:16:55
Trump with tariffs, we have this beautiful system set up by the founding fathers. I know it's frustrating.
01:17:01
Gridlock's frustrating. Having to work together is frustrating. Trust me, we we
01:17:05
all come to this podcast every Thursday. We have to work together. It's hard to
01:17:09
work together. You got to learn to work together. And we don't want an executive
01:17:13
branch that can unilaterally just roll over the other branches. And uh that's
01:17:18
going to end. I think Trump's going to lose the midterms and we're going to get
01:17:21
to more chaos again and it we might as well start this reconciliation process of these two sides stopping their law
01:17:29
for against each other and working together for the American people on the important issues. The tariffs there are
01:17:36
some fundamentally important things that Trump was doing there and they were working. They could have been chaotic.
01:17:43
uh that's a reasonable um you know criticism of them because business owners didn't know what to do. So Trump
01:17:49
did it in a chaotic way. That's just a fact. He should have done it in a more
01:17:52
thoughtful way and the Congress should have been alongside him saying, "Hey,
01:17:56
what tools do you need? How can we help support this? We know that there's trade
01:18:00
imbalances. We know that people are being unfair. Let's work together as one
01:18:05
America to negotiate these things." So both sides start having dinner together,
01:18:10
start playing cards together, and do what we do here on this podcast, which is you fight it out. You argue, but then
01:18:15
you come together and try to find some resolutions for this stuff. So they should go and tell Trump, "Hey, we'll
01:18:21
approve all the tariffs you did. We will not force you to get refunds." The
01:18:25
Congress should come out and just say that. And then they should say, "Hey,
01:18:28
and when you want to do them in 2026, just run them by us or ask us for some parameters that you want and let's just
01:18:34
be thoughtful about it. These are our concerns. That's it. Thank you for coming to my TEA talk. Can
01:18:38
>> I just do one? >> Absolutely. I'm sure you have some debate club points that you want to
01:18:42
point that out. >> Well, I just want to make one. I mean, do you think Susan Rice is going to
01:18:46
respect your call for comedy and basically working together Kumbaya? >> I want the Aspree to corpse. No, I
01:18:54
don't. I think both sides. She just had a diet tribe where she basically said
01:18:58
that Republicans and actually not just like partisan Republicans, but even tech companies that merely were working with
01:19:06
the administration should expect to get prosecuted. I mean, she was basically outright saying she's she and the
01:19:12
Democrats are going to pursue lawfare as soon as they get back in charge. >> They're they're absolutely going to do
01:19:17
that. Just like when Trump got in, he went after Comey, he went after Jerome Pal. The lawfare is happening on both
01:19:22
sides. Both sides need to drop the lawfare. We need to get rid of these pardons. They're ridiculous. And these
01:19:27
team this, we have to be a team. So, let's just get some aspa of corpse and teamwork going in Washington DC. And
01:19:34
that's what we should vote for in the midterms. We should vote for moderates
01:19:37
who want to work together. And in 2028, we should have some kind of moderates and tickets that want to work together.
01:19:46
That would be better for all Americans. This kind of chaos is not good, folks. All right. Listen, this has been another
01:19:51
amazing episode of the All-In podcast, your favorite podcast. Uh, like, subscribe, whatever the hell you want to
01:19:57
do on your own time for David Sachs, David Freeberg, Chamal Pia. Love you, boys. I am the world's greatest Monterey
01:20:05
J. See you next time. Byebye. Byebye. >> We'll let your winners ride. And it said, "We open sourced it to the
01:20:18
fans and they've just gone crazy with it." >> Queen of >> besties are
01:20:32
my dog taking notice your driveways. >> Oh man, my habitasher will meet up.
01:20:40
>> We should all just get a room and just have one big huge orgy cuz they're all
01:20:43
just useless. It's like this like sexual tension that we just need to release
01:20:46
somehow. >> Your feet. We need to get merch. >> I'm going all in.
01:21:03
I'm going all in.