E37: NYC rejects far-left candidates, new developments in lab leak theory, App Store breakup & more

as you guys know i get panic attacks at the dentist but she was able to navigate me through where i didn't i only sweat through half my shirt you have panic attacks at the dentist no but i sweat profusely and i get very nervous why what is that about we all have weaknesses jason we all have weaknesses this is my achilles heel my achilles heel is a dentist really yeah i don't like going to the dentist either no the dentist really freaks i don't know why it freaks me out sex have you thought about i had a really bad experience when i was a kid you know tell us more about your childhood drama

have you ever seen the movie marathon man it was kind of like that [Music] is it safe is it safe all right here we [Music] go [Music] [Music] hey everybody hey everybody welcome again to another episode of the all in podcast episode 37 with us today on his noble crusade conquering europe chamath pali hapatia calls us from uh a castle somewhere i don't know i can tell by the light switches you're in europe and joining us again the two ais ai number one david sachs and ai number two david friedberg are here uh and of course i'm j cal do we wanna get right into the show

or i don't know jeremiah if you want to talk about the the dueling ai's in the group chat debating the nature of the pod i mean one guy told the other guy or one robot told the other robot to [ __ ] this is what we know it's the singularity but it's when the robots are arguing with each other see you don't even know because you don't have any emotions you told free bird to [ __ ] off oh that's kind of true alcohol content no no no i just think that um we i think the format of the pod is working and i don't think we need to turn it on its head that's all i think my so

just gonna do this i'm so tired and out of it right now but but let's do it um our just for the listeners um benefit on our little group text where we do our incredibly well prepped rehearsal for this show by texting each other maybe for four minutes a week but the day the night before she told each other for three hours mostly other stuff is covered over the group chat but we were um kind of debating maybe throwing in a spin and you know doing a little group q and a kind of format sax doesn't like it and we were kind of joking with sax that he loves getting his sound bites in and then

turning them into little short sound bite video clips with his bff henry belcaster and putting him on twitter and promoting him around the internet and my point of view was i don't think that this show should be about getting to the sound bite that this show should be about something very different which is elevating a conversation and creating the context for people to make decisions on their own and that is to give people multiple points of view and all of the data and consideration when there's a big topic or a big debate underway and it's too easy

for us to take a sound bite and then use that as the narrative to try and influence people to do things or to have a point of view and i think that is largely the problem we've broadly had in the twitter social media era is we are very reductionist we bring things down to kind of a one sentence or 140 character statement and then we use that as an emotional pivot point for people to get them to go on one side or the other side as opposed to recognizing that many of the topics we we address are called that is the way things are done i get it and here and here is saks's response that is a valid point

freedom however humans all need to be led they are sheeple we need to tell the sheeple what to think and to get into office jason i would like to cut to uh a segment the new segment that i call chamoth does a dramatic reading [Music] so freebird did say this now a dramatic reading from the group chat i will be playing all characters starting with myself freeburg free burke rants up to which i say i'm down with that david sacks you keep trying to [ __ ] with the format of the show if it ain't broke don't fix it [ __ ] off [ __ ] you [ __ ] yourself my response i'm down with that

oh no am i going to be able to respond here yes okay exactly your defense okay you're running for office we know no no look i think that um the the friberg position on many issues often comes down to the idea that this this issue is so complicated it's so nuanced we can't have a definitive take and i just reject that i think it's true for some issues i think it's great to have the conversation but i think there are many issues where it is possible to have a definitive take to come down strongly on one side of it and i think the audience wants us to do that

i think it's a little bit of a cop-out to say oh we're just going to table all the issues so the audience can say no the audience wants to hear us give our point of view and i didn't like seek harry uh henry belcaster out he found no he's you just talk to him seven times a day and direct every frame of the animation let him go let him go no henry henry you know is one of our super fans started making these videos okay i ignored like the first ten and then finally i was like okay i gotta like see what this guy's into right you did too you slid what is this about

like i hope it's to promote his business or something because he's just spending way too much time on this anyway so now henry does run his like videos by us as a courtesy but he comes up with them he chooses what takes he wants to run with and he puts it all together sometimes i'll have a note for him i'll say you know oh my god whatever he's never sent me anything you're gonna get a hold of you he's coming to me me and jason are on a throne jason don't pretend you're not you're not on the channel yes yes the three yeah because he says is it okay for me to do this and we're

just like go ahead but then david's like well actually if we could change this and cut this word and david's like oh you don't need any editing just let the chips fall where they may and then he's like machiavellian back there like he scorsese changing every [ __ ] frame of henry belicaster animated gift mate i i just think it's a courtesy that henry's running it by us and you know david are you paying him no have you given him any compensation okay well no separately i after finding out that henry and then his partner dylan they've got like a

it is a business for them okay so i said listen you guys are doing great work i think she does great work by the way yeah i said listen um why don't you guys start doing like product videos or videos for startups you can do the first one for uh call in so they're working on a video for that i think we're going to pay them like five grand and if it's good it'll be great for their business i want them to be successful no but let's get to the point let's get to the point about you know reducing the the conversation to sound bites and i want to respond to your point about

not taking a position on things but okay so i feel like um first of all within this group there are hard ticks within this group of four people so there are heart takes already in the show and um i think that it's important in many debates and many of the topics we cover there is more than one side to the story and we can have our formed opinion but i think understanding what the other counterpoints and encounter arguments might be is critical to get people to actually get to that opinion themselves as opposed to just telling them this is the single point that you should believe

nothing else matters and so i i really think also many of these conversations are generally two two sides of the same coin and many more often than not if you zoom out there are shared values and many of the things that we all argue about broadly a society and i'm not trying to get too kind of philosophical here um but if you kind of distill things down to different points of view with the same set of values or recognize that there are actually different values you can come to a point that allows people to think more progressively and you know achieve a point of view on their own and i think that's critically

missing today broadly in society that so much is all about like the good and the evil good and bad them and us and we don't recognize that in moments where there are shared values we're just sitting on you know both sides of the same coin or recognizing that sometimes having different values doesn't necessarily make someone evil it makes them different and that's why i try and kind of elevate the conversation a little bit and why i care so much about this point because i really think it's worth everyone getting a broader perspective on everything that they're addressing so that they can kind of go into things

eyes wide open now sax i will say on nearly everything i actually fundamentally agree with you on many of the points on the show and so it's a little bit kind of you know gets a little echo chambery for me to kind of agree with sax like that's it i think it's also worth highlighting why there are other points of view and why there are other arguments to be made out there and for me i certainly have strongly held opinions um and uh you know i i just don't think that it's worth getting to my opinion without taking the broader context of the conversation

did you notice that freeburg got a little emotional there i think that was a little actual emotion is tuned out right now i was confused i am confused okay let me let me try and find someone hold on let me just ask you one question about this because this is getting i mean we're kind of in the dugout right now and i don't know if this is fabulously boring to people or not um but do you frequently hold back your opinions on the show because you don't want to influence people or you're afraid of being canceled or having an adverse effect to your business as it

has to david's business i don't give a [ __ ] about that no i care more about um uh the uh the path to an opinion um no and i care more about like achieving the objective so what i mean by that is if you just say this is my opinion take it or leave it the other half that has a different opinion doesn't change their opinion if you if you zoom out for people and you say here's the broad set of facts and circumstances and why different groups have different opinions it ends up being a lot easier to actually get people to see what may be the better path forward listen if you want to get meta i have

formed my opinion on many of these matters i don't think stating my opinion changes anyone's mind i think zooming out and giving people the broader perspective so they can get there themselves is the way to kind of achieve change okay guys enough we're onto the subject this is we can walk and chew gum at the same time here's the point i think that dave david sacks has opinions they are strong opinions but as i've known him for 20 years they're also weakly held and he changes his mind and i think that's powerful david friedberg and i've known you for a very long time as well is great at

explaining things all of it is additive so let's all just keep yeah and of course of course um you know i support having a nuanced conversation that gets all point of views out on the table the point of the pod is not to you know engage in sort of sound bites it's just that what henry creates is the result of a conversation he boils it down from 30 minutes into one minute i think that performs a service for the audience maybe gets our takes out there in a way that you know um that that more people can hear them so i think that's just you know but do you understand freeburgs i

mean i feel like i feel like i'm a couple's therapist here but do you understand friedenberg's position david yeah he doesn't want people to look at the podcast as reductio a reduction down to a 60-second clip or a 30-second clip of someone else he wants them to hear the full discourse yeah well that's great well then they can listen and do that but i mean realistically a lot of people don't have time to listen to the full 60 minutes they made sense to the clip but look i think if there's a meta purpose to me being on the pod i think it's to expand the parameters of what people think they

can say because i actually i agree with freeberg that the debate is shut down in a lot of contexts and we want to open it back up and you know your overturn window needs to be reopened yeah like look at what happens the whole frank slootman thing last week where he puts out a pretty mild statement about supporting diversity but not to the point where it's it jeopardizes merit you know there was a giant uproar over that he has to walk it back and issue an apology there was no the ceo of snowflake yeah there's no there's no discussion or debate there that was a

shutting down of the conversation because one side of the debate is basically engaging in moral indictments against the other side they're not really interested in having a serious debate about the issues i think that my metapurpose in speaking out on the pod about all these issues that i think are just common sense you know is is just to kind of reopen the debate yeah i mean it is that merit versus diversity and what is the point of a business and should the business be compromised or throttled i think that's a very hard thing for people to say should we throttle this business

so that we have diversity should we slow down in order to have more diversity we can't find the right candidate but we have a candidate here who's a white male but yeah we already have seven people on this right we've talked about that my my point in giving that example is just to show how shut down the debate is because the day after slootman said ceos are having this conversation in private they're telling me this and they're afraid to say it publicly the very next day he walks it back and issues an apology kind of buttressing his original point

that people can't say what they really think so in my view like part of the reason why the all empot is successful is we're getting issues on the table that people want to talk about but feel they can't and i think freeberg brings a very valuable perspective to that conversation but my goal is kind of if i have a medical besides expressing my point of view it is to expand like you said the overton window all right so speaking of the overton window new york city has voted for a basically universally both on the democratic side and on the republican side for a tough on crime

mayor 70 percent of san francisco feels worse about crime in a separate poll um and eric adams is the current borough president a former nypd uh officer and he is looking like he because of this stacked voting which can take a little time to figure out who will become the mayor of new york but he has 32 percent of first place votes among 800 000 democratic voters this guy is a a really decent centrist moderate human being um grew up where he was affected and touched by crime decided to fight through that wasn't you know complaining became a police officer did that you

know eventually borough president has done that runs for mayor he goes on television he gives an interview where they say what is your perspectives on stop and frisk and the answer he gives was pretty specific which is that you know i believe in stopping um and investigating potential crimes or some such right uh jason you can probably find the exact well i mean having been in the uh you know a new york city police department family um the and living in new york during stop and frisk they left out a key word it was stop question frisk so in high crime areas where there were a lot of shootings or guns they would do

stop question and then possibly frisk obviously all policing techniques can be abused but his feeling on it was when deployed correctly stop in question is a great technique and i can tell you when i lived in new york previously 70 80 percent of people including people of color including people from the toughest neighborhoods were in favor of this this was universally seen as a huge success at the time because they were taking guns off the street illegal guns constantly because somebody would hop a turn style or there would be people hanging out on a street corner and cops would come up and say hey

you're hanging out here at three in the morning what's going on but the problem the problem is that he gave a pretty reasonable answer yes and then they tried to cancel them yep and he would not allow himself to be cancelled he went on the breakfast club and all kinds of other media outlets and explained his position and they couldn't cancel him which is how they really thought it was an incredible testament to what we're going through right now which is right now nobody knows what to do to solve the things we feel we've tried the radical right version of a candidate it didn't work we're now wondering to

ourselves while we have a custodian in the white house whether we go to the radical left that's probably not going to work either because unfortunately in san francisco i mean unfortunately it looks like the the the progressive left or the radical left is really really judgmental um and none of these folks have really done anything and so they they are easy to complain it's almost as if they know that they what they want won't work so they don't want anything else to work and so they just want everything to devolve into chaos that's a shame and so you know people

tried to literally lie about what this guy said on television that was taped no no i did it five times and clarify i am not by the way they were there were people jason i don't know if you saw that the art the the video length there were people holding a press conference in front of his office literally screaming about stop and frisk when he never said stop and frisk he said stop in question is a reasonable strategy if somebody if we think that there is the potential of a crime and the fact that people could not have that conversation and had to go to basically this guy

needs to either quit or be completely removed from his ability to run for mayor yes it's insanity yeah and uh you can people seem to have lost this ability to hold two conflicting ideas in their mind uh which is you could be for criminal justice reform you could be against police violence um and you could be for strong policing of violent crimes and law and order and what seems to be happening in both cities new york san francisco and other places where crime is getting acute is um that they uh people are voting here's here's two other to be safer here's here's another conflicting thoughts uh you can believe um

that you know uh asians are awesome but you can also believe that the uh coronavirus may have come from the wuhan lab and believing the latter doesn't mean that you're supporting asian hate i'm just going to put that out there right okay can i chime in on this um on this uh on the um on the addams win because i think this is this is huge news do you have your notes from harry to make the clip okay go look i mean eric adams is going to be the next mayor of new york city um and i think there's like three big takeaways from from this number one crime is the issue that i've been saying on this pod that

it is for at least six months it is the number one issue when people do not feel safe in their homes and in their neighborhoods uh you know nothing else matters and here comes uh this really underdog candidate he is despised by the uh sort of the progressive left and sort of the elites of the democratic party and he wins i mean he this is a huge underdog victory he's only a former cop he still carries a gun i mean he is packing and that sent a message to the electorate i am going to be tough on crime i'm not standing for defunding the police and deep prosecution and decarceration which are the hobby

horses right now the progressive left i'm going to protect you and the city and the voters were eating it up even in the democratic party so number one crime is the huge issue and i think it's going to reverberate throughout america for the next few years number two it showed how out of touch these sort of progressives these and i'd say predominantly white progressives are how out of touch they are with the constituencies they claim to represent um you know the the mostly uh black and latino neighborhoods who voted in large numbers for eric adams were having

none of this sort of elite woke progressive thinking around decarceration deep prosecution um they are interested in real solutions for the problems that they see not engaging in this sort of like action identity there's actually an interesting nugget in what you're saying which i think you can broaden out which is the the radical left i don't even call them the progressive left because that would mean they were making progress in their thinking i think it's just this radical left they seem to be white rich affluent people yes and they seem to be super totally

they're super guilty about something but they're all totally disconnected from what actual people of color want they're totally discussing like they're speaking for a group of people who maybe are like that's not actually my position i want my kids to be safe on the way to school i want guns off the street if somebody you know and i think that i want to read the quote that he had because this is really important is to go to the source material not the headlines from let's face it the radical left is running these news uh publications and they're determining how they frame

him and here's the question uh from vanity fair so you think there is a way to use stop and frisk that isn't abusive it's a reasonable question and his answer well there's a word that's missing in there it's called stop question and frisk so two o'clock in the morning you look out your door you see a person standing in front of your house he places a gun in his waistband you go to call the police i hope that police officer responds he needs to be able to question that person what are you doing with that gun if we're telling police officers you can't question people we are

jeopardizing the safety of the city i mean this is the most common sense logical right framing of the discussion it's not like they're saying just pick a random person on the subway and say empty your pockets and get up against the wall like the gestapo you know somebody called something and you questioned people in the area we've seen this in san francisco that you've got these you know social justice crusaders who claim that they're helping minority communities and you see an increase in the number of victims from those communities and what eric adams said is listen we can't just care about the cops abusing their power we also

have to care about violence against these communities when it's perpetrated by criminals and people responded to that to that message and i think this the the final point that i think that the eric adams win represents is that twitter is likely win like likely win okay fair enough is that twitter is not real life okay eric adams has 14 000 twitter followers yang has two million okay yank him in fourth okay and you know yang was sort of the darling of the you know sort of the twitter elites you know he's sort of i mean look

when he first got into the democratic primary for president he was a little bit of a breath of fresh air but ultimately he kind of adopted the generic progressive positions on things that did not resonate with the people of new york they wanted someone tough on crime and so i think you know eric adams he had another great quote i think on election night he said social media does not pick a candidate people on social security pick a candidate okay great line and and i mean and so here's the thing is i think we all are distorted in our thinking based on what this like

very loud but ultimately small number of voices on social media says and i think it's not just politicians by the way i mean it's it's not just eric adams who won because he ignored twitter i mean biden won because he ignored twitter right i mean biden was not on twitter and he was able to win the democratic primary for president so you know i think there's a lesson here for politicians which is like twitter modern moderates can win anything and everything as long as they show up and they do the work but if you to your point spend all your time trying to curate your twitter image all you're going to do is

validate a bunch of people that really at the end of the day are trying to punch up right if you think about all the people that are spouting off trying to cancel trying to judge there's a there's a great there's a great quote in many drake songs which is like these people have more followers than dollars and what he's trying to say is like you make them important when they don't need to be important totally now now do ceos right you've got ceos of some of the biggest companies in the world like tim cook like frank slootman who are making their company policy based on what this

small number of loud voice on twitter are saying it's ridiculous i mean i think the eric adams win is a watershed because it shows the emperor wears no clothes these these very loud progressive woke voices ultimately do not have that many supporters and all people have to do not not listen to them not when it goes into the privacy of the ballot box you have a lot of people again similar to the to the to the to what we saw in the in the trump election in 2016 where all these people quietly said oh i cannot support trump and then one in two people went into that ballot box and said

[ __ ] you to everybody and this is the exact same thing that's playing out except the opposite which is now if you are not completely progressive at least in your posture and your vocabulary there's this threat of being cancelled and so you adopt this stuff almost to make your life easy but when push comes to shove and we see it here in new york city and we'll probably see it all over the country you get into the ballot box you're going to go for somebody moderate and reasonable that does the simple things that you want to get done and by the way they tried to cancel the new york times tried to cancel andrew

yang because he um had made uh very i he basically said you know that uh mentally ill men uh who are addicted to drugs basically are um punching people in the face and you know we need to address that and the new york times framed it really interestingly and i'll read you the tweet watch andrew yang's response to a question about how he would handle mental health during when wednesday's new york city mayoral debate uh drew fire on social media from people who said it lacked empathy or understanding and when you look at that framing he said how he would handle mental

health he wasn't talking about mental health generally and broadly he was talking about people suffering from mental health on the streets who were homeless who were addicted to drugs and who punch people on the face right massive subset yeah but they framed this to attack him then let me just finish the other way they framed it it drew fire on social media so instead of saying this person said this they literally the new york times is trying to get andrew yang canceled and to get more people to subscribe uh by being part of the woke mob yes

literally their twitter handle does that he i could find ten times as many people who said yeah we can't have people who are mentally ill and violent on the street punching people it was andrew yang's it was andrew yang's single best moment of the campaign is he talked honestly about the risk to the public of mentally ill people living on the streets and attacking people it was his single best moment the reason he did it is because he saw the traction that eric adams was getting on the safety issue and if yang had done that from the beginning of the campaign he might be the next mayor

yeah let me let me read this from here yang cared too much ultimately his achilles heel was caring too much about the very online voices on twitter like the new york times and we've just seen that eric adams has proved is all a house of cards nobody really cares what they think here's the here's the quote from eric adams if the democratic party fails to recognize what we did here in new york they're going to have a problem in the midterm elections and they're going to have a problem in the presidential election the brooklyn borough president said america is saying we want to have justice and safety

and end inequality and we don't want fancy candidates we want candidates their nails are not polished they have calluses on their hands and they're blue-collar people common sense common people they've returned to common sense freeburg i had uh cc jew on um this uh thread where somebody said they found missing sequencing of the kova genes that were submitted to a database did you have a chance to review that at all um i did and since you sent that it's become a little bit of a story a lot of people have kind of picked it up and followed up on it because it did ignite quite a bit of interest so the story is a guy named jessie bloom who's

a researcher at the hutchinson cancer center in seattle and has been studying um you know covet as a lot of scientists have kind of shifted their attention over the past year but has a background in virology he was uh trying to pull some early genomic samples that that may have been taken from patients early in china so what this means is you know when patients kind of um in the early days were emerging as potentially having stars cov2 they were swabbing them and then doing a genomic read of the rna they find from the virus in that swab and around the world a lot of scientists

contribute to this openly available genomic database um and they contribute their whole genome samples when they when they run studies and so on so other scientists can use it in the future for research and what this guy found was that there were a few dozen of these samples that had been on this genomics database that were now missing and they had been pulled down and using a little technical sleuthing he realized they had been pulled down from the directory but the raw genomic sample read data was still available on the google cloud so he used the google cloud api to pull

that actual data down from the servers and then ran a study on it it turns out the the interesting kind of intrigue around this story is why did that data get get deleted who deleted it and it turns out the only way it gets deleted is if the original kind of authors go in and make a request to have it removed and these were some random scientists in china who had and so in the days following this publication of this guy so this guy published this on a pre-print server called bioarchive so it's not a peer-reviewed journal uh it basically is a place for

bioarchive is a place where uh biology scientists can submit uh early versions of their research papers or to get a new finding out really quickly and then the world can kind of study it and you don't have to wait for the journalistic kind of cycle of getting things approved which is which is common now um and so he put this thing out there and everyone's kind of questioning well okay where did these samples go it turns out that these chinese scientists had submitted them and now it has shown uh or it has come out that apparently some um us officials made the request to have it taken down after being asked to do so

by some chinese officials uh to pull this data down and so there's a really weird kind of intrigue going on right now around this whole story now so so that's kind of thread number one which is why was this request made to pull this data down what was the motivation etc thread number two is what does the data show us and what the data shows us unfortunately is a little bit inconclusive so a guy named trevor bedford just put out a tweet um earlier today uh analyzing this he's a he's a world-class virologist also works at the french hutchinson center in seattle um and he basically highlights that in the early days

of the sarsko v2 explosion in china you can really identify from a genomic variant perspective two lineages of the virus that means you know we're trying to get back to origin or patient zero and it turns out there were kind of like these two families of the virus that were emerging and even with that new data you could kind of reconstruct the family tree in such a way that the wuhan meat market could have been the origin meaning the root virus could have come out of that wuhan market or the wuhan meat market could have been one of the two branches of the tree that

emerged early on so there may have been an even earlier origin and wuhan market was just one place where it started to take off so you know he said look he still thinks that it's about a 50 50. you know there's no clear evidence one way or the other based on these newly uh uncovered samples but you know there is still this question of does the wuhan market kind of paint the patient zero story or is it one of the places where the explosion happened and patient zero was in fact much earlier than wuhan market i i will say a couple episodes ago i kind of made a comment you know with respect to the

origin of this virus that i don't know don't care and and i just want to clarify because i know that some people kind of reached out to me about that i didn't really uh my my intention with that statement was that this was really meant to be um i think a little bit more of a canary in a coal mine for us broadly about you know hey what we should be looking forward to is what's next not just absolutely what happened in the already let's move on to the next thing is what you're saying not being callous that it doesn't matter yeah i think i think what's more important is

that we need to get prepared for how do we prevent these things happening in the future and and what are the um you know the key kind of checkpoints we have around us in the future because one thing i am most concerned about is a huge step back but i'm concerned about our normalization of cancel um you know we kind of have started to cancel people but we've also you know these shutdowns have been normalized and the normalization where shutdown is the response to an emerging variant or emerging virus is really scary because you know how is society going to

function properly when there's going to be a proliferation of these viruses a proliferation of of risks uh with new technologies being made available to us and then shutting down becomes our immediate response well how do you feel about shutting down borders friedberg as the first course of action if everybody in unison had shut down the borders in february and said no intercountry travel you know it would have obviously been devastating for the airlines but it might have stopped the pandemic in its tracks there was no way to stop the the pandemic once the genie's out of the

bottle the genies out of the bottle and we saw this in states that had lockdowns and states that didn't have lockdown it's where we saw equivalent but why wasn't taiwan and australia and those kind of places that are islands that lock down why were they spared i i don't know if you can really say that they were spared um and i don't know if you can really say that people are happy with the the life that they led for that year right i i think what we need to solve for is how do we have these vaccines come to market much faster and be much more variable in their efficaciousness because we are going to have a lot more of these

kind of emerging variants over the next couple of years with stars cov2 but also with potentially engineered bugs that form to be careful about question for trimatha saks then um in friedberg's sort of analysis there um and what was explained uh on the web about the these new sequences the us was allegedly involved in taking this down with the chinese if the usa and i'm just creating a hypothesis here just to do a little game theory if the u.s was allowing china to take this down what would the game theory be if the u.s was involved in dare i say a cover-up or being opaque like the chinese have

already been proven to be why would the u.s do that tremoff what would be the possible theories and sacks why did why did the nba shut down daryl mori but that may not be um that made it sorry that may not be national policy jake all right so like a scientist an american scientist or an american official could have made that request it doesn't mean that it was a conspiratorial process to remove this stuff yeah no i want to jump the gun i want to jump the fence and say if in fact the some u.s people were involved so to your point it could be an individual covering it up or it could be

an organization in america or it could be you know some set of organizations but saks you wanted to well look i i don't believe the wet market theory precisely because there is a cover-up i mean the wet market theory was the official ccp who party line about where the virus came from if that was the case why wouldn't they just throw open the gates to investigators let them go into the wuhan institute of virology um you know why why all the cover-up why and wouldn't they shut down all wet markets maybe i mean but yeah and maybe the logical competition but why why obstruct the investigation why um ask

these american researchers to delete these sequences of um dna or whatever and in terms of why would the researchers do it because they were asked to and they've got a relationship why would americans be if in fact they were why is it just why is the who been carrying water for um the chinese government they get their paycheck from them no because i think the the who is stupid i mean that's well they've all got all these you know institutional incentives they all work together and um you know there's money involved there's sort of relationships involved there's bureaucracy involved um and then there's a level of

incompetence yeah so it could be incompetence could it also not be that uh we funded that laboratory in some way right we had given some money towards it that's i think established yeah the functional resources i think it's a if look i i am a better person and then on our face if they were in fact doing this so i think we don't want a little or we don't want to be in conflict with them because no i think americans in the west might demand we be in conflict with china no no i think it's i think it's what friedrich said which is like look uh what seemingly a low-level request is made

to basically delete an entry in a table you do it you know not thinking anything of it uh it i think it's pretty clear that this was something that leaked out of that lab the thing that we will never ever know is how and why and whether it was purely accidental or something more nefarious than that and i think this is why to friedberg's point we just have to put a pin in all of that and move on and try to figure out a way where we set ourselves up so that the the next time for example the like you know we we hear about the delta variant now

we're going to hear about other variants in the fall it's going to be a tough winter we cannot shut down yeah i think we need to know what happened here in order to inform our plan for the future so i think to your point walking and chewing gum at the same time why can't we do both yeah well i mean think about it if the so so i've never i've never heard anyone seriously argue that the lab leak was intentional i mean i think because that would have posed i think a risk to china itself but but let's say let's say it was an accidental lab leak um what what that suggests is look the

chinese knew everything about this virus for months while we were all here pulling out our hair trying to figure this thing out what is it who does it affect you know what are the risks we're all having these debates in the united states and trying to get to the bottom of this and they knew everything about it and they were they weren't telling us but hold on freeburg i mean the i think i think i i read this somewhere but moderna had characterized the vaccine 48 hours after getting an email of the dna sequence of the anyone can do that yeah within within 40 so so this was done in january as soon

as we got yeah but if they did make it to david's point why don't they tell us how they made it it it took months it took months to understand the pathology of the virus right yeah it's it's that's not what matters jkl you can read the code it's very readable you can read the code within a day and then you can pick the area of the spike protein which we already knew about and you can say let's go build some you know target so how they got there doesn't matter is what you're saying freeberg how they how they created it how they got i mean the you're saying you're asking how the chinese edited

the virus in a lab is that what you're saying yeah how they was just like a three-year project is this the 17th version they worked on or the second you know like there's so many things jason you're speaking about you're characterizing this as if it was a designed weapon is that what you're saying well i'm i'm saying it was designed not as a weapon but they were doing what it studied evolutionary function research yeah gain of function means that it there so there is a gain of function in plain english fredberg so so when they say neurology in virology they're going to study what changes in the genome might do to biology to an animal to a biological

system and that study gives them insights into how a virus may evolve or how certain parts of a virus may affect humans ultimately in different ways and so understanding viruses and really important when you're studying viruses is you want to understand where they're headed not just where they're coming from and so to understand where they're headed you may make genomic changes and study how those genomic changes affect so they enhanced can i use the word enhanced or solved you could say evolve you could say enhanced you could say engineered but um but very much it's about understanding

where the changes in the proteins and the virus can affect biology in different ways in the future so that we can better understand you know what these viruses are capable of and prepare ourselves we found out the implications of covet 19. and thank god we didn't have to find it out for 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 1098. you know what i mean like yes so that's my point freeburg would it not be helpful to open kimono look at every single enhancement they made and what the results of those were like they did something in that lab for the last couple of years

who's got that information they knew the name is the same the name is the same thing what this database thing uh represents is look there was a cover up here and that cover-up has fingerprints and the information is leaking out and we are seeing more crime and and more information is going to come out i actually disagree with you guys that we're not going to learn more about what happened we're going to learn how we're going to learn we're going to learn a lot more and it's going to get worse and worse it's going to be but sex where does it head so like let's say we

discover that was my original question question let's say we discover that there's an accidental lab leak out of the wuhan institute of virology a scientist got infected left the lab gave it to her boyfriend people spread it in the street suddenly became a whole pandemic what what do we do what do you think the response is do you think americans basically now impose sanctions on china and we and we lead to a cold war like where is this all headed what are the motivating principles of politicians who are going to respond as that evidence comes out yes that's what i want to know okay

number one i've said it before we've got to reassure the whole pharmaceutical industry we cannot be dependent on china for our pharmaceutical supply chain our antibiotics our ppe that is insane um second of all i mean we got to be more realistic about the nature of the regime that we're dealing with they knew everything about this virus for months while we were trying to figure it out where does it take us like let's say we find out that to be true where does this what happens next decoupling decoupling here and here's another thing that i think needs to happen which is that but i guess that's sorry one sec but

doesn't decoupling happen either way like why do we need all this because there is such a motivating principle on on both sides of the aisle to decouple from china and there is a motivating principle no there isn't there is a reason to not decouple it's called money there is a group of elites who do not want the decoupling to happen from the nba to iphones apple the nba and disney do not want to decouple they want to integrate these two societies so that we can make money i'm not sure the decoupling is my theory of what people are scared of no okay people are scared of a decoupling i just want to say two things

i don't think that there's like a group of elites that want that to happen necessarily because i think that their lives are complicated and what they would love to have i think is actually two end markets you have to remember if you go from one global market to a duopoly market and you're a seller of services you actually have more pricing power and a duopoly than you do in a monopoly into a monopoly so you know if you're disney theoretically and you have the ability to differentially price two different pieces of content you're going to do that so i i tend to think in general

it's better for economic systems to have this bifurcation so the i just want to go back to the the thing that i wanted to define bifurcation you're saying two different markets but what if there is hey we're going to sanction we're not going to send disney movies where they're not going to let disney and nba and like they don't like google and twitter and or iphones are not going to be made there and apple's going to start making iphones and vietnam and pakistan and sri lanka i actually think what happens is it accelerates democracy because again you have an enormously

difficult and thorny issue inside of china which is they have a cataclysmic demographic bombshell going on they have we have the average age in china versus the average age in the united states is now the same yep which is an unbelievable thing because china was facing policy china was 15 or 20 years younger in the early 90s when all of this offshoring started to happen in full scale by the end of 21s by the end of this century china's population i think is projected to shrink to about 700 million people so they are in a hugely difficult demographic

situation where there's no young people people are getting older and older and older and so there's just going to be a lot of upheaval you just saw by the way people cost a lot of money too much much more money japan china just you know relax their one child policy to two then within a month they relax their two-child policy to three and they're gonna be paying people to have kids i mean just like we give tax incentives well and now they're uh they're floating a policy which says unlimited kids okay so so that's why you can just i just want

to go back to what uh one of the practical things we can do coming out of wuhan as all this new data comes out is instead of vilifying china or trying to enter some cold war which is stupid we should just go and reshore everything as sac suggested one thing that you can say is wherever there is this kind of research happening in the world every single variant needs to go to some basically open source repository that virologists all around the world can basically watch what's happening in lockstep well right what the [ __ ] was going on here then yeah they deleted it it was deleted but to be clear

that is exactly the principle and that is exactly what goes on within the academic and research communities worldwide there's very open and cooperative dialogue with academics around the world about these matters and generally that is absolutely true in the way things are done because scientists don't care about politics they care about you know human health and progress answer this question please is every single variant of covid that led up to covet 19 well characterized and well understood by a broad class of scientists and virologists all over the world or yeah or a small subset of people the

the plurality of which we're working at the wuhan lab for virology we didn't know the argument goes you don't know that you have sars cov2 in those early days and so you see some people getting sick and then suddenly you put your head up and you're like wait a second that's what's going on here that's not what i'm about my point is you're not you're not running a genomic sequencing on all those people in those early days no no i'm asking something you have this original virus that you've been testing and mutating and you know reprogramming you're testing you're basically doing a massive monte

carlo simulation on an original virus are all the intermediate instantiations of that virus well characterized okay that's my point yeah okay if they were publicly available wouldn't that be super dangerous also also by the way like wouldn't it make sense then if if you were doing these iterations of these viruses that that the dna sequences should go to places like pfizer and moderna where you are mandated to create vaccines just in case well we are going to enter a stage here in the next decade where we will have vaccine printers around the world they're going to be small bioreactors

they're going to be able to effectively ship code to them they're going to print vaccines there's several companies pursuing this i'm just i'm just going to go over this i like your idea though i'm just going to be interesting this system is immature naive and inefficient and i think what if that's something that we can fix that's why what matters most in my opinion and based on the comments i made a few episodes ago is that we need to focus on how to get there versus trying to trace back the origins because i think honestly tracing back

the origins is just going to put kindling on a fire that's already burning and so my my this this this has been my point about this whole like you know blame china we want to get to a point where we can quote unquote blame china for this but the decoupling and the onshore there is already enough motivation there and there is already on both sides of the aisle there is already kind of an obvious trajectory that we're headed this way i'm not sure this is a catalyst maybe or it's a little bit more kindling we're already headed there and it doesn't actually answer our forward-looking question which is how do

we secure our future and how we secure our future is really where technology and industry and and some of these free burgers let me let me build on chamat's idea what if the mrna vaccine creation and the research laboratory were the same facility and you had a cross-disciplinary approach where they're making stuff and then they're curing it next door in real time so that they can trade notes why would that be a terrible idea it seems like a brilliant idea you could just you could just transfer the date from the research and print the vaccines with the people that are really good at making vaccine

right you don't need to have an intricate understanding of the biology to actually be effective at making vaccines right no but isn't there something about scientists who are cross-disciplinary sharing space and having collisions building relationships isn't that part of the science process that's worked over the last couple years you talk about how in synthetic biology and all this you want the mathematicians computer programmers you know and the biologists in the same area and the chemists resolving to a world where we have very cheap very fast and distributed production of vaccines is an engineering problem and the the

engineering work is what is kind of being undertaken now by several companies and will be fueled by this uh this new um uh bill that biden's trying to get past this infrastructure build is a ton of money and therefore and as that happens that engineering process is effectively think about them like printers and they can take code and that code allows the that printer to not print whatever you want to print the question of what you want to print is going to be determined by the research that's being done over here which is okay here's what we're discovering here's what we should print

here's what we should protect against and why but i think that there's a separate engineering exercise which you know let's let let's build this distributed production system i'm going to go on a limb and say these labs are immature naive and unsophisticated in the checks and balances that exist and i think we've seen that and we need to fix it and you need to do something more than just have a bunch of folks that are focused on science going ham in whatever way they want all right so just to wrap sax anything else on this as we put a cherry on it well i just

you asked the question what do we do about china i think that is a question that's a generational question we're going to be asking that for totally for decades it's this is an area where we need freed bergy and nuance because it's something that we're going to have to navigate as a country for for decades a really good book about this is the thucydides trap by graham allison who's a harvard professor and he discusses different strategies we can take he quotes uh lee kuan yew who is the you know president of singapore who has a great quote about this he said lee kuan yew said that the size of

china's displacement of the world balance is such that the world must find a new balance it is not possible to pretend that this is just another big player this is the biggest player in the history of the world that was that was the lee kuan yew quote um so we were dealing with this issue even before covet but i do think that kovid has unmasked this regime a little bit and caused people across both sides of the whole spectrum to look at this regime i think more realistically all right so in somewhat related news uh apple obviously building all their phones over there and

now having servers and data over there um has led to a lot of scrutiny of big tech but the more pressing issue is the anti-trust bills that seem to be fast-tracked on wednesday u.s house judiciary committee discussed six six proposed anti-trust bills uh one bill uh sponsored by a democrat from rhode island uh would call for apple to allow third-party app stores seems reasonable and provide iphone technologies to third-party software makers so i think that means maybe opening up imessage which would be delightful i'm not sure exactly what they mean there and so apple and tim cook is in a panic

he apparently called nancy pelosi and said can you pump the brakes just to give you an idea of what's going on here um apple's uh revenue even though it's a small percentage of just 10 uh of their 274 billion dollars in uh 2020 revenue it's obviously pure profit profit margins got to be in the notes here it says 75 but i would think it's even more clearly services and the app store inside of apple is i think analogous to the aws for amazon is a money printing machine that's growing really fast uh what do we think about apple being forced to put other app stores on their

phones just like you can on your android phone i support it i've been blue pilled on this issue actually that's what the that's what the commenters on of our the all-in fans have said is that why sacks taking blue pills on this issue um and and look the reality is because i'm not in the business of um of helping two trillion dollar uh market cap companies i'm in the underdog business i'm in the business of helping the entrepreneur get started with a new company and the fact of the matter is is that apple has the market power the same market power

greater than microsoft did in its heyday with the windows monopoly they are total gatekeepers of what applications can be built on these ios devices and windows windows you could win it was open i mean it was open they already have an app store yeah right so this this proposal by uh representative right so this proposal by representative sicilian the democrat from rhode island would allow the side loading it would basically loosen the grip that apple has over the apps that can be loaded onto apple devices it would at least uh you know create some degree some potential no it would create

a tremendous competition and it's very easy to execute great jamaa uh um i i think you said it really well i am also in the underdog business so i think the the faster they've rammed this thing through the better off it'll be um the thing that is important to recognize is that apple will make this argument that well look there's always android and also look there's the open web and that's structurally not true for a couple of reasons the overwhelming amount of development at least in silicon valley and broadly speaking in tech starts on the iphone sure um and it's only then as an

afterthought almost i mean you have to remember it took snapchat three or four years of being a public company before they actually had a reasonable android app right and so android is has always been sort of the low rpu afterthought even though it has meaningfully more users they're just not as much revenue per user and so exactly and so you know it's kind of a baseless argument the overwhelming revenue the north star for developers where all of the venture capital money goes into is the funding and developing ios apps and in that world view ios is a complete monopoly and uh breaking up the ability

for them to basically dictate a 30 take rate um and also loosening the technical guard rails i think is a huge step forward there's only one thing that i would say however apple has done an incredible job with privacy locking down the phone sandboxing instances and we'll have to find some technical alternative to fortifying um oh no actually they don't chamoth actually i think what they do is when you go to your settings you say unlock iphone you now are not protected apple is not responsible you've decided to sideload stuff and it's basically like putting your mo

your phone into jailbreak or dev mode where they are not going to support you that's the way i think apple should execute it is that would be like they're you know if you want to load anything you want when you get viruses and your privacy gets hacked it's not on us you just essentially although we have one warranty for people who are not jailbroken and side loaded and one warranty for people who decide to jailbreak their phones what's what's incredible to me the other the other point on this is how quickly these guys pass this bill and actually oh actually all six and then how reasonably well they were written

i mean this is one topic where sometimes you know politicians can really kind of get it wrong or they can get lobbied in one way or the other and these bills come out they don't make sense i mean if you have to remember where how far we've come you know wasn't the first antitrust thing where like some guy asked zuck a question about like a model t ford or something i mean it was just so stupid they were so dumb and they've gone from there to this it's really incredible how fast they've caught up i think this is just a terrible precedent and i i think if you guys um weren't going to

make money by weakening apple and alphabet you guys put your free market hats on you'd kind of acknowledge that this is just we were not angel investors we did not do the series of either of those companies fredberg yeah i i recognize that and i think like if you guys have if you guys had a bunch of shares in alphabet or amazon or apple your your opinion would be a little bit different but um i'm just observing exactly what you think i have shares i have shares on amazon and facebook yeah well look i i think in this particular case he's in the process of selling them you know at the end of the day if if apple and

alphabet didn't make incredible products for consumers and focus on consumer happiness they wouldn't be as successful as they are and much of if you remember kind of the early days of the apple app store ideology it was about curating apps and curating the quality of those apps so that the quality of the overall iphone experience would be superior to anything else out there and consumers would love it it wasn't about blocking out competitors and blocking out rivals and blocking out other platforms it was about making something that consumers would absolutely love

and the same ideas freedberg they blocked third party uh book stores and uh book readers they blocked browsers they wanted to block experience vlc and open source players they did that because they wanted you to use their own products basically they set standards on the app store and as long as you met those standards those apps got in there so youtube's in there uh google chrome is in there you know i've got chrome installed on my iphone i think it's a better browser it took them years years and they realized they had to give that up they had to give up the browser because that's what

wanted no the only reason that chrome is there is because of the amount of money that google pays apple for search yeah look and that was a quid pro co in that search deal i will bet you dollars to donuts if that's the only reason yeah i don't think apple i don't think apple is that dumb i'm pretty sure that these guys recognize that if consumers want something they better give it to them and if consumers wanted a bunch of shitty apps on the phone that didn't work and broke down all the time you will then go through the process of jailbreaking should you be able to jailbreak your phone and hack it

freedberg i don't i don't think that i should be telling apple how to make their friggin hardware they should make their hardware and i as a consumer in the free market should decide if i want to buy it or not and if i would oh it's not a free market it's a monopoly i can go buy a freaking samsung or i don't know if htc still makes phones or you know nokia or blackberry i guess these guys are all dead because their products suck but okay at the end of the day if there's an alternative out there i will buy it and if you guys want to go fund a hardware

company that builds a software platform on top of the hardware and maybe i'm not a monopolist now i know why you didn't want to say your opinion you're a goddamn robber no it's really it's really interesting that free book actually on this issue is actually the the free market um monster red pill no and ever and everybody else is sort of blue pill but but david you're right i'll point out that red pill blue pill like you know the books i think it's better for startups i don't particularly have a lot of trust or faith that these big companies when they get this big are particularly

well run or have the best interest of the broad market in their minds and so yeah i'll be honest with you i hope these companies get broken up i think it's great for what we do i think it's great for entrepreneurship i think it's super uh phenomenal for the innovation cycle we could be a part of um and i would hope to participate in that and make a bunch of money i think the best the best way to destroy a monopoly is to build better technology that disrupts them and that has always been the case throughout history and anytime government gets involved and tries to break up a monopoly

in a way that is not natural to the way the market forces might demand you end up declining an innovation standard we have to disrupt apple we have to disrupt amazon we have to disrupt alphabet using technology if we want to have an advantage to go in the market and by having government come in and intervene i feel like it ends up being like like like you know this cronyism which which ultimately affects markets in an adverse way here's the problem is that the developer network effects around an operating system monopoly are insuperable they you you cannot overthrow them there

are now thousands and thousands maybe even millions of apps have been developed on the ios system and uh no competitor can ever get that kind of traction it is the windows monopoly all over again and by the way microsoft and windows might have dominated the internet if it weren't for the government coming down with the whole netscape litigation netscape didn't survive but it kind of it kind of froze microsoft in its tracks and prevented them from dominating the nascent internet and so you know i think that turned out to be a good government intervention uh in terms of allowing innovation to

move forward and by the way just on the sicily proposals i think part of the reason why they make so much sense is because we can't break up apple how would you break up apple right i mean apple sells one product which is ios on different sizes the only way to break up apple is to force them to use their opera let their operating system be licensed to other hardware that's not breaking them up so uh it would certainly create downward pressure on their margins if dell could make a competing apple desktop okay fair enough what i'm saying

what i'm saying is there's no natural fault lines within apple like there are at amazon or google right yes amazon could spin out aws very easily google could spin out youtube or maybe enterprise instagram apple's yes of course so so what that means is because you can't split up the company if you want to address their power the only way to do it is with proposals like side loading i feel like you're you're either looking at a capitalist monopoly or you're looking at a government monopoly so if you think about what's happened in financial services in the united states

the the regulatory burden on being a service provider in the financial services industry is so high that it is very difficult for startups to come in and compete and look at what emerged bitcoin right i feel like there is always going to be a consumer innovation model that will supplant the monopoly and you can't just say hey the government's going to come in and sideload or or break up these big businesses what ultimately happens when you do that is you create a regulatory burden that makes it equally difficult for competition to arise over time or to reduce innovation that's going to

benefit consumers this is the princess leia uh you know basically theory the the tighter you squeeze the more galaxies slip through your fingers and maybe tick tock uh and snapchat are examples of that with facebook but there aren't many and i don't know who's coming up to fight against amazon at this point um so shopify and shopify is crushing it and they're incredible and they're going to create this long tail of stores that ultimately could end up competing really effectively with amazon and we've seen it right and and and consumers choose it and this because just because shopify is

making a lot from sas revenue does not mean that the majority of goods are not going to go through i will tell you the consumer the the consumer experience on shopify stores is fantastic i mean we all don't realize it but we're buying a ton of stuff from shopify stores it's pretty good it's pretty good and it has forced innovation you know and and i will also highlight that one of the benefits of these scaled businesses is that they end up having the resourcing to fund new and emerging businesses that otherwise wouldn't be fundable i don't think that aws would have emerged and therefore google cloud and

all these other alternatives wouldn't have emerged if amazon went yeah it didn't have this incredible chromium open source project and think about the industry that emerged around android but nobody david nobody's nobody's suggesting to have broken these thing up in 2007 but it's 2021 and things have changed i don't know what's down the road that we're going to miss out on right i mean i i guess my point is like you know let the consumer make the decision as opposed to create regulatory burden that over time has its own what is the downside to allowing somebody who wants to put an app store

on their iphone what's the downside freeberg what's the downside to letting me have amazon's app store or android app store and me to pick that i want to just have one subscript set of subscriptions and i prefer the android store yeah why is that bad i'm not making it personally the apple argument is absolutely quality of the the quality of i think you i just think it's a little bit short-sighted for us to all jump to say let's break up big tech like the quality of what no no no no overlapping i think it's incredible and and the new products that have come out is just mind-blowing and you know we

all kind of miss the fact that these are the beneficiaries of scaled businesses and you know you can't really see a startup we are not saying break up big tech we're saying get rid of the 30 app store fee because that negatively impacts our portfolios let's be clear here this is screwing with the margins and a lot of the companies we invested we want that take rate lowered i mean this is if apple just made the take rate 15 this entire thing goes away epic games feels great spotify's feel great that's what they should have done when you over play your hand and then all of a sudden you create a

group of enemies from netflix to spotify to epic games that was apple's big mistake they should have given those people a lower rate and just slowly lowered the rate which is what everybody's doing now with creator percentages and i think that's what youtube should do now the 45 percent they're taking just lower that to 30. just give up a little bit of the take rate and and people will be feel more reasonable about what you're taking can i can i bring in the that sub stack article by antonio garcia martinez i want to end the apple segment on on um

on agm's article which was called bad apple although a great article great art yeah i mean it was it was unbelievable but david was so i just want to let people know how excited david was about this david i think is like ready to be in a full-blown bromance with antonio i mean which david are you talking about i'm talking about you sacks you are are you in love with antonio it's a big pause oh oh we lost upon zoom when i asked him if he's in love apple came in and they press pause pause on the stream he's frozen look at this

look at the frozen look at his eyes look how he's he that's the look of love did you read that article of love i thought it was really well written too it was well written he's a really really good writer but here's the thing he is getting paid probably three hundred thousand to seven hundred thousand dollars to write on stubstack after getting fired and after getting a giant settlement from apple whatever that's gonna be so he is making out like a bandit but i thought the funniest part was like i'm not being um silenced here because i'm now being

paid to talk about apple for the next year my sub sack um but he i thought his most salient point was steve jobs would not have been able to exist in the apple that exists today he would have run out of apples what do you say he would have been cancelled what i mean steve jobs would have a hundred percent david you broke up us if you were in love with antonio you just you i think you got no money off yeah exactly no look i think um i don't agree with everything agm writes but i do think he is a fantastic writer with a lot of interesting perspective and that ending of that article the reason i

want to mention it is it kind of goes to freeberg's point about how much innovation how much innovation is there really at apple now that the that the genius who created it is gone and he he ends his article by saying when apple launched the mac computer in 1984 you know they famously ran that super bowl ad that featured a solitary figure flinging a sledgehammer into a big brother-like face spewing propaganda at the huddled ranks of some drab dystopia and then agm says the tech titans nowadays resemble more and more the harangue

figure on the screen rather than the colorful rebel going against the established order whether it be hiring policy or free speech silicon valley has to decide whether it becomes what it once vowed to destroy the reality is the great genius who founded apple is long gone it is run by hr people and woke mobs it's run by a supply chain manager exactly and and and so there is no more innovation there they are just a gatekeeper collecting rents and you know freeberg you're right to raise the issue of what's going to create the most innovation but the thing that's going to create the

most innovation is letting entrepreneurs create new companies without needing apple's permission i will tell you something i think that over the next decade because of exactly what you guys said that apple is run by managers who don't want to see loss but aren't driven to gain you're going to end up seeing amazon particular and apple likely as well lose to the likes of shopify and square and stripe shopify square and stripe are all formidable threats to amazon over time and now that bezos is actually going to step out and it is going to be run by a bunch of

managers and you have these founders of these three companies still running all three of those businesses and all three of those businesses are going to be incredible competitive threats from different angles on amazon that is where innovation wins and you will see it because leadership driven by founders at those businesses could take them to compete directly with these guys and you don't need the government to come and intervene all three of them are building and are going to continue to build better experiences for consumers and for merchants that could end up disrupting the answer i'll give you a different take i think

that all four companies are going to win including amazon yeah they're going to continue to win and i think what it shows is that shopify and stripe and square had to have very precise entry points in markets and in many ways the things that they are allowed to do is still quite constrained because amazon exists i think that that's fine that should be allowed but i don't think that's what's going to get you know legislated and then litigated over the next 10 or 15 years it's a handful of very specific practices that constrain what folks can do i think the app store is a constraint

the algorithmic nature of facebook's newsfeed and google search are constraints and people are going to test those things and i think that in testing it you're probably going to do what the government was successful as sac said in 2000 which is just slow these guys down you have to remember at some point there were probably more doj lawyers inside of microsoft than product managers and everything if i remember correctly from a feature perspective had to go to the doj for approval for some time that's probably the best thing that can happen to these companies which is you completely gum up

the product infrastructure then you know friedrich you're right the human capital equation changes people leave it's not that fun to be there they go to startups but again you needed the government to step in and they're not going to necessarily solve it but they can really slow down the overreach of these companies for the next 20 years and i think that that's net additive for the world here's here's my prediction i think the pirates are assembling themselves whether it's coinbase saying we're not going to have politics at work or antonio and the end of cancel culture the end of taking the hysterical left or the

historic or the trolling right seriously i feel like that is ending and this great like nightmare of hysteria uh and is going to end and the overton window is going to blossom and open up and people are going to be more innovative and accepting of new ideas and be reasonable and not cancel people who wrote something five or ten or two go go reasonableness let's go reasonable well-reasoned all right everybody uh this has been another episode of the all waiting podcast uh nobody uh what am i doing today yeah what you are you inviting us somewhere no i'm just wondering oh is this a flex are you using are you

gone or did you get an electric electricity it's 8 30 pm for me so i got to go hang out with my family um i've got the accelerator and a board meeting and that's it i'm in the mediterranean general area yes i'm actually conquering europe but i did again i just want to say i did go to the dentist and um i filmed pretty good overcame sex are you hearing about people moving back from miami this like little thing going on about people saying no people are so happy here yeah do you think you're gonna end up living there uh no i mean we'll see maybe no maybe did you

did you get orthopedic did you get orthopedic shoes when you bought that shirt oh my god did you join a golf club are you in a retirement community right now guys i'm i'm on a i'm on a diet i predict by the end of the summer i'll be thinner than jason yeah is there a weight check coming uh and let's go next episode show your decks again i'll show mine and wait do it do it do it dexter please i think i'm 194. okay 195 something like that and what's your height five foot three five nine what are you you do look thinner yeah i think i've lost about five pounds already i'm about 185 right now

and what's your height for five nine oh we're the same height and you weigh 10 pounds less you look good are you on any pharmaceuticals to lose weight no i'm doing i'm doing intermittent fasting i'm doing no carbs and i'm trying to be as plant-based as possible so go sex nice yeah good for you you do look better you do look better you feel good more energy yeah i mean i yes i was getting like just that extra five pounds like kind of tipped me over i think i got like another 15 to go but you think you could be 170 oh yeah yeah yeah that's my goal have you cut back on drinking yeah

we had some incredible wine last night you know what i thought you were a vodka guy can't you just do like a vodka and soda and be good i don't want to give it i can't give a wine you know i can't wait till we play poker and drink some more tomos wine and it's so fun oh i can't wait either love you love you saks love you harry love you harry videos back all right this has been the all-in podcast brought to you by nobody and uh if you'd like to join the all-in chat you can join our imessage group uh the first ten people it's ten thousand dollars a month we're gonna monetize by allowing ten people

to be in the it's only like 300 bucks a day to begin i got to figure out a way to monetize this all right we'll see you all next time bye-bye [Music] and they've just gone crazy with it [Music] where need to get mercy's