00:00:00
hold on guys I gotta get into founder
00:00:02
mode oh wow founder mode if he founder
00:00:04
modes I'm I'm Inna founder mode I got a
00:00:06
Founder mode too where's J
00:00:12
oh let's go freeberg let's get this
00:00:16
smarted baby come on podcast number one
00:00:19
podcast in the world here we go okay
00:00:21
okay guys let's start the show you are a
00:00:22
Founder moting Jacob if you founder mode
00:00:24
anymore you're going to get pneumonia
00:00:27
all right sax is like the '90s again
00:00:29
back at
00:00:31
Stampers this is the funniest cold open
00:00:34
we've ever done oh my God I got Belgian
00:00:37
waffle mix everywhere you got it's right
00:00:39
here Jak you got a bunch of founder mode
00:00:41
right there I got a little founder mode
00:00:44
there thanks for looking
00:00:47
out let your winners
00:00:49
[Music]
00:00:50
ride
00:00:54
David and instead we open source it to
00:00:56
the fans and they've just gone crazy
00:00:58
with love you
00:01:03
founder mode baby let's go all right
00:01:05
everybody welcome back to the number one
00:01:07
podcast in the world with me again the
00:01:11
chairman dictator Troth poopaa how you
00:01:13
doing buddy have you acclimated now
00:01:15
you're 15 days back on American soil how
00:01:18
are you how you
00:01:19
adjusting uh I'm doing well I uh turned
00:01:22
48 two days ago oh I know the big 50th
00:01:25
it's coming I've already called dibs on
00:01:28
chering your 50th so so we will uh be
00:01:31
certainly getting arrested in 24 months
00:01:33
save up your bell money boys fredberg
00:01:36
you look like you have had a record
00:01:40
number of panic attacks in the last 48
00:01:42
hours how is Summit planning going are
00:01:45
you okay buddy you took this
00:01:47
responsibility on are you okay I'm
00:01:49
hanging in there I'm just waiting for
00:01:50
the shoe to drop J Cal on what you're
00:01:53
gonna do to blow up but I think
00:01:54
we're almost there so we're super
00:01:55
excited um we have uh speaker names
00:01:58
going out today so talk a little bit
00:02:00
about who the speakers are you guys know
00:02:02
your bestie Elon will be there oh third
00:02:05
year in a row okay third year in a row
00:02:07
he's the only uh repeat this year we've
00:02:09
got Mark Benny off joining us oh okay
00:02:11
for a conversation about the future of
00:02:13
Enterprise we've got Barry Weiss from
00:02:15
the Free Press we've got Arizona senator
00:02:18
Kirsten Cinema we have John Mir shimer
00:02:22
and Jeffrey saaks to talk about
00:02:23
geopolitics with David saaks saxs on
00:02:26
Sachs ncash
00:02:28
aora what about Peter my guy I Haven
00:02:32
interview Peter in a decade he's amazing
00:02:34
we've got the legend the legend from La
00:02:37
Michael loitz joining us love that we're
00:02:39
gonna get into some really cool uh Tech
00:02:42
we have have you guys have you guys read
00:02:43
Michael litz's book oh it's yeah it's
00:02:46
incredible it's really incredible it's a
00:02:48
great book man Michael's incredible it's
00:02:51
a great book what a Playbook it's a
00:02:53
really interesting mix we've also got
00:02:55
some cool panels on Tech and Robotics so
00:02:57
we're doing all three of The Big E
00:03:00
companies Joby Archer and whisk and
00:03:03
their CEOs are going to be there uh
00:03:05
gecko robotics so we've got Jake coming
00:03:07
from gecko to actually do a really cool
00:03:09
product demo we have the CEO of weo uh
00:03:12
Teedra maakana joining us uh talk about
00:03:15
autonomous driving Juan Carlos bonti
00:03:18
talking about age
00:03:19
reversal uh from altto Labs probably the
00:03:23
most funded private company in history
00:03:25
and also uh ingo's coming out from
00:03:27
Europe uh from ad Yen CEO uh of aen you
00:03:30
guys may not know this but Ingo has
00:03:32
never done a US conference before so
00:03:34
this is his first public speaking event
00:03:36
at a US conference he may be the first I
00:03:39
mean Aden I think is the first and
00:03:40
really only company that's implemented
00:03:43
AI in production at scale it'll be
00:03:46
really interesting to understand where
00:03:48
that's gone in the last year great topic
00:03:50
to talk about and huge shout out to my
00:03:53
boy Woody hoberg us astronaut joining us
00:03:56
to tell us about his months uh aboard
00:03:58
the ISS his experience is he gonna talk
00:04:01
about his experience at Uranus hey and
00:04:05
captaining the uh the crew Dragon
00:04:07
capsule back to Earth from Uranus and
00:04:09
the future of space flight and Uranus
00:04:11
yes thank you to Uranus thank you
00:04:13
everyone anyway I love how he's like my
00:04:16
guy the astronaut as if like freeberg
00:04:18
and an astronaut have the same life
00:04:20
experience you know you know what you
00:04:22
know what happened J it's like me and my
00:04:23
guy Draymond did I tell you you know how
00:04:26
I met Woody he's a huge fan of the Pod
00:04:29
and then he NASA astronauts which I
00:04:31
follow on Twitter dm'd me and they're
00:04:33
like Woody would like to meet and I'm
00:04:34
like what and then I get this message
00:04:36
from Woody I'm like is this real he's
00:04:38
like I'm on the ISS I listen to the Pod
00:04:40
every week I love the show and you guys
00:04:43
you know keep me entertained up here in
00:04:45
space and I'm like no way so then he's
00:04:47
like can you do a zoom and I'm like sure
00:04:48
so we hop on zoom and I you guys saw
00:04:51
this thing I put it out on uh on Twitter
00:04:53
or something but I did the zoom with
00:04:54
Woody got to know him hang hung out with
00:04:56
him since he's been back great guy so
00:04:58
you left out the number one one
00:05:00
host on the internet and broadcast uh or
00:05:04
news on YouTube Megan Kelly will be
00:05:07
joining Megan Kelly the phenomenal Megan
00:05:10
kelly didn't she call you a prick Jal
00:05:13
did she call me a prick why she be any
00:05:15
different
00:05:19
yeah oh I can't wait for this fire what
00:05:21
do T beautiful intelligent women call
00:05:24
historically what do they call you they
00:05:26
call you is that your mom they don't
00:05:28
exactly they're like out of the way
00:05:30
where's J they're like can you park my
00:05:32
car their keys and then really excited
00:05:35
to have Thomas lefant come and give us a
00:05:37
state of the union on public market and
00:05:39
private Market Tech investing he's got a
00:05:41
really interesting presentation he's
00:05:43
going to share so a lot of the content
00:05:45
from the summit we're gonna be push of
00:05:47
co-founder of CO2 oh sorry co-founder of
00:05:48
CO2 Y and so a lot of the content we're
00:05:50
gon to be pushing out on YouTube uh as
00:05:53
quickly as we can obviously some of the
00:05:54
more timely newsly stuff will get out
00:05:56
first and then as we did in the last two
00:05:58
years material will roll roll out in the
00:06:00
days and weeks that follow we do not do
00:06:02
sponsors here on the Allin podcast but
00:06:04
the Allin Summit does have sponsors so a
00:06:07
huge shout out which we would never
00:06:08
otherwise do Partners to uh Excel events
00:06:11
hexclad merch.com athletic Brewing the
00:06:14
ridge the greatest Law Firm on Earth
00:06:17
kolie velocity black and our big
00:06:20
enterprise software partnership sponsor
00:06:22
Google Cloud big shout out and big
00:06:25
thanks to Google Cloud for stepping it
00:06:26
up in a big way they have an incredible
00:06:29
set of AI tools that they're making
00:06:31
available to startups startup Founders
00:06:33
that are attending the summit get
00:06:35
350,000 bucks in Google Cloud credits
00:06:38
wait what yeah each each startup founder
00:06:41
each startup yeah so pretty I would I
00:06:43
would have send all my companies to
00:06:45
exactly you pay 7500 for a ticket you
00:06:47
get 350 in credit sh 350 Grand of credit
00:06:50
that's incredible for Google Cloud it is
00:06:52
up to 350 and Google Cloud credits for
00:06:55
eligible AI startups which they can use
00:06:57
over two years um comes with a bunch of
00:06:58
other benefits so it's pretty awesome
00:07:00
really glad they're doing this and
00:07:01
they're going to have a set most
00:07:03
lukewarm ad read I've ever heard do you
00:07:04
want me to do that for you and get
00:07:06
people can you guys Theo on it how about
00:07:09
you guys the on this go and Google cloud
00:07:13
is giving an amazing offer to everybody
00:07:16
who comes to the summit wait till you
00:07:17
hear the sacks
00:07:19
$350,000 for AI startups uh credit and
00:07:23
that that's real money that you would
00:07:24
have spent otherwise so a great from our
00:07:26
friends at Google Cloud wait 350,000
00:07:30
just for startups whose Founders come to
00:07:32
our Summit yes yeah for AI startup
00:07:35
Founders uh they can sign up for Google
00:07:37
Cloud they get 350,000 credits that they
00:07:39
can use in over two years total across
00:07:41
all the founders who are per business no
00:07:43
no per business per business oh my gosh
00:07:46
yeah so if you're spending 10K a month I
00:07:48
have seven friends and family tickets
00:07:50
left I'm starting seven companies in the
00:07:52
next half hour they're all going to the
00:07:54
summit I'm going to clear $2.3 million
00:07:57
of credits and I'm going to sell them on
00:07:59
eBay for 500k you can't do that get in
00:08:01
terms thank you to our friends at Google
00:08:04
we did get a funny note from jcal this
00:08:05
morning asking if his remaining friends
00:08:07
in family tickets could be sold off so
00:08:09
he could grift himself some money off of
00:08:11
our fre like hey what could these go for
00:08:13
on I'm just thinking if it's sold out
00:08:15
these aren't worth 7500 each what's it
00:08:18
worth if you can't get in yeah I'm sure
00:08:20
you'd find that out pretty quickly yeah
00:08:22
yeah I mean who's gonna stop me
00:08:24
um the corner trying to scalp the
00:08:27
remaining tickets I I know give them to
00:08:29
my brother Josh if you want to get into
00:08:31
the for 10K cash will be at the load
00:08:34
we're to see a couple of Cal's Brothers
00:08:36
on the
00:08:37
sidewalk outside the conference holding
00:08:39
a sign you know tickets available ticket
00:08:43
one down of the Mongolian barbecue joint
00:08:46
West listen if you uh if you have ever
00:08:49
been to Madison Square Garden you just
00:08:51
hold up the number one and somebody will
00:08:53
come talk to you somebody will come talk
00:08:55
to you all right we've gotten through
00:08:57
all the great housekeeping
00:09:00
and it's time to talk about founder mode
00:09:03
founder mode on Sunday the Y combinator
00:09:07
founder Paul Graham published an essay
00:09:09
titled founder mode it was based on a
00:09:11
talk that Airbnb CEO Brian chesky gave
00:09:14
to a group of YC Founders last week
00:09:16
where he said hey the advice I got on
00:09:18
running a large company uh was to hire
00:09:20
good people and give them room to do
00:09:22
their jobs he says he took that advice
00:09:24
and the results were a disaster so he
00:09:26
studied how Steve Jobs ran after
00:09:29
and according to PG Paul gram that is a
00:09:33
bunch of very successful Founders in the
00:09:34
audience kind of nodded their head and
00:09:36
said hey that is uh similar to my
00:09:39
experience PG uh defines the world now
00:09:42
in two ways two philosophies for running
00:09:45
a company manager mode versus founder
00:09:47
mode in manager mode that's just the
00:09:49
conventional way of doing this what you
00:09:51
teach in business school you hire good
00:09:52
people you give them room to do their
00:09:53
jobs they tell your direct reports what
00:09:56
to do they figure it out you don't
00:09:57
micromanage uh peaches says it doesn't
00:10:00
give too many specifics about founder
00:10:02
mod he kind of says hey we got to figure
00:10:03
out what this thing is so in some ways
00:10:06
this blog post jth was a way of starting
00:10:09
the conversation but he said things like
00:10:12
less delegation and more Hands-On and uh
00:10:15
if you haven't heard of it skip level
00:10:16
meetings this is where the CEO will meet
00:10:19
not with their manager or direct report
00:10:21
but maybe a group of people who report
00:10:23
into that manager without the manager in
00:10:25
the room it's a notable and well-known
00:10:28
management technique need to kind of get
00:10:30
information to the CEO a little bit
00:10:33
faster and um what do you think CH
00:10:36
chamus got a lot of attention on a
00:10:39
Sunday did you have any takeaways from
00:10:41
it I was confused when I read
00:10:46
it because everybody was breathlessly
00:10:49
panting about how incredibly insightful
00:10:51
it was and when I read it my first
00:10:53
thought was where's the second half that
00:10:55
actually explains what this is so that
00:10:57
you can have an opinion and then the
00:10:59
next thing I thought was I don't really
00:11:01
understand what any of this is all about
00:11:03
and I tweeted this in a quarter Century
00:11:05
now in Silicon Valley I think I've
00:11:08
encountered two different kinds of
00:11:10
people one are the groups of people that
00:11:12
can go right to the heart of issues
00:11:14
because they can break things down and
00:11:16
look at it from first principles and
00:11:19
just ruthlessly attack what's not
00:11:21
working with absolutely no Nostalgia for
00:11:24
people or sunk cost or Tech debt and
00:11:28
then there's everybody else and I think
00:11:31
that that is an archetype that actually
00:11:33
drives successful
00:11:36
companies it's not the case that those
00:11:38
are only exhibited in
00:11:40
Founders I think it's a psychological
00:11:43
makeup of a person and the people that
00:11:45
have it tend to build good companies you
00:11:48
know will have such a person for example
00:11:51
at the all in Summit if you look at what
00:11:54
Nikes Aurora was able to do at Paulo
00:11:56
Alto networks it's it's incredible I
00:11:58
mean in 8 years he's created 80 billion
00:12:01
of value how do you do that I think it's
00:12:02
important to understand how that
00:12:06
happens if you look at a whole bunch of
00:12:09
other people that are managers shant
00:12:12
narian how has he built
00:12:14
Adobe saan Adella how did he build
00:12:16
Microsoft these are all just like a
00:12:18
handful of examples of people that have
00:12:20
just tacked on collectively trillions of
00:12:24
dollars of market cap way more than all
00:12:26
founders added together in most
00:12:27
companies but for one two so I think the
00:12:30
takeaway is instead of looking for some
00:12:35
label I think you're going to have to do
00:12:37
the really hard work if you want a
00:12:39
successful business which is when things
00:12:41
are working have the courage to change
00:12:43
the few things that still need changing
00:12:45
and when things are not working break it
00:12:47
down to the studs and most people don't
00:12:50
have the courage to go through the glass
00:12:54
eating that is
00:12:56
required to get to the other side of
00:12:58
that process sa did you read the piece
00:13:00
um you clearly saw all the uh memes and
00:13:03
you
00:13:05
know I guess kudos for the piece on X uh
00:13:09
this past weekend what are your thoughts
00:13:11
on it generally speaking anything that
00:13:13
you took from it that was notable or is
00:13:15
this just some obvious stuff yeah I mean
00:13:17
my reaction to it was that this is
00:13:20
hardly new I mean I remember way back in
00:13:22
the PayPal days over 20 years ago we had
00:13:25
a rule that we weren't wouldn't hire
00:13:27
mbas we had a no MBA hiring rule
00:13:29
and the reason was because we figured
00:13:31
out pretty early on that NBAs were
00:13:33
bringing more of attritional management
00:13:35
toolkit that seemed less applicable at a
00:13:38
startup subsequent to that obviously
00:13:41
Elon has taken a very Hands-On Approach
00:13:45
at his companies that Walter Isaacson
00:13:47
described in his book as demon mode and
00:13:51
so that's been described Ben harest did
00:13:53
a very interesting series of blog posts
00:13:56
about management and addressed the topic
00:13:58
of my mom management years ago and so
00:14:02
he's written extensively about it and
00:14:03
put a lot of substance behind it Ben
00:14:05
Drew attention to a book by Andy Grove
00:14:09
that came out 40 years ago called high
00:14:10
output management that also addressed
00:14:13
this problem in significant detail and
00:14:16
this to boil it down into a nutshell for
00:14:18
you the way that Grove
00:14:21
defines this problem is he says that the
00:14:23
output of a manager is the output of
00:14:27
that person's team and whether that
00:14:30
manager is the CEO or a team lead or a
00:14:33
VP or what have you the way you again
00:14:37
measure their output is just to look at
00:14:39
the output of their team so
00:14:41
therefore you ask what's going to
00:14:43
maximize the output of that that team or
00:14:45
that org and you know obviously if the
00:14:48
CEO tries to do everything and make
00:14:51
every decision probably that's not going
00:14:53
to result in the maximum output
00:14:55
conversely if you delegate everything I
00:14:57
call it the problem of infinite deleg
00:14:59
ation where CEO delegates to VP VP
00:15:02
delegates to director director delegates
00:15:03
to manager manager uh delegates it to
00:15:06
the summer intern yeah you know and then
00:15:08
all the most important work in the
00:15:09
company gets delegated all the way down
00:15:11
to the newest most inexperienced people
00:15:14
that's not going to work either yeah so
00:15:16
again you're going to have to find the
00:15:17
right balance and again the way that you
00:15:19
figure out what the balance is is to
00:15:23
apply gross principle of maximizing the
00:15:25
output of the team or the organization
00:15:27
and we've seen in some of the big comp
00:15:29
sacks that they've cut out middle
00:15:31
management because so much of the work
00:15:34
was just being playing telephone and
00:15:36
handing it to the next person that when
00:15:37
you took out that swap of people at
00:15:39
Facebook or Google or Microsoft right
00:15:41
the company seemed to work better
00:15:43
because you're taking out a layer of
00:15:44
overpaid took out a huge amount of
00:15:45
middle management and it and it didn't
00:15:47
seem to harm the performance performance
00:15:49
got better and again you can apply gross
00:15:51
principle look at what happens to the
00:15:53
aggregate output so this topic has been
00:15:56
addressed at length and I think has been
00:15:59
understood for for decades maybe the
00:16:01
only new thing here is a little bit of
00:16:04
branding around founder mode versus
00:16:07
manager mode the the problem with that
00:16:09
branding is I think it's an overly
00:16:12
simplistic and mannequin view of the
00:16:14
world where it kind of fits
00:16:17
into really all of the the PG essays and
00:16:21
and the
00:16:22
YC model which is Founders always right
00:16:26
and everybody else in the ecosystem
00:16:29
especially traditional managers they're
00:16:30
they're either Liars or fakers and that
00:16:33
basically has been the mannequin model
00:16:36
that Paul gron pumping out for decades
00:16:38
and is there something wrong with that
00:16:40
model you're you're kind of looking at
00:16:41
it I'm kind of hearing a little bit of a
00:16:43
tone there maybe I'm reading into it
00:16:45
that that doesn't match reality well
00:16:48
sure I mean look the the whole ecosystem
00:16:50
in Silicon Valley exists to help make
00:16:52
founder successful I mean I was a
00:16:54
Founder myself now I'm a investor
00:16:56
there's also Talent who don't found
00:16:58
companies themselves want to join them
00:17:00
the whole thing is organized to make
00:17:02
Founders successful and the whole idea
00:17:05
that people are out to get the founder I
00:17:07
mean this is a really Antiquated idea
00:17:08
there was some truth to it in the
00:17:10
1990s uh by 2002 or 2003 when Peter teal
00:17:14
created Founders fund he called it that
00:17:17
to emphasize that you know Founders
00:17:19
should be in charge I'd say by the mid
00:17:21
to late 2000s no one really disagreed
00:17:24
with that anymore yeah so this whole
00:17:26
idea that like people are out to get
00:17:27
Founders rather than make them
00:17:29
successful is Antiquated by at least 15
00:17:31
years I would say kind of why Comin A's
00:17:33
marketing wouldn't you say is like to
00:17:34
kind of put themselves next to the
00:17:36
founder and say hey we're the only ones
00:17:38
who really care about Founders everybody
00:17:40
else is out to get them kind of yeah I
00:17:42
mean look there was some truth to it you
00:17:44
know i' would say in the 1990s there was
00:17:46
a prevailing view in Silicon Valley 30
00:17:49
years ago that once the company got to a
00:17:51
certain level of size you hire a
00:17:52
professional manager subsequent to that
00:17:54
people figured out that the best
00:17:56
performing companies are indeed the
00:17:57
founder Le companies the ones that keep
00:18:00
the founder engaged for a long period of
00:18:01
time they tend to build the most value
00:18:04
everybody understands that everyone
00:18:05
wants the founder to be successful the
00:18:07
question is how do you make this founder
00:18:08
successful and I think there is a
00:18:10
perverse Dynamic where if you teach the
00:18:12
founder that hey you're always right and
00:18:15
everybody else is a liar and a faker
00:18:17
then that can create a a distortion
00:18:20
effect where Founders don't feel the
00:18:22
need to level up we all want the founder
00:18:25
to level up I mean I would always rather
00:18:27
invest in the founder who has Vision
00:18:30
over some professional manager right you
00:18:32
want the Visionary to succeed but you
00:18:34
need them to level up and learn you know
00:18:36
just basic management over time and if
00:18:39
you're teaching them that hey founder is
00:18:41
always right there's less incentive to
00:18:43
do that I think it's a wonderful rack
00:18:45
test for basic intelligence I mean if
00:18:48
you just read something and all of a
00:18:49
sudden like that's my problem it's
00:18:52
probably not your
00:18:54
problem and so it's a great way to
00:18:56
actually weed out the people that were
00:18:58
just meant to fail anyways and just
00:19:00
needed an a way to externalize their
00:19:03
frustration and have an excuse I have
00:19:05
never seen a person build a successful
00:19:07
company unless they understood
00:19:10
intimately the core amount of value that
00:19:12
their company created and knew how to
00:19:15
balance getting into the weeds with
00:19:17
scaling through other people I've never
00:19:20
seen a good example of of a great CEO
00:19:22
that didn't do that well yeah everyone
00:19:24
has to figure this out and there is no
00:19:27
word salad that explains this it's
00:19:30
incredibly unique to every single
00:19:31
company and so there is no Panacea here
00:19:34
yeah I mean sometimes the Founder's job
00:19:36
is to get in the weeds of something
00:19:38
that's broken in a company and get down
00:19:40
in micro manag other times you want to
00:19:42
step back and let the sales team cook
00:19:44
because they're crushing it I would say
00:19:46
it's their job to have the Strategic
00:19:48
wherewithal to understand what it takes
00:19:50
to win and then win at all costs that's
00:19:54
their job and if you cannot win and then
00:19:56
you externalize your inability to win to
00:20:00
an essay or something else you're
00:20:03
probably going to fail in your company
00:20:04
is probably going to fail freeberg
00:20:06
you're back in the founder seat after a
00:20:08
uh brief sojourn as an investor any of
00:20:12
this ring true to you or obvious did you
00:20:15
read the essay any thoughts on it the
00:20:17
reaction to
00:20:18
it I mentioned this when we had our
00:20:21
conversation in 2020 around governance
00:20:25
and why governments seemed to not be
00:20:27
able to synthesize different data to
00:20:29
make decisions they were being told what
00:20:31
to do by their subordinates the
00:20:34
difference for me is leading versus
00:20:39
managing that a traditional manager and
00:20:42
I've seen this at a lot of companies I
00:20:44
even saw this a lot at
00:20:46
Monsanto the
00:20:48
manager says to the people that report
00:20:50
to them what do you guys going to do and
00:20:55
then the the people they go down to the
00:20:57
people that report to them and they say
00:20:58
what what are you guys going to do and
00:21:00
so you end up net net developing this
00:21:02
kind of Bottoms Up model for the
00:21:05
organization which is effectively
00:21:10
driven with a diffusion of
00:21:12
responsibility and as a result a lack of
00:21:16
vision the leader says here's what we
00:21:19
are going to do and here is how we are
00:21:21
going to do it and then they can
00:21:23
allocate responsibility for each of the
00:21:25
pieces necessary and the leader that's
00:21:28
most successful is the one that can
00:21:30
synthesize the input from the
00:21:32
subordinates and take that synthesis to
00:21:35
come up with a decision or a new
00:21:36
Direction rather than be told what's the
00:21:39
answer by the subordinates so leaders I
00:21:41
think fundamentally are able to number
00:21:43
one understand the different points of
00:21:46
view of the people that report to them
00:21:48
number two set a direction or set a
00:21:50
vision really clearly say this is where
00:21:53
we are going and then number three
00:21:54
figure out how to allocate
00:21:56
responsibility to the people that report
00:21:57
to them to achieve that OB itive whereas
00:21:59
a manager is typically being told what's
00:22:02
going to happen in the organization like
00:22:03
a giant Ouija board with 10,000
00:22:05
employees hands on the writing thing
00:22:07
that go around and try and write the
00:22:09
sentences and ultimately you just get a
00:22:10
bunch of goop as companies scale and
00:22:12
they bring in these quote professional
00:22:14
managers they're typically kind of
00:22:16
looking down and saying hey what are we
00:22:17
going to do what's going to happen next
00:22:19
and they're not actually setting a
00:22:20
direction whereas someone who's a
00:22:21
Founder typically feels the authority to
00:22:23
be able to set the direction but to
00:22:26
chat's point SAA Adela Sundar
00:22:30
nikesh Tim you can kind of Tim Cook a
00:22:33
great example there are some really
00:22:35
great leaders that have run
00:22:37
organizations that are already scaled
00:22:39
and then taken them to an order of
00:22:41
magnitude or two orders of magnitude
00:22:43
Beyond where they were when they step in
00:22:46
so I don't think that there's
00:22:47
necessarily A founder and they each did
00:22:49
it uniquely I don't think there's a
00:22:50
single way in which any one of those
00:22:52
companies has run that necessarily you
00:22:54
could have cut and pasted it to the
00:22:56
other companies and have it worked so it
00:22:59
requires a smart individual who
00:23:01
understands their company and their
00:23:04
human capital intimately well and their
00:23:06
business model by the way what's
00:23:08
important about what you just said chth
00:23:09
is that that is
00:23:11
effectively I think the definition of
00:23:14
like being a successful founder
00:23:16
understanding from first principles so
00:23:18
these are leaders that can think from
00:23:19
first principles not necessarily from
00:23:21
comparables most managers are taught in
00:23:24
business school here's how a business is
00:23:26
run here's how this person did it here's
00:23:27
how this company did it and then they go
00:23:29
and they try and cookie cut or repeat
00:23:30
that that doesn't really work because
00:23:32
every business if it's going to be
00:23:34
successful it has to be unique and so
00:23:36
the ability to actually think uniquely
00:23:38
and identify from first principles the
00:23:40
means necessary to achieve the mission
00:23:42
of the organization I think is a
00:23:44
critical critical leadership uh
00:23:47
trait that yeah that leader can come
00:23:49
from a founder or not but this ability
00:23:51
to kind of yeah ignore convention ignore
00:23:53
comparables and think for yourself I
00:23:56
don't see most Founders starting a
00:23:58
business because they've done some first
00:24:00
principles analysis I see most Founders
00:24:02
starting companies because they see a
00:24:05
gap that they're pretty sure exists but
00:24:08
I think the biggest thing that Founders
00:24:11
have is this intersection of
00:24:13
fearlessness and
00:24:15
naivity and so they if they knew too
00:24:17
much they would never do it that I don't
00:24:20
think necessarily means that the entire
00:24:22
set of all of those people are actually
00:24:24
great first principles thinkers the
00:24:26
first principles is required after
00:24:28
product Market fit what's required
00:24:30
before product Market fit is risk-taking
00:24:33
curiosity Relentless iteration and those
00:24:36
are a very different set of
00:24:38
characteristics is it true that subf
00:24:40
Founders can then change their toolkit
00:24:42
absolutely but is it true that quote
00:24:45
unquote because you have a title you
00:24:46
have those things absolutely not
00:24:48
otherwise we would have a much higher
00:24:50
success rate in Silicon Valley than we
00:24:52
do there is a reason why 95% of these
00:24:54
companies go to zero it's because the
00:24:57
ability to do the first is rare and then
00:24:59
the ability to transition is even more
00:25:01
rare well building a unique business and
00:25:04
I think if you look at Airbnb and I'll
00:25:06
give Brian chesky incredible credit for
00:25:08
this you look at Uber you look at how
00:25:11
Steve Jobs built Apple what every one of
00:25:13
these businesses have in common is that
00:25:15
they were all built in a unique way and
00:25:17
I think that's what makes great
00:25:18
businesses is that they identify their
00:25:20
own path their own unique path for how
00:25:23
to operate a business to scale to
00:25:25
achieve the mission of the organization
00:25:27
and I think that that's what's typically
00:25:28
lacking and trained managers who use
00:25:30
comparables and biases from their prior
00:25:32
experience and what they've been trained
00:25:34
and taught to use as a cookie cutter
00:25:36
type model which doesn't create unique
00:25:38
value it makes your business look like
00:25:39
the other and ultimately it commoditized
00:25:42
some aspect of the business to the point
00:25:43
that the value of the business goes down
00:25:45
but to build something unique where
00:25:47
you're constantly finding the unique
00:25:48
path that gives you an advantage is what
00:25:50
all of these companies have in common
00:25:52
whether that unique path was made by an
00:25:55
experienced hired person or a firsttime
00:25:57
founder this ability to kind of build a
00:25:59
unique competency that I think makes
00:26:01
them all distinct as a group I think
00:26:03
that's a really good point like if you
00:26:05
look at some technology businesses they
00:26:06
start off looking like technology
00:26:08
businesses and what they really are are
00:26:10
Tech enabled consumer businesses other
00:26:13
businesses are pure technology companies
00:26:16
and why that distinction is important in
00:26:18
this context is that there are certain
00:26:20
kinds of challenges you have in the
00:26:21
former that you just don't have in the
00:26:23
ladder and vice versa so if you're a
00:26:25
Google or a Facebook and you run into
00:26:27
some problem
00:26:29
typically the solution is you can
00:26:30
engineer around it because ultimately
00:26:32
your product is free and there's a
00:26:34
different way to scale and grow and
00:26:35
create feature value because those are
00:26:38
also incrementally free if you look at a
00:26:40
company like Airbnb and if you look at
00:26:43
the last six months in the stock what is
00:26:45
it telling you it's telling you that the
00:26:47
people that own it have realized that
00:26:49
it's less of a technology business and
00:26:51
it's more of a
00:26:53
cyclical business that es and flows with
00:26:56
the ability to spend money on behalf of
00:26:58
the consumer so now all of a sudden
00:27:00
you're put into a different bucket and
00:27:02
you grow as people's belief es and flows
00:27:06
about the amount of spending that
00:27:08
consumers have that is independent of
00:27:10
your product quality and what that means
00:27:12
is that there's no amount of investment
00:27:14
in technology that you can really make
00:27:16
to change that people need to have
00:27:19
excess capital in order to spend on
00:27:21
vacations and then you can capture your
00:27:23
fair share of that but if we're in a
00:27:25
recession that company will be under
00:27:28
pressure in a way that has nothing to do
00:27:29
with the internal product quality that
00:27:31
they exhibit so these are just
00:27:33
dimensionality it's just different kinds
00:27:35
of problems that every single company
00:27:37
faces that are totally unique to its own
00:27:39
circumstances so if you are trying to
00:27:42
point to some label as the reason why
00:27:46
your company is failing I would just
00:27:48
encourage you to not do that jcal you've
00:27:50
you've interviewed thousands of Founders
00:27:52
CEOs you've seen successful unsuccessful
00:27:55
do you have a point of view on whether
00:27:57
this concept applies and what if you
00:27:59
have a general kind of theistic for the
00:28:03
difference between success and not
00:28:04
success it's very different in the the
00:28:07
place where Paul Graham and I invest
00:28:09
year zero year one of a company and
00:28:12
chafu alluded to this in that time
00:28:14
period going from zero to one from no
00:28:17
customers to One customer it's about you
00:28:19
know really having a team of Builders
00:28:21
people who can actually build a product
00:28:23
and have what's called Product velocity
00:28:24
in the industry the ability to iterate
00:28:26
and then how much time do they spend
00:28:28
with with customers understanding what
00:28:29
those customers problems are and so what
00:28:31
we'll see is when the professional
00:28:33
managers try to do that they try to get
00:28:36
a product to Market and Achieve what's
00:28:37
called Product Market fit and then
00:28:39
eventually maybe get product or get
00:28:42
Market pull as Andy rackliff defines it
00:28:44
which is the market is seeking your
00:28:47
product out because of word of mouth and
00:28:49
because they need it which Airbnb and
00:28:50
Uber would fall into now the difference
00:28:53
between those two moments in time and
00:28:54
who's good at it is is pretty different
00:28:56
to your point jamat so to be able to win
00:28:59
both those bets is hard that's like a
00:29:01
parlay in a way getting the product
00:29:04
Market fit requires this sort of
00:29:06
relentlessness in Innovation and trying
00:29:09
things if you have experience in that
00:29:11
vertical it works against you so we were
00:29:14
looking at a company today in our in our
00:29:16
firm that has a really good idea and
00:29:19
it's people who are from the industry
00:29:21
but they have an okay idea it's people
00:29:23
from the industry but they can't get the
00:29:24
product built because they're senior
00:29:26
managers who have 20 years experience in
00:29:28
this particular vertical you would much
00:29:30
rather see neopit come out the vertical
00:29:33
so if you look at the companies
00:29:34
mentioned here Airbnb Uber and then
00:29:38
SpaceX and Tesla you you just look at
00:29:40
those four companies they had no
00:29:43
experience zero in space in travel in
00:29:48
transportation Hospitality you know or
00:29:50
any of the uh the success they had or
00:29:53
electric cars but to actually scale
00:29:56
those companies that does require a lot
00:29:57
of lot of expertise a lot of tactics and
00:30:00
you know people who can
00:30:02
focus in a way on very narrow things and
00:30:06
that sometimes Founders who are in that
00:30:08
first group they can't have that focus
00:30:11
on but one tiny little thing they just
00:30:14
get bored with it and so they have to
00:30:16
learn to have really great people
00:30:18
recruit really great people and actually
00:30:20
yes delegate to them to run a department
00:30:22
and say hey I we the goal of this
00:30:25
organization and you saw this chamath
00:30:26
when you were at Facebook I think you've
00:30:28
told me so many stories about you know
00:30:30
you're focused on one thing the signup
00:30:33
flow getting people to add that second
00:30:35
or third friend getting them to fill out
00:30:37
their profile there were like key
00:30:39
moments you determined with equal
00:30:41
success and then Zuckerberg yourself and
00:30:44
those ear that early crew were able to
00:30:46
obsess over those so maybe you could
00:30:47
talk
00:30:48
about Zuckerberg's ride to to getting
00:30:51
the first you know whatever 10 million
00:30:53
people on the product but then 10
00:30:54
million to a
00:30:55
billion well I mean Zuck I think did an
00:30:57
incredible thing for me which is he let
00:30:59
my team
00:31:00
Cook I don't remember having skip level
00:31:03
meetings this that none of this other
00:31:05
nonsense but at the same time what he
00:31:07
did was he created air cover for us
00:31:09
because let's be honest I was an
00:31:10
immature executive at the time so I was
00:31:13
still learning how to be part of a
00:31:16
fabric of a group of people I did not
00:31:18
know how to do that so I was a little
00:31:20
bit of a lone wolf operator with my team
00:31:22
and I operated that way you know I would
00:31:24
hey guys we get to 100 million people
00:31:26
we're all going to Vegas and the rest of
00:31:28
the company would be upset and you know
00:31:29
Mark and Cheryl's job would be to clean
00:31:31
up the broken glass of everybody else
00:31:33
saying there's these halves and have
00:31:35
knots at Facebook and in hindsight who
00:31:37
cares because it all worked in the
00:31:39
moment I could see why everybody else
00:31:41
was a little bit upset with that so they
00:31:42
did a wonderful job of letting this
00:31:45
wonderful team of very curious iterators
00:31:47
do their job and they basically got out
00:31:50
of the way and I think that that's a
00:31:52
wonderful thing but is that repeatable
00:31:54
not in any other company because that
00:31:56
context and timing and moment was very
00:31:59
unique and again my approach to the job
00:32:03
was unique not necessarily sustainable
00:32:05
not necessarily good nor bad different
00:32:08
and we adapted to those boundary
00:32:09
conditions to maximize how we could
00:32:11
deliver but it doesn't mean anything to
00:32:14
any other company in my opinion yeah I
00:32:17
think it's it's well said there's
00:32:19
another good book before we go on to our
00:32:21
next subject Patrick lanon I'm sure some
00:32:24
of you have read the five dysfunctions
00:32:25
of a team but he kind of got into early
00:32:29
this sort of ability to be unliked
00:32:31
inside of a
00:32:33
company and I just I think I high
00:32:35
recommend the book because it really
00:32:37
talks about this sort of fear of
00:32:38
conflict and avoidance of accountability
00:32:41
and inattention to results which is kind
00:32:43
of the underpinnings of I think what
00:32:46
Paul was getting to with founder mode
00:32:49
okay great discussion everybody let's uh
00:32:52
speaking of founder mode I mean this
00:32:55
story keeps coming
00:32:56
back r and breslo is back in the news we
00:33:00
talked about this company before breslo
00:33:02
is a founder of a company called bolt
00:33:03
that's a payment startup and I have to
00:33:06
set the story up in in a couple of Acts
00:33:08
here saak and I have been following it
00:33:10
for a
00:33:11
while bolt was a payment startup they
00:33:13
did one-click checkout products if you
00:33:15
don't know the
00:33:17
oneclick Amazon had a patent for this
00:33:19
for a while it came out of um it came
00:33:22
out of patent protection everybody sort
00:33:24
of jumped on it they're shopay by
00:33:26
Shopify you probably have experience
00:33:28
you you buy something at one store and
00:33:30
then uh you log into another store with
00:33:32
your phone number it has all your
00:33:33
credentials you've been cookied and that
00:33:35
basically takes out the friction and
00:33:37
allows you to make a purchase at another
00:33:39
vendor without having to put in all your
00:33:41
credentials and credit card and
00:33:43
everything so bolt makes that through an
00:33:46
API for
00:33:48
different shops online they generated 27
00:33:52
million in revenue on a $300 million
00:33:54
loss last year they get 2 to 3%
00:33:57
commission when they sell something
00:33:59
anyway we talked about bolt back in
00:34:01
January 2022 because they had raised at
00:34:03
an extraordinary valuation 355 million
00:34:06
at an 11 billion valuation
00:34:09
366 times Revenue sacks I guess we
00:34:12
missed those then breslo made waves on
00:34:16
Twitter by calling shrip and YC the mob
00:34:19
bosses of Silicon Valley he alleged they
00:34:21
were kind of acting in cahoots to keep
00:34:25
people from using bolt and claimed YC
00:34:28
was skewering rankings on Hacker News
00:34:30
all this other stuff anyway it's been
00:34:33
two and a half years since we talked
00:34:35
about this craziness at bolt and breslo
00:34:38
stepped down as CEO after posting that
00:34:40
thread he was accused of overstating
00:34:41
Bolt's customers and Technical
00:34:43
capabilities to investors while raising
00:34:45
money that got probed by the SEC they
00:34:48
didn't take any action and then their
00:34:50
valuation was slashed 97% to 300 million
00:34:54
earlier this year that's where uh the
00:34:56
story had ended in until just last week
00:34:59
when an insane story came out that
00:35:00
Bolt's interim CEO not brlo had emailed
00:35:04
investors informing them out of the blue
00:35:07
that they were going to raise 450
00:35:09
million at a $14 billion
00:35:12
valuation this came as a surprise to
00:35:15
investors they didn't know this was
00:35:17
happening according to reports and that
00:35:19
this deal would put breslo back in
00:35:20
charge as CEO it was confusing to all
00:35:23
the investors and they've all started to
00:35:25
lawyer up and try to figure this out
00:35:27
here what we know so far bolt is on Pace
00:35:29
to generate 28 million in Revenue this
00:35:31
year roughly the same as
00:35:33
2021 and so a 14 billion doll valuation
00:35:36
would be 500 times Revenue jamath I'm
00:35:41
not sure who would pay for that
00:35:43
deal but this deal is uh unique in that
00:35:46
it's called pay to play if you don't
00:35:47
know that term it basically means if
00:35:49
you're an existing investor if you don't
00:35:51
invest in this round you're going to
00:35:53
lose your existing shares or have them
00:35:55
diluted massively so so uh some
00:35:59
Investment Bank out of the
00:36:01
sells which is that tiny Island in
00:36:04
Africa that rich people go on vacation
00:36:05
was supposed to put in 200 million that
00:36:08
firm was called silverbear the other 250
00:36:11
million would come from a firm called
00:36:12
the London firm in marketing capital and
00:36:16
credits on a venture investing platform
00:36:18
so anyway there's a ton of carve outs
00:36:21
here and other stuff I'm going to stop
00:36:23
there at the notes and just
00:36:25
Sachs this is the craziest story sorry
00:36:27
took so long to get here what what are
00:36:29
your thoughts on what we're seeing here
00:36:31
in this drama and this Zer
00:36:34
valuation yeah look uh Ryan has been
00:36:37
right before he's been right in the past
00:36:39
but in this case it looks like he's
00:36:41
clearly over his skis and if the
00:36:43
reporting is correct it looks like he's
00:36:45
trying to drum up interest in a
00:36:47
financing round by representing things
00:36:50
that aren't true or haven't happened yet
00:36:52
saying that certain investors aren't
00:36:54
bored and those investors are coming out
00:36:55
and saying that they're not the question
00:36:59
I I think that's relevant and that
00:37:01
relates back to our previous topic is
00:37:03
this founder mode I mean what makes this
00:37:06
not founder mode and I think that this
00:37:08
is where it'd be helpful to have a
00:37:10
little bit more substance and not just
00:37:12
uh branding exercise let me give you a
00:37:15
more mundane example I was in a board
00:37:17
meeting the other day and I complimented
00:37:19
the team on how they had uh gotten their
00:37:20
burndown substantially since the last
00:37:22
word meeting and somebody joked one of
00:37:25
the founders said founder mode it was
00:37:26
kind of a joke okay great but then it
00:37:28
got me thinking what if in this board
00:37:30
meeting it had gone the opposite way and
00:37:32
the founders had taken the position you
00:37:34
know what we're not going to try and cut
00:37:36
burn we're going to put the pedal to the
00:37:38
metal and accelerate the business and
00:37:40
spend a lot more because somehow it's
00:37:42
going to get us to the next funing round
00:37:45
faster found a road
00:37:48
to me find
00:37:50
down that's found Mo baby let's go let's
00:37:54
so so when you start branding these
00:37:56
Concepts without putting any substance
00:37:59
behind them and quite frankly you've
00:38:01
never been an operator yourself you've
00:38:03
never actually created a unicorn company
00:38:05
but you're representing yourself as a
00:38:07
unicorn Whisperer like you're a guru in
00:38:09
something you've never really done
00:38:10
before then it just allows people who
00:38:13
want to justify bad behavior to
00:38:16
basically get away with doing whatever
00:38:17
they want and that's what you're seeing
00:38:19
with founder mode now Jak the reason why
00:38:21
that joke is funny you're doing your
00:38:23
Tony Montana bit is because you can
00:38:25
justify any bad behavior as founder mod
00:38:27
yes and I think that's what all the
00:38:30
memes are about right now is that
00:38:32
founder mod become a joke because
00:38:34
there's no substance to it and allows
00:38:35
you to justify anything a Founder wants
00:38:38
to do and I think a more honest way to
00:38:40
approach this would be to Define here
00:38:43
are the actual behaviors that make a
00:38:47
Founder successful including when a
00:38:49
Founder is wrong how about slightly
00:38:51
differently there are stupid outcomes
00:38:54
and smart outcomes and there are all
00:38:56
kinds of different people that can get
00:38:57
to stupid outcomes and smart outcomes
00:38:59
and so you have to have the courage to
00:39:00
say that was stupid don't ever do that
00:39:03
again and that was smart do more of that
00:39:05
and if you can't distinguish the two or
00:39:06
you can't get to the ladder you're gonna
00:39:08
fail instead of founder mode why don't
00:39:10
we call it founder responsibility like
00:39:12
what other respons too I mean founder
00:39:15
found Authority founder responsibility
00:39:17
Steph Curry is not the founder of the
00:39:18
Warriors but he's the lynchpin okay my
00:39:20
point is teams teams need winning
00:39:23
players and then you need to put
00:39:25
together your own game plan for winning
00:39:27
but the goal should be winning if you
00:39:28
are not winning you are a loser and what
00:39:31
does winning have really talented really
00:39:33
driven people in different positions who
00:39:36
understand their position are held
00:39:38
accountable for La winning winning if
00:39:41
you're not winning you're losing yeah to
00:39:43
be
00:39:44
frank there's a certain kind of con man
00:39:47
who represents themselves as a guru even
00:39:50
though they've never done the thing that
00:39:51
they pretend to have done and yeah and
00:39:55
in this case frankly you've got someone
00:39:57
promoting Concepts about operating when
00:40:01
they've never done that before they
00:40:02
never scaled a unicorn company yet
00:40:04
they're pretending to be a unicorn
00:40:05
whisper who's telling Founders how to
00:40:07
behave and the question you to ask is
00:40:09
this at the end of the day helpful or
00:40:11
not I mean we all want to exalt and
00:40:13
celebrate Founders I want to I want to
00:40:15
win exactly but we all want to win and
00:40:18
you know James Madison said that you
00:40:20
know men are not not Angels what do you
00:40:22
do about those cases rare I think
00:40:24
they're pretty rare where the founder is
00:40:26
just wrong about something where they're
00:40:28
like representing that investors are
00:40:30
going to do something they're not going
00:40:31
to do or Elizabeth Holmes represents
00:40:34
that she's got a product that she
00:40:35
doesn't have or you have a Founder
00:40:38
breaking a regulatory requirement that
00:40:39
actually is necessary that they comply
00:40:42
with what do you do in all those cases
00:40:44
you actually need to have some objective
00:40:46
standard of behavior that's not just oh
00:40:49
Founders is always right traditional
00:40:52
managers are always wrong because that's
00:40:54
just not nuanced enough to account for
00:40:57
what it's actually gonna take to win
00:40:58
well I mean if Adam Newman had listened
00:41:01
to a lot of the smart people he had
00:41:03
hired at Wei work he might not have
00:41:05
signed leases that were so high priced
00:41:08
and gotten away from the Playbook that
00:41:10
worked when they started that business
00:41:11
which was find the cheapest real estate
00:41:13
charge the highest price you can for it
00:41:15
by making it you know a community and
00:41:17
and really nice as opposed to hiring the
00:41:20
class A getting the class a space and
00:41:23
then charging a b price to your point
00:41:25
like a senior real estate executive
00:41:27
would have put together a forecast of
00:41:29
cash flows yeah and it would have been a
00:41:31
very boring meeting but if you didn't
00:41:34
have the intellectual wherewithal to
00:41:35
realize that that was a critical meeting
00:41:36
for a real estate business and then
00:41:39
listen to that and then manage your burn
00:41:41
appropriately that was a huge
00:41:43
mistake so again it just it always comes
00:41:46
down to can you take all the labels and
00:41:49
all of the you know Naval gazing aside
00:41:53
and can you make good smart decisions
00:41:55
when you're ask to run the play that's
00:41:58
your job at every level of a company and
00:42:01
a CEO that knows how to do that tends to
00:42:04
helm winning companies and I don't think
00:42:07
that that is exhibited in whether you
00:42:09
were employee zero or employee 20 it's
00:42:12
it's a intellectual and psychological
00:42:15
archetype yeah I mean in my experience
00:42:17
the founders that are highly successful
00:42:19
are the ones that that are Hands-On
00:42:21
they've got a strong vision and they
00:42:23
pursue it and they're constantly
00:42:24
learning and leveling up and they're
00:42:27
going to learn wherever they can they're
00:42:29
going to learn from other Founders
00:42:30
they're going to learn from Executives
00:42:33
they may have hired who maybe do have
00:42:34
more attritional background they're
00:42:35
going to figure out what works for them
00:42:37
and they're going to discard the parts
00:42:38
that don't work for them and they're
00:42:39
going to double down on the parts that
00:42:41
do and the end result is going to be a
00:42:43
style that works for them and there's
00:42:45
not a one-size fits-all to that as we've
00:42:47
seen that's actually the most important
00:42:49
thing that that I've heard in this whole
00:42:50
discussion that we don't talk enough
00:42:52
about the people that win are deeply
00:42:55
intellectually promiscuous they're
00:42:57
learning about many many things they're
00:42:59
adapting things to their own Playbook
00:43:02
the next day they may throw that piece
00:43:04
away and take something else because
00:43:05
this is something they learned we use
00:43:07
the word reer write a lot right but it's
00:43:09
this idea of constantly
00:43:11
reer what the conditions on the field
00:43:13
are so you know what you need to do in
00:43:15
that moment to maximize your chances of
00:43:17
success have the perfect example of this
00:43:19
when I was running webblogs Inc we were
00:43:21
going to raise a round of funding Mark
00:43:22
cubin had given us the first 300 and
00:43:24
Mark
00:43:25
andreon was going to give us
00:43:27
500k for our blogging company that
00:43:29
didn't Gadget Etc and I had met Jeff
00:43:31
Bezos and I told him I'm in Seattle this
00:43:35
week would love to catch up with you I
00:43:38
wasn't in SE I said I was gonna be in
00:43:39
Seattle next week for the whole week
00:43:40
would love to catch up with you I wasn't
00:43:42
planning on being in Seattle I made that
00:43:43
story up just to make it convenient for
00:43:45
him and uh he said sure come by on
00:43:48
Tuesday or whatever I come by on Tuesday
00:43:49
I sit with Jeff Bezos as my partner
00:43:50
Brian
00:43:51
alv and the intellectual curiosity he
00:43:54
took on taking a part in Gadget and
00:43:57
blogging as this new medium that was
00:43:59
very disruptive at the time how do you
00:44:01
pick the name of the blog tell me about
00:44:02
the CMS how what is the publishing
00:44:05
strategy how do you hire people and I
00:44:07
would say oh you know we hire people the
00:44:08
best people are the great commentator so
00:44:10
we look at the great comments and then
00:44:12
we hire them and then I watched in
00:44:14
Amazon they started hiring the people
00:44:16
writing great reviews for their review
00:44:18
team and I was like oh wow he he really
00:44:20
is taking notes on this and your point
00:44:22
point saxs or maybe TR you made this
00:44:24
point in terms of hiring one of the
00:44:27
great techniques Bezos had is uh a
00:44:30
concept called bar raisers and a bar
00:44:32
raiser in Amazon is somebody you hire
00:44:34
for your team who is so good that they
00:44:37
raised the bar for the entire team so
00:44:40
when they would say hey we're going to
00:44:41
add somebody to this team they're going
00:44:42
to be the 10th person you'd say are they
00:44:45
better at whatever Dimensions than the
00:44:47
rest of the team and will they raise the
00:44:49
bar for everybody here and then you
00:44:51
think about some managers they hire
00:44:52
somebody who fits in they hire somebody
00:44:54
who doesn't rock the boat and there are
00:44:56
technique here in very specific ways to
00:44:59
attract talent to your startup that will
00:45:01
become you know do you guys remember
00:45:04
reason why YC and Founders fund and
00:45:07
andreon took this path was to try to
00:45:10
Corner seoa because seoa had this
00:45:12
reputation in the 90s and early 2000s as
00:45:16
somebody that would boot the
00:45:19
founder but when you look at sequoia's
00:45:21
Returns what their returns say is these
00:45:23
guys are just winners they're consumate
00:45:26
incredible winners and So what seoa had
00:45:29
the ability to do clearly looking
00:45:31
backwards is figure out which companies
00:45:33
had people that were adapting themselves
00:45:35
and scaling and people who were a little
00:45:38
bit in a culdesac and just needed to get
00:45:40
replaced and again they were operating
00:45:43
from a first principal's perspective in
00:45:45
my opinion and they were
00:45:47
being pretty ruthless and acting with
00:45:50
zero
00:45:51
Nostalgia so again it's just a reminder
00:45:54
like there is no easy answer here it is
00:45:57
so hard that is why 995 plus percent of
00:46:00
our companies in our efforts end up with
00:46:03
nothing to show at the end of it freberg
00:46:05
to bring you on this discussion there
00:46:07
was a moment in time actually where this
00:46:10
actually crossed over and you got to
00:46:12
witness it which was when Larry and
00:46:14
Sergey were taking Google public and
00:46:16
before that they said you know I don't
00:46:18
know if the markets will let these two
00:46:20
phds as smart as they are as driven as
00:46:23
they are with such a great product I
00:46:24
don't know if they're going to buy the
00:46:25
stock can we get an ad adult in the room
00:46:27
who's done this before and they found
00:46:28
Eric Schmidt who had run Noel and they
00:46:31
brought him in as this you know third
00:46:34
part of the triangle and then eventually
00:46:36
he wound up leaving Etc what were your
00:46:39
thoughts on Silicon Valley in that
00:46:41
transition time and Eric Schmid roll at
00:46:43
Google well Eric Schmid came into Google
00:46:45
through his
00:46:47
relationship with John door and John
00:46:49
door as a mentor delarian sergean
00:46:51
investor and Google had suggested that
00:46:55
they bring in a professional manager
00:46:57
that can help them successfully scale
00:46:58
the business and John had this
00:47:01
relationship with Eric and Larry and
00:47:03
Sergey started to socialize with Eric
00:47:05
and it was a very long process and they
00:47:07
ultimately respected Eric because of his
00:47:10
technical capabilities and Technical
00:47:12
background which was quite distinct from
00:47:14
the other candidates that they had met
00:47:15
during this process but it was necessary
00:47:18
they were first time they never worked
00:47:20
anywhere they had never had a job they
00:47:22
had never had experience I think
00:47:24
similarly Cheryl Sandberg as a partner
00:47:26
to Zach
00:47:27
ultimately helped him level up and
00:47:29
obviously chth and others prior to that
00:47:32
but these firsttime Founders that
00:47:34
haven't had any sort of work experience
00:47:35
and have no concept of kind of
00:47:38
organizational Dynamics and the
00:47:39
challenges that will arise as you try
00:47:40
and build and scale a team to execute a
00:47:42
mission typically need to have some
00:47:44
degree of counseling mentorship and
00:47:46
support and so bringing in that degree
00:47:48
of experience with someone who's ready
00:47:50
and willing to partner with the founders
00:47:53
meaning not necessarily direct them but
00:47:55
partner with them and help them learn as
00:47:58
Eric did and then ultimately handed the
00:48:00
Reigns back to Larry and um as Cheryl
00:48:03
did and ultimately Zuck continue to kind
00:48:05
of lead the company have been really
00:48:07
powerful enabling forces but chamat is
00:48:10
right the early days of Silicon Valley
00:48:11
venture capital were really framed
00:48:13
around this concept where you find some
00:48:15
smart technical founding team and then
00:48:17
you bring in a professional manager but
00:48:19
that's because so much of the origin of
00:48:21
technology in Silicon Valley was about
00:48:23
selling technology into an Enterprise so
00:48:25
there was kind of a bit of a tried and
00:48:26
true business model and business
00:48:29
structure that made sense the new era
00:48:33
since the internet has been quite
00:48:34
different every business model
00:48:36
imaginable has been reinvented in
00:48:37
Silicon Valley and so success I think
00:48:40
has largely Arisen in Reinventing
00:48:41
businesses Reinventing industries by
00:48:44
kind of Novel independent thinking
00:48:46
leaders not
00:48:48
necessarily bringing in experienced
00:48:50
managers to scale up a known business
00:48:51
model right and just I I think the
00:48:54
turning point was when Peter started
00:48:56
Founders fund but that was over 20 years
00:48:59
ago in other words Peter realized that
00:49:01
that old approach in the '90s of
00:49:03
bringing in the professional management
00:49:05
had run its course and that we needed to
00:49:08
help Founders level up and stay in the
00:49:11
seat for as long as possible that was 22
00:49:14
years ago that he created that firm yeah
00:49:16
so we're like decades into this and
00:49:18
that's what kind of feels an acronis
00:49:19
stic about this whole discussion is it's
00:49:22
almost like we're pretending like we're
00:49:24
still in a world in which Founders
00:49:26
aren't celebrated and exalted is quite
00:49:28
the contrary they can do almost anything
00:49:31
and the the question is how do you help
00:49:34
them level up and at some point if
00:49:37
you're constantly just saying that well
00:49:39
Founders know everything Founders always
00:49:40
right is that actually helping them or
00:49:43
is it actually reinforcing a mentality
00:49:45
that oh I don't have have to learn
00:49:47
anything because that all the great
00:49:49
Founders have been learning machines but
00:49:52
if they had been told throughout that
00:49:53
you're always right don't worry about it
00:49:55
then they may not have learned the same
00:49:57
way did you say you met with Eric
00:49:59
Schmidt recently shiman well I had a
00:50:01
meeting with Eric Schmidt a few weeks
00:50:03
ago which blew my mind and I I think I
00:50:06
called freeberg right afterwards but
00:50:08
this is just an example of like there
00:50:09
are just people that know how to win he
00:50:12
is one of those people so as part of
00:50:14
8090 one of the things that we're doing
00:50:16
is we're building a transpiler you know
00:50:19
right now everybody is very much fixated
00:50:21
on pytorch
00:50:24
and the problem with pytorch and
00:50:26
building to is you have this thing
00:50:28
called cuda in the middle of it which is
00:50:29
owned by Nvidia and and I think that
00:50:31
over time that's problematic so the
00:50:33
long-term solution is you need a
00:50:35
functional transpiler that can take Cuda
00:50:37
littered code but be able to compile it
00:50:39
without losing performance to any
00:50:41
hardware so Amazon Hardware Google TPU
00:50:43
Etc so Eric and I sat down we were
00:50:46
together for a couple days when we were
00:50:48
in Europe and we had a like a hour
00:50:51
90minut meeting the level of technical
00:50:54
detail and Mastery that he had blew me
00:50:57
away and he asked hundreds of very very
00:51:01
very specific questions some of which I
00:51:03
knew the answers to some of which I
00:51:05
didn't I was able to ask him what he
00:51:08
thought he was able to go into the weeds
00:51:10
in an enormous amount of detail and what
00:51:12
I thought was where is he finding the
00:51:16
time to know as much as he does about
00:51:20
compilers and the specifics of AI at
00:51:23
this level of detail and and the story
00:51:26
of telling you this example is just more
00:51:29
that that is a kind of person that is
00:51:31
just rare and unique you can't put a
00:51:34
label on that person and you just want
00:51:36
that person near you because he has the
00:51:38
ability to help you in a way that most
00:51:40
other people just do not irrespective of
00:51:43
whatever their title is so it it just
00:51:45
goes to say like you got to focus on the
00:51:48
actual meat of the problem and in that
00:51:51
specific case he gave us two technical
00:51:54
directions that my team and I are EXP
00:51:56
exploring now with this goal that if one
00:51:58
of them pens out I'll go back to Eric
00:52:00
and say look we tried these things this
00:52:02
is working this is not working what do
00:52:03
you think and it was an incredibly
00:52:05
helpful meeting to me and he just
00:52:08
offered that time to me and so I my
00:52:09
point is people like this exist and I
00:52:13
think that the whole goal if you're
00:52:14
trying to win seek those people out
00:52:16
independent of what they're doing what
00:52:18
their title learn learn from them as
00:52:20
much as you can and hopefully you get
00:52:22
one step closer to winning and get them
00:52:24
on your team if possible yeah ideal all
00:52:27
right here we go a panel of California
00:52:30
judges has ruled that section 230 does
00:52:32
not protect Tik tok's algorithm in the
00:52:34
case of the death tragically of a
00:52:37
10-year-old girl we've talked about
00:52:38
section 230 and uh legislation to
00:52:41
protect algorithms or to make algorithms
00:52:44
more editorial we'll get to that in a
00:52:46
second but let me just queue up the
00:52:47
story and then we'll play a clip from
00:52:49
episode 99 of Allin podcast in late 2021
00:52:53
a 10-year-old Pennsylvania girl
00:52:55
accidentally killed herself while
00:52:56
participating in a Blackout Challenge
00:52:59
she saw on Tik Tok that is a challenge
00:53:01
that encourages viewers to choke
00:53:02
themselves with objects like belts until
00:53:04
they pass out according to Bloomberg
00:53:07
this challenge has been linked with the
00:53:08
deaths of 15 young people oh my God yeah
00:53:11
this is terrible uh the child's mother
00:53:13
sued Tik Tok arguing that their
00:53:16
algorithm served Blackout Challenge
00:53:18
videos to her child thus making them
00:53:20
responsible in the past algorithmic
00:53:22
decisions as we've talked about here
00:53:24
were protected under Section 230 of the
00:53:26
community
00:53:27
decency act just break this down very
00:53:30
simply if you're section 230 that grants
00:53:32
internet platforms featuring user
00:53:34
generated content immunity from being
00:53:36
sued over content published by those
00:53:38
users on their platform so YouTube Tik
00:53:41
Tok Twitter you know a blogging platform
00:53:44
Etc so because of 230 you're technically
00:53:48
not supposed to be able able to go after
00:53:50
something like Tik Tok because a random
00:53:52
user posted crazy videos like this but
00:53:55
an appeals court shth has reversed that
00:53:57
ruling with the judge arguing that Tik
00:53:59
tok's algorithm represents a unique
00:54:02
quote unquote expressive product which
00:54:04
communicates to users through a curated
00:54:06
stream of videos the judge claims Tik
00:54:08
tok's algorithms ref reflect editorial
00:54:11
judgment so here's the interesting legal
00:54:14
detail the new ruling specifically cites
00:54:16
the Supreme Court's recent decision
00:54:18
Moody versus Net choice in which the
00:54:20
Court ruled unanimously to vacate that
00:54:23
Florida law we talked about here that
00:54:25
ban tech companies from platforming
00:54:27
political officials so that was viewed
00:54:30
as a big win for speech protection Sachs
00:54:32
and moderation rights in big Tech but
00:54:35
this is all super ironic because the
00:54:37
same ruling that affirm big Tech's First
00:54:39
Amendment Protections in content
00:54:40
moderation may also have nullified the
00:54:43
section 230 immunity so let's play this
00:54:46
Quick Clip here chamoff this is a
00:54:48
discussion you and I had about should
00:54:51
algorithms be part of section 230 back
00:54:54
in 2022 let me break down an algorithm
00:54:56
for you okay effectively it is a
00:54:58
mathematical equation of variables and
00:55:01
weights an editor 50 years ago was
00:55:04
somebody who had that equation of
00:55:08
variables and weights in his or her mind
00:55:10
and so all we did was we translated
00:55:13
again this multimodal model that was in
00:55:15
somebody's brain into a model that's
00:55:18
mathematical that sits in code you're
00:55:21
talking about the front page Ed of the
00:55:22
New York Times yeah and I think it's a
00:55:24
fig Lea to say that because there is not
00:55:26
an individual person who writes 0. 2 in
00:55:29
front of this one variable and 08 in
00:55:31
front of the other that all of a sudden
00:55:34
that this isn't editorial decision-
00:55:35
making is wrong we need to understand
00:55:38
the current moment in which we live
00:55:41
which is that these computers are
00:55:43
thinking actively for us and that is
00:55:46
just true and so I think we need to
00:55:48
acknowledge that because I think it
00:55:49
allows us at least to be in a position
00:55:52
to rewrite these laws through the lens
00:55:55
of the 21st Century there's such an easy
00:55:57
way to do this if you're Tik Tok if
00:55:59
you're YouTube if you want section 230
00:56:01
if you want to have common carrier and
00:56:03
not be responsible with there when a
00:56:05
user signs up it should give them the
00:56:07
option would you like to turn on an
00:56:09
algorithm here are a series of
00:56:11
algorithms which you could turn on you
00:56:12
could bring your own algorithm you could
00:56:14
write your own algorithm with a bunch of
00:56:16
Sliders or here are ones that other
00:56:18
users and services provide like an app
00:56:21
store so shamat that was uh your take on
00:56:24
it and here we are what are your
00:56:25
thoughts on on Section 230 and
00:56:28
algorithms today should if you use an
00:56:32
algorithm should that nullify void your
00:56:34
section 230 protection I think it is a
00:56:36
fig Lea to say that we've there's a
00:56:39
level of abstraction that should give us
00:56:41
immunity I think that these algorithms
00:56:43
are taught to iteratively become better
00:56:47
and better at hooking people on whatever
00:56:50
is trending in that moment and I think
00:56:53
it's probably known to these companies
00:56:55
at any given time what's trending so
00:56:58
even though they're not literally going
00:57:00
and changing something in the moment
00:57:03
does it mean that they don't support it
00:57:05
it doesn't mean that they're not aware
00:57:06
of it and it doesn't mean that they
00:57:07
haven't
00:57:09
created a net to sort of catch these
00:57:13
Lightnings in a bottle and spread them
00:57:15
around and so I think we just need to
00:57:17
have a more intelligent
00:57:21
discussion about how responsibility
00:57:24
should be shared in a
00:57:26
where section 230 yeah you're right I'll
00:57:29
just say it again we're not writing
00:57:30
deterministic code anymore it doesn't
00:57:32
say if this then that show them the
00:57:35
blackout video there is no piece of code
00:57:37
anywhere but it's it's kind of a fig
00:57:39
Leaf to say that that isn't the
00:57:41
intention of the way that the new form
00:57:43
of software is written yes correct sax
00:57:46
your thoughts here on balancing 230 with
00:57:49
the fact that I think we all agree that
00:57:51
these algorithms are the new modernday
00:57:54
editors I don't agree I have a very
00:57:56
different opinion on this than you guys
00:57:57
do and I always have well first of all
00:58:00
let me just speak to the the um legal
00:58:02
precedent here last year there were two
00:58:04
Court decisions addressing this very
00:58:06
issue of whether algorithms basically
00:58:10
obviated 230 protection and the court
00:58:13
found that they didn't there were a
00:58:14
couple of cases
00:58:15
involving in users who basically went
00:58:19
down a rabbit hole of like terrorist
00:58:22
videos and got recruited by ISIS
00:58:24
remember this yes and and they were sued
00:58:26
by the families of victims or at least
00:58:28
the social networks were and the
00:58:30
argument was that they
00:58:32
basically had been recruited into Isis
00:58:34
and committed the terrorism because of
00:58:36
the algorithms and the social networks
00:58:38
were liable for that Supreme Court found
00:58:41
that they weren't which is just to say
00:58:43
that algorithms were not treated
00:58:45
differently than if the content had been
00:58:48
on a regular feed you know just a
00:58:50
chronological feed and what section 230
00:58:53
says is that you can only hold the user
00:58:56
liable we're going to treat social
00:58:58
networks as Distributors not Publishers
00:59:00
for the purpose of user generated
00:59:02
content I've L held the view that if you
00:59:06
want to make online platforms liable as
00:59:09
Publishers for every piece of user
00:59:11
generated content then you're going to
00:59:13
have very little Free Speech left
00:59:15
because I just think that corporate risk
00:59:17
aversion is going to force these guys to
00:59:19
become even more censorious than they
00:59:21
already are every piece of content that
00:59:24
could potentially lead to a lawsuit
00:59:26
is going to get shut down and I think
00:59:29
that the net effect of that will be much
00:59:31
more negative now to the argument about
00:59:34
aren't algorithms just the new editors I
00:59:37
don't I don't think so I think there's a
00:59:38
fundamental difference between what an
00:59:39
editor does and what an algorithm does
00:59:42
if you look at an editorial page of the
00:59:44
New York Times The Wall Street Journal
00:59:46
it has a very specific point of view
00:59:48
that it's promoting in fact sometimes
00:59:50
you can't tell the oped page from the
00:59:52
news page because it seems like that
00:59:55
publication is so biest in favor of one
00:59:57
point of view or another an algorithm
01:00:00
isn't supposed to do that an algorithm
01:00:01
is supposed to give you more of what you
01:00:03
want and so therefore if you are pro
01:00:06
Trump you'll see more prot Trump content
01:00:08
if you're Pro KLA Harris you'll see more
01:00:11
Harris content in other words X or
01:00:14
whatever the platform is isn't supposed
01:00:15
to be taking an editorial position on
01:00:18
whether it supports Trump or Harris but
01:00:20
rather it's giving you more of what you
01:00:22
want Elon recently spoke to this that he
01:00:25
had a a tweet recently where he talked
01:00:27
about hey people were coming to him
01:00:28
saying hey I'm I'm seeing all these like
01:00:31
offensive things in my feed why is this
01:00:33
well it turns out that they had been
01:00:36
sharing those posts that were offensive
01:00:38
to them and so they were seeing more of
01:00:40
them and that's a really good example of
01:00:42
how the algorithm just gives you more of
01:00:45
what you're interacting with so don't
01:00:47
interact with outrage porn if you don't
01:00:49
want to be outraged stop interacting
01:00:51
with outrage porn and you'll see less of
01:00:53
it I just think that is fundamentally
01:00:55
different than having an editorial point
01:00:56
of view X does not have an editorial
01:00:59
point of view that it wants you to see
01:01:01
more of that outrage it's simply the
01:01:03
user is making clicks and you know
01:01:06
clicking a share button in a way that it
01:01:08
interprets it to be saying oh this user
01:01:11
wants more of that content yes and so
01:01:14
this is why I don't think that all of a
01:01:15
sudden section 230 protection should be
01:01:18
voided I just think it's a Fally
01:01:20
different thing than what a publisher
01:01:22
does I have a third View and I'll bring
01:01:25
you in on this discussion here freedberg
01:01:26
is that these algorithms have come
01:01:28
become so powerful they are even better
01:01:32
than editors at catering to users needs
01:01:35
because they're obviously uh onetoone
01:01:37
casting right and so this is a perfect
01:01:40
opportunity not to get rid of 230 but to
01:01:43
evolve it and as I said in that previous
01:01:45
clip you know there is a big issue as to
01:01:48
who's making these algorithms in the
01:01:50
case of Tik Tok the Chinese government's
01:01:52
influence and you know what is their
01:01:54
intention and are they being thoughtful
01:01:57
about it because they are powerful and
01:01:58
what responsibility do they take is the
01:02:00
responsibility stopping at increasing
01:02:02
the session because if you want to
01:02:04
increase a session all you have to do is
01:02:07
keep showing more rage and getting
01:02:09
people more upset and that leads to
01:02:10
division in society and all kinds of
01:02:12
weird things that can occur and so
01:02:14
empowering users and having more
01:02:16
transparency would be a great way for
01:02:18
the government uh for individuals who
01:02:21
are frustrated with this and the
01:02:22
platforms to find some common ground and
01:02:24
involved what do you think think of this
01:02:27
possibility freedberg of maybe you come
01:02:30
to YouTube and instead of shutting down
01:02:32
to the and causing chaos to your point
01:02:34
sacks which I I agree with that it would
01:02:35
cause chaos and more censoring just
01:02:37
saying to people hey welcome to YouTube
01:02:41
here are three ways you can view your
01:02:43
content by default you can pick our
01:02:44
algorithm you can pick an education
01:02:47
leaning algorithm you can pick a music
01:02:49
leaning algorithm or you could have no
01:02:51
algorithm at all and you'll just be
01:02:53
faced with a directory what do you think
01:02:55
of that as a maybe a middle ground
01:02:58
here I'm not sure that giving people a
01:03:00
choice of an algorithm is going to work
01:03:02
consumers just want to have stuff that
01:03:06
incites emotion there's a reason you
01:03:10
know horror movies do well and also
01:03:12
romantic comedies and also Adventure
01:03:14
films like they're all emotive at the
01:03:15
end of the day the more emotive
01:03:17
something is the more emotionally
01:03:19
inciting it is the more likely you are
01:03:21
to kind of want to have something like
01:03:23
that again and so that's simply the
01:03:26
nature of how you know humans uh
01:03:30
interact with the world around them when
01:03:32
something is emotionally inciting you
01:03:33
want more of it and you get more of it
01:03:35
and that that creates the dopamine and
01:03:36
that drives the the behavior the crazy
01:03:38
thing about social media or digital
01:03:40
media firstly is that the cycle the
01:03:43
feedback cycle is much faster used to be
01:03:45
that you put out a book you wouldn't get
01:03:47
the results on how the book sold and how
01:03:48
many people liked it and how many people
01:03:50
read it till a year later and then with
01:03:52
movies you get results in a weekend but
01:03:54
with social media you results instantly
01:03:56
when a piece of content comes out online
01:03:58
you get an instant result and then with
01:04:00
the concept of a feed where the next
01:04:03
content is dynamically selected for you
01:04:05
based on your reaction to the content
01:04:07
prior to it you kind of get this
01:04:09
immediate feedback loop that then tunes
01:04:10
and lines up the next thing and now
01:04:12
you're getting hundreds of iterations an
01:04:13
hour so I'm I'm not sure that there's
01:04:15
really this like simple solve where let
01:04:17
me show you something that's like less
01:04:19
inciting at the end of the day if it's
01:04:20
something that's horrific or something
01:04:23
that's romantic or something that's
01:04:25
inspiring
01:04:26
if it's emotionally uh kind of
01:04:28
activating enough you're going to be
01:04:29
happy watching the next one you're going
01:04:30
to keep watching you're going to keep
01:04:31
watching it I think there's a there is a
01:04:33
relatively easy solve which is you could
01:04:35
simply open source the algorithm like X
01:04:38
has done so we can see is it messing
01:04:41
with your mind or not is it actually
01:04:43
biased are they actually inserting
01:04:45
editorial opinions into the algorithm
01:04:49
and so if you open source it people can
01:04:50
see what it's doing I actually I I hear
01:04:53
this point of view a lot that social
01:04:54
media is only praying on negative
01:04:56
emotions that argument is made a lot by
01:04:59
people who want to regulate it more and
01:05:01
they want more censorship and that's why
01:05:02
they're making that kind of argument I
01:05:05
don't think that the algorithm is only
01:05:07
reacting to outrage or incitement I
01:05:08
think quite the contrary what I've seen
01:05:10
on my exfeed is that it's showing me
01:05:12
more stuff that I like and I'm that's
01:05:14
right I mean the algorithm's gotten so
01:05:16
good yeah like if you go on YouTube I
01:05:18
got I I love watching uh like videos of
01:05:21
mountain biking and I see like all these
01:05:23
crazy mountain biking videos now and I'm
01:05:25
I love watching I'm like dude this is
01:05:27
awesome it's I don't not making me angry
01:05:29
I hear what you're saying but I would
01:05:31
just I would offer something slightly
01:05:33
different which is I think that these
01:05:34
algorithms focus on momentum so meaning
01:05:37
if freeberg spends the next 15 minutes
01:05:40
looking at mountain biking videos the
01:05:42
momentum shifts to mountain biking if he
01:05:44
then goes to surfing the algorithm goes
01:05:45
to that there's a Decay function that's
01:05:47
right yeah and the reason is that the
01:05:50
way that these if you go back to the
01:05:52
actual models themselves the way that
01:05:55
they're archit detected right like if
01:05:56
you look inside of a Transformer what is
01:05:58
it there's a neural network part and
01:06:00
then there's a self attention part what
01:06:02
is the self attention thing trying to do
01:06:03
it's trying to figure out the momentum
01:06:05
and the importance of a given input so
01:06:09
the core structure of the way that like
01:06:11
we've solve the problem today is airing
01:06:14
towards a thing where if actors in the
01:06:19
system wanted to create momentum in One
01:06:22
Direction versus the other they can
01:06:25
probably do it before they get caught
01:06:27
because the algorithms will amplify that
01:06:30
and I think this is the whole point
01:06:32
where these blackout videos it's not as
01:06:34
if somebody wanted to consume that per
01:06:36
se as much as there was a moment in time
01:06:39
where the momentum was towards those
01:06:43
videos a large swath of people got it
01:06:45
and then the unfortunate tragedy is the
01:06:48
very small percentage of people acted on
01:06:50
it and were killed this can happen over
01:06:52
and over and over again on all kinds of
01:06:54
different things and I think that's what
01:06:56
needs to be addressed and maybe
01:06:58
10-year-old shouldn't be allowed to use
01:06:59
Tik Tok without any supervision maybe
01:07:01
that's a better answer that could be a
01:07:03
better answer too I think based on some
01:07:05
of our discussions you know yeah having
01:07:07
kids not have these phones at school and
01:07:09
putting them into the pouches and no
01:07:11
social media until you're 16 or 17
01:07:13
because one of the other things that's
01:07:14
happening here is these algorithms are
01:07:16
so
01:07:17
good that they are now causing a
01:07:22
dopamine deficiency in children it's
01:07:24
causing depression because you can get
01:07:26
desensitized and every time you swipe up
01:07:29
you get a dopamine hit and then your
01:07:31
brain gets reset and you have less
01:07:34
ability to get joy from having dinner
01:07:37
with your family or playing cards with
01:07:39
your friends or doing any other things
01:07:41
and that's what Doom scrolling does
01:07:42
that's why we lost you sacks to the
01:07:44
poker game you're too busy Doom
01:07:45
scrolling and you got addicted to it and
01:07:47
you don't come to Poker anymore but this
01:07:49
is what we need to do as a society these
01:07:51
phones are destroying everybody's lives
01:07:53
they're killing friendships they're
01:07:55
killing these poor kids who are sitting
01:07:57
there like zombies the algorithm is just
01:08:00
too good we have now the snake I will
01:08:04
agree with that to some degree that I
01:08:05
waste way too much time using X but I
01:08:09
mean I just do it to stay up on current
01:08:10
events so I can do this pod yes that's
01:08:13
my excuse too if I didn't have this pod
01:08:15
maybe I could just stop using it that'd
01:08:17
be great I'd love to have that time back
01:08:18
and just read more books I'm you know
01:08:20
what I'm going to do it with you we're
01:08:22
going to go on a little social media
01:08:23
diet you and I from now on we're going
01:08:25
to go for you been insane you've been
01:08:28
lost your
01:08:29
mind mind you need a
01:08:31
detox you need a detox anyone who
01:08:34
disagrees with you is like on Putin's
01:08:36
payroll
01:08:38
now my friend comrade Sach you're like
01:08:41
The Reincarnation of Joe mccarth da da I
01:08:44
agree yes since you want to go into
01:08:47
Russia here we go it's 50 days before
01:08:50
the election on the brain and as
01:08:52
predicted we're 50 days before the
01:08:55
election and who shows up Putin this is
01:08:58
the greatest story
01:09:00
ever for those of you listening s just
01:09:02
rolled his eyes it's so funny H this is
01:09:05
just great okay the predicted there's
01:09:08
gonna be another Russia gate host just
01:09:10
in time for the election here we are and
01:09:12
by the way there's breaking news more
01:09:13
Russia stuff has dropped while we're on
01:09:16
the Pod there's a lot of people who
01:09:17
started with Trump derangement syndrome
01:09:19
and then they held Putin responsible for
01:09:22
Trump getting elected so the TDS became
01:09:24
PDS
01:09:26
syndrome let's get to the story here uh
01:09:30
comrade I think this whole story is such
01:09:32
a waste of time we shouldn't even waste
01:09:34
time on it well we're going to do it
01:09:35
anyway so here we go the doj just
01:09:37
charged two Russian media operatives
01:09:39
with infiltrating podcasts yes to push
01:09:43
Pro Kremlin talking points this was a
01:09:45
wild drop on Wednesday jth the doj
01:09:48
charged two Russian media operatives as
01:09:49
part of an alleged wait for it
01:09:51
propaganda and misinformation scheme
01:09:54
according to the charges the these two
01:09:55
employees of the state run Russia Today
01:09:58
Outlet RT funnel $10 million into a
01:10:01
Tennessee based media company to
01:10:04
influence public opinion and SE social
01:10:07
divisions the wire transfers happened
01:10:09
between October of last year and as
01:10:12
recently as last month this included
01:10:14
placing blame on Ukraine Ukraine Ukraine
01:10:17
for its conflict with Russia interesting
01:10:20
both Russians are charged with
01:10:21
conspiracy to violate the foreign agents
01:10:23
registration act and conspiracy to
01:10:26
commit money laundering they're looking
01:10:27
at 20 years in jail the indictment did
01:10:30
not mention the company by name but
01:10:31
people quickly figured out who it was
01:10:33
because of their location the company's
01:10:35
called tenant media founded in 2023 by
01:10:38
Lauren Chen a conservative commentator
01:10:41
and their personalities included Tim P
01:10:44
Benny Johnson Dave Rubin and Lauren
01:10:46
Southern these are right leaning
01:10:49
podcasters in the last year tenant has
01:10:51
posted 2,000 videos which collectively
01:10:53
had 16 million YouTube views according
01:10:55
to the doj charges looks like the
01:10:58
Russian operatives were coordinating
01:11:00
with the founders Jason let's say the
01:11:02
quiet part out loud okay we've heard
01:11:04
this from Bobby Kennedy we've heard this
01:11:07
from a whole host of other people we've
01:11:09
now heard this from the doj there is an
01:11:12
inextricable
01:11:14
link between the media and the people
01:11:17
that pay for the media that want to
01:11:19
influence what the media says we know
01:11:21
that to be true now in this specific
01:11:23
case I hope the do
01:11:25
runs us the ground and and gets and
01:11:28
gets Justice served what I would say
01:11:31
generally is the most incredible
01:11:33
decision we ever made is to not have
01:11:37
ads it has been the single biggest
01:11:40
clarifying function for our ability to
01:11:44
maintain our own opinions and be
01:11:48
credible it's allowed us to change our
01:11:50
minds it's allowed us to evolve if if we
01:11:53
were sort of characters in a movie we we
01:11:55
will have gone through different
01:11:56
transitions frankly as as these last
01:11:59
four years have gone by I think that
01:12:01
that would have been much harder to do
01:12:03
if we had people paying us money yes so
01:12:06
this is just yet another example
01:12:08
of your immediate diet the more it can
01:12:11
come from people who don't need to make
01:12:13
money from this the better off you will
01:12:16
be because you will get Earnest opinions
01:12:19
and what will happen is whether
01:12:21
it's large multinational corporations or
01:12:24
foreign State actors they are going to
01:12:27
find unwitting people to take this money
01:12:31
and blather on some set of talking
01:12:33
points yep on a whole host of topics
01:12:36
okay and just to be I mean is that do we
01:12:39
all agree with that or not I agree it
01:12:41
was a great move to not have advertising
01:12:43
sure because it yeah there zero pressure
01:12:45
from anybody calling us saying we're
01:12:46
going to pull our ad spots and also
01:12:48
makes the PO easy to listen to mean none
01:12:50
of us need the money these personalities
01:12:53
Tim P Benny Johnson Dave ran and
01:12:55
Southern have I think most of them have
01:12:57
come out and said they didn't know the
01:12:59
indictment says that they didn't know
01:13:01
these podcasters and the indictment also
01:13:03
says they were paid huge sums of money
01:13:05
upwards of $100,000 per episode to do
01:13:08
this and it's unclear what they were
01:13:10
asked to do in the indictment but there
01:13:12
are some pressure techniques
01:13:16
to produce Wheats around certain things
01:13:20
that the Russians wanted propagated what
01:13:22
pressure
01:13:23
techniques they said in the indictment
01:13:26
that they
01:13:27
wanted more traffic because they weren't
01:13:29
hitting their traffic numbers and to
01:13:31
please amplify different videos and
01:13:34
tweets that were pro-russian so that's
01:13:37
in the indictment so I guess the
01:13:39
question then Sachs for you is
01:13:41
mischaracterizing this how what what
01:13:43
what what was mischaracterized I would
01:13:44
never mischaracterize this and I
01:13:46
literally would never I have no horse in
01:13:48
the race here there's no reason for me
01:13:49
to mischaracterize it so what am I miss
01:13:52
what am I get you do have a horse in the
01:13:53
race you believe r hoax for many years
01:13:56
and you want to basically try and
01:13:57
restart that whole thing that's not true
01:13:59
you can ask me I I think Russia I've
01:14:01
told this to you many times Russia's
01:14:03
sole goal is to do is to sew division
01:14:07
between people in this country I refuse
01:14:10
to allow it to do so on this podcast or
01:14:13
between you and I the Russians just want
01:14:15
to produce chaos they do it on all sides
01:14:17
they get green party people they get
01:14:19
Democratic people that's been my story
01:14:20
from the begin okay it's been my I have
01:14:23
said since the beginning that the kgb's
01:14:26
technique in America is to sow division
01:14:28
that's their sole goal they don't care
01:14:30
who wins they just want us to not pay
01:14:32
attention to what they're doing in
01:14:33
Ukraine or what's happening in Russia
01:14:35
that's Putin's goal so so I think the
01:14:37
place to start is with asking the
01:14:40
question who is Lauren Chen and what is
01:14:42
tenant media and what has been their
01:14:44
objective or what's their agenda and
01:14:47
their agenda now for months has been
01:14:49
what's called division grifting inside
01:14:52
the conservative movement Lauren Chen's
01:14:54
been put putting out a lot of tweets
01:14:55
explaining to people that they should
01:14:57
vote against Trump she's been saying
01:15:00
that he has gone soft on issues like
01:15:03
abortion she's been pushing a very tough
01:15:06
pro-life message she's been promoting a
01:15:10
I'd say strange and almost fanatical
01:15:12
idea that we should repeal the 19th
01:15:15
Amendment which gave women the right to
01:15:17
vote no one in the conservative movement
01:15:20
seriously thinks this and because of
01:15:22
these positions she was already being
01:15:23
called out by people like Ashley stclair
01:15:27
and Mike cernovich who said something's
01:15:29
not right here this seems like an OP
01:15:31
like these positions don't really make
01:15:33
any sense it seems like she's just
01:15:36
causing Mischief so the place to start
01:15:39
here is to recognize that if the
01:15:42
Russians were paying tenant media to put
01:15:45
out content that content was actually
01:15:48
anti-trump it was trying to get people
01:15:50
to vote against Trump so I think the
01:15:52
place you have to start is by asking the
01:15:54
question why would Vladimir Putin want
01:15:56
to get kamla Harris elected in fact
01:15:58
Putin just came out today and announced
01:16:00
his endorsement of K haris so perhaps
01:16:04
the Russians have an agenda to get
01:16:07
Harris elected I could see why she is
01:16:09
the much weaker candidate she's afraid
01:16:11
to take questions on the tarmac Trump is
01:16:14
strong he's authoritative and I could
01:16:17
see why they might prefer to have a
01:16:19
president Harris than a president Trump
01:16:21
let me just stop there and get your
01:16:23
reaction to that jcal yeah I and I think
01:16:26
the
01:16:27
sewing cernovich this point like that
01:16:30
they just want to sew Division and cause
01:16:31
chaos is the key point I don't think
01:16:34
that Putin cares who wins I think he
01:16:36
just wants chaos here and he wants
01:16:38
distraction so whether he flips he wants
01:16:40
Kamala he wants killary you know he
01:16:43
wants Trump I think he just wants and
01:16:46
that's what the KGB does that's what the
01:16:47
KGB has always done is try to get people
01:16:50
to not believe reality and and that is
01:16:53
their playbook for all history they want
01:16:55
to demoralize a population to not
01:16:57
believe in their institutions to not
01:16:59
believe facts and if it seems like there
01:17:03
it's working pretty well here in the
01:17:04
United States I think that this is all
01:17:07
wildly overstated but to the extent
01:17:09
we're going to deal with it at all I
01:17:10
think it's really interesting how when
01:17:13
the Russian operation benefits KLA
01:17:16
Harris nobody accuses her of collusion
01:17:19
or being a puppet of Russia they just
01:17:21
say it's about sewing division but
01:17:24
somehow
01:17:25
op you just did that right now no no
01:17:27
what op happened with Cala I'm not aware
01:17:30
was there an op the with tenant media
01:17:32
it's benefiting her I just explain how
01:17:34
oh yeah the four people are super an
01:17:37
there's a double standard there's a
01:17:38
double standard in the coverage here and
01:17:40
how it's interpreted when the op when
01:17:42
the alleged op benefits Harris it has
01:17:46
nothing to do with Harris when the
01:17:47
alleged op benefits Trump trump must be
01:17:49
a Russian agent must be a Russian puppet
01:17:52
there must have been collusion and you
01:17:54
were among the four front of people
01:17:55
saying that Trump himself was
01:17:58
compromised now I never said Trum no no
01:18:00
I have to correct you that I've never
01:18:01
said Trump was compromised I said the
01:18:02
people around him were compromised
01:18:04
because they kept taking meetings and
01:18:05
money from the Russians and this is the
01:18:07
Russian Playbook no I believe you never
01:18:10
believed in Russia putting a words aside
01:18:12
and claims like this and you're telling
01:18:13
me what I think you can ask me what I
01:18:16
think and I can tell you very clearly
01:18:17
again that I think their plan is to find
01:18:20
simple-minded people to give them money
01:18:23
and to cause chaos and Division in our
01:18:25
country I don't think that they got to
01:18:27
Trump I think they got to almost
01:18:29
everybody around him and if you look at
01:18:31
those people who show up at Putin
01:18:33
dinners and you look at who takes money
01:18:35
it's all around Trump and the Russians
01:18:37
are experts at this and they did it to
01:18:39
the green party they just sprinkle money
01:18:41
around people to cause this type of
01:18:43
chaos that's the goal s how many times
01:18:45
have I got to say this to you clearly I
01:18:47
don't have a horse in this race I think
01:18:49
all Americans I'll say it again so that
01:18:51
you can understand it and the audience
01:18:52
can understand my position very clearly
01:18:55
their goal is to get us to fight with
01:18:57
each other so we don't look at their
01:18:59
invasion of Ukraine or what's happening
01:19:00
with the suffering of the Russian people
01:19:03
and we as Americans should not be
01:19:05
partisan on this issue we as Americans
01:19:07
should all come together you sax me and
01:19:09
everybody else and say we don't want the
01:19:11
Russians interfering in our elections or
01:19:14
causing Division and we're not going to
01:19:17
make this political look jcal this is
01:19:20
the third straight election in America
01:19:22
in which we've been led to believe that
01:19:25
there's essentially massive Russian
01:19:28
interference in our election but I think
01:19:31
we should ask what did we learn since
01:19:33
the last two elections in 2016 okay we
01:19:36
had the steel
01:19:37
dossier which hatched the whole Russia
01:19:40
gate hoax we subsequently found out that
01:19:43
Hillary's campaign freed the steel
01:19:45
dossier and then that was taken up by
01:19:47
the Deep State they basically did a
01:19:50
investigation of the Trump campaign they
01:19:52
went to the fisa court they lied to the
01:19:53
fisa court and we had a 2-year
01:19:56
independent Council investigation based
01:19:58
on a piece of opposition research that
01:19:59
turned out to be completely phony but we
01:20:02
heard every day on cable news for years
01:20:04
that the Russians had somehow interfered
01:20:06
in that election never proven in 2020 we
01:20:09
heard that the Russians again were
01:20:11
interfering because you had those 51
01:20:13
Security State operatives say that
01:20:15
Hunter Bay's laptop was Russian
01:20:17
disinformation that turned out to be a
01:20:19
total lie the laptop was authentic that
01:20:21
was just a madeup story that the
01:20:23
Russians were involved after that let's
01:20:25
not forget there was newsguard and
01:20:27
Hamilton 68 which were two bogus media
01:20:30
Watchdog groups that were deep State Ops
01:20:33
that were designed to get conservative
01:20:35
content censored as Russian disformation
01:20:37
so now after all of these Ops in which
01:20:41
it was alleged that the Russians
01:20:42
interfere in our elections and those
01:20:43
stories turned out to be completely
01:20:45
bogus we now have this new one about
01:20:48
tenant media and I don't know the truth
01:20:50
of this story I can't say one way or
01:20:52
another whether it's accurate or not but
01:20:54
what I've learned is not to take these
01:20:55
things at face value and if we are to
01:20:57
take it at face value tenant media was
01:20:59
working against Trump's interests so
01:21:01
apparently the Russians don't want Trump
01:21:04
to win the presidential election they
01:21:06
want KLA Harris yeah and I agree that
01:21:09
Trump was not compromised by the
01:21:11
Russians just the people around him and
01:21:13
to recap for people since maybe they
01:21:14
don't remember Michael Flynn uh who was
01:21:17
the National Security adviser uh pled
01:21:19
guilty to lying to the FBI in 2017 about
01:21:22
his contacts with the Russians Paul
01:21:25
manfor who was the campaign chairman for
01:21:27
Trump had ties to pro-russian figures in
01:21:30
the Ukraine and shared polling data with
01:21:32
the Russian Associates during the
01:21:34
campaign he was convicted of tax and
01:21:36
bank fraud in 2018 uh later pardoned by
01:21:39
Trump like Michael Flynn was pardon Rick
01:21:42
Gates who was the de Deputy chairman uh
01:21:44
he worked closely with Paul maniford he
01:21:47
pled guilty to conspiracy and lying to
01:21:49
investigators George Papadopoulos I
01:21:51
won't bring up because he was kind of a
01:21:53
joke and then Roger Stone was
01:21:55
investigated for all his contacts with
01:21:58
Wikileaks he was convicted of
01:22:00
obstruction lying to Congress and
01:22:02
witnessing in 2019 so have I was
01:22:06
literally drop off being convicted
01:22:09
that's four people convicted I don't
01:22:10
know what the point of bringing up all
01:22:12
these investigations are when you said
01:22:13
the most important thing which is you do
01:22:15
not believe that Trump was a Russian
01:22:16
agent despite the fact despite the fact
01:22:18
that for years that's what Democrats
01:22:20
maintained my maintaining is once again
01:22:23
fourth time is that the the Russians are
01:22:25
trying to cause division in America and
01:22:27
we shouldn't all fall for it hey
01:22:28
fredberg I think we shouldn't fall for
01:22:30
Hamilton 68 I think we shouldn't have
01:22:32
fallen for News Guard I think we
01:22:33
shouldn't have fallen for the steel
01:22:35
dossier I think we shouldn't fall for
01:22:36
the Russia gate hoax jcal stop falling
01:22:39
for all these that's why we should be
01:22:41
United let's be United freeberg you've
01:22:43
got some passionate thoughts on Cala
01:22:45
Harris pivoting a little bit around her
01:22:47
economic policies in the last week or
01:22:50
two let's wrap with that what are your
01:22:52
thoughts no pass no passionate thoughts
01:22:54
Jake did any of you guys see that video
01:22:56
I sent you of kamla's campaign speech in
01:22:59
New Hampshire yesterday so basically for
01:23:01
the audience yeah she fundamentally
01:23:03
pivoted from a lot of the statements she
01:23:05
made a few weeks ago that I think caused
01:23:08
a
01:23:09
resounding uh amount of commentary about
01:23:12
being anti- bus anti-economic Prosperity
01:23:16
a lot of people called these comments
01:23:17
socialist in nature and apparently she
01:23:21
heard the feedback and is now pivoting
01:23:23
the message and pivoting the policy so
01:23:25
you know I think the one question to
01:23:28
understand is how real is the pivot and
01:23:29
how much is this about getting elected
01:23:31
she uh she made a couple of key
01:23:33
announcements at this campaign speech
01:23:35
yesterday the first one is that she
01:23:37
started out saying that small businesses
01:23:39
are the lifeblood of our economy she's
01:23:41
uh proposing that we increase the
01:23:43
startup tax deduction from $5,000 to
01:23:46
$50,000 if you start up a new business
01:23:48
and you're generating profitable income
01:23:50
you can deduct up to $50,000 on the the
01:23:53
year that you start the company up she
01:23:55
made an emphasis on getting rid of red
01:23:57
tape and deregulating a lot of aspects
01:24:00
that make it hard to start companies she
01:24:02
talked a lot about the importance of
01:24:03
venture capital and Venture dollars and
01:24:06
that there's a goal to Spur 25 million
01:24:10
new SBA loan applications by the end of
01:24:12
her term so in the next four years which
01:24:15
would be a massive increase in
01:24:16
government lending to small businesses
01:24:18
she also stepped back the capital gains
01:24:21
tax proposal that was made by Under the
01:24:23
Biden Administration
01:24:24
that she previously said was her policy
01:24:27
as well and is now proposing a 28%
01:24:31
capital gains tax instead of the 40
01:24:33
something percent that I think was the
01:24:35
previous proposal so a 28% capital gains
01:24:38
tax only applied to households with a
01:24:40
net worth greater than a million dollars
01:24:43
but towards the end of her speech she
01:24:44
still talked a lot and got a lot of
01:24:46
Cheers around the idea that billionaires
01:24:49
and big corporations need to pay their
01:24:50
fair share and that there needs to be
01:24:53
methods of increasing the tax ation of
01:24:55
billionaires and big corporations as
01:24:57
they're kind of classified by her and
01:25:00
some of the other Democrats so I don't
01:25:02
know is the pivot real is she becoming
01:25:04
more Pro bus is she responding to the
01:25:06
critical feedback she's received over
01:25:08
the last few
01:25:09
weeks or you know is this just about
01:25:11
getting elected is this going to persist
01:25:14
is this a change in policy chth I hand
01:25:16
it over to
01:25:18
you I think that this is all the tactics
01:25:21
leading to the debate on September the
01:25:23
10th I think I think that a lot of this
01:25:26
polling you're you're seeing the sugar
01:25:28
high fade on both sides and I think what
01:25:32
we can acknowledge is that the setup
01:25:36
going into this debate is eerily
01:25:38
reminiscent of the setup going into the
01:25:40
first debate between Donald Trump and
01:25:42
Hillary Clinton which was a very
01:25:45
profound Sensation that there was a
01:25:47
popular vote advantage to the Democratic
01:25:50
candidate Hillary then KLA now but what
01:25:54
everybody got wrong last time and now
01:25:58
what people are doing a much more
01:26:00
refined job other than Nate silver this
01:26:03
time
01:26:03
around is then being able to do a more
01:26:06
nuanced look at the Electoral College
01:26:08
probability which is in the opposite
01:26:10
direction favoring Donald Trump and Nota
01:26:12
so I think that the Democrats have
01:26:14
realized that the sugar high isn't going
01:26:16
to win the election they need to be
01:26:18
specific in ways that gets moderates and
01:26:22
the only way to do that is to T to the
01:26:24
middle because a lot of these other
01:26:26
trial balloons were kind of nutty and
01:26:29
those people are not going to win them
01:26:30
the election in the key states that
01:26:31
matter again I you know it's what we've
01:26:33
said before five things in five states
01:26:36
right that's what it's going to come
01:26:37
down to it's also I think you've made
01:26:40
this point shamat as well which is when
01:26:41
you're running for the primaries and I
01:26:43
think Dean Phillips when he was on the
01:26:45
program talked about this you've got one
01:26:47
agenda and that tends to be a bit
01:26:49
extreme because you're trying to get
01:26:50
those extreme people in primaries to
01:26:52
come out then when you get to to the
01:26:54
general election you kind of come
01:26:56
towards the middle and we said on this
01:26:57
very podcast and I I gave a couple of
01:26:59
disclaimers as the moderator here hey we
01:27:01
don't know these are commulist policies
01:27:03
because a she's not talking to anybody B
01:27:05
she hasn't released any so maybe you
01:27:09
know she's taking feedback I have some
01:27:11
inside information on this which is
01:27:13
there are people in our circles who are
01:27:16
sitting with her saying these things are
01:27:19
crazy and maybe pointing to our podcast
01:27:22
and other reactions online and and maybe
01:27:25
we should really think what do you want
01:27:27
to do potentially Madam president when
01:27:31
you're president if you do win and I
01:27:34
think she's starting to think from first
01:27:35
principles hey what is actually good for
01:27:38
the countries that would be a very
01:27:40
honest way of looking at this she's not
01:27:41
thinking from first principles are you
01:27:42
kidding she's reading from a
01:27:44
teleprompter no no I'm talking about in
01:27:46
her policies I you can you can make
01:27:47
whatever digs you want to her style and
01:27:49
that's valid you can make whatever digs
01:27:50
you want to Trump style what I'm talking
01:27:52
about is said principles yeah well from
01:27:55
her first principles ask her writers are
01:27:57
giving her new talking points okay
01:27:58
listen can you stop with the personal
01:28:00
attacks on people and just personal ATT
01:28:03
he's a candidate for the presidency of
01:28:04
the United States he's actually
01:28:05
answering your question he's answering
01:28:07
your question jcal he's saying that
01:28:08
they're not real policy they not let me
01:28:10
finish my thought and then you can and
01:28:11
then you can deride her style I'm trying
01:28:14
to have something about J Jason it's a
01:28:16
substance Point okay let me finish my
01:28:17
point and then you can talk about
01:28:19
substance or style I think what happened
01:28:21
here is she was put into the position as
01:28:23
president
01:28:24
and had to in a very short period of
01:28:26
time come up with what her positions
01:28:28
would be because everybody knows when
01:28:29
you're the vice president your positions
01:28:31
are what the president thinks we've made
01:28:33
that point about JD Vance that his
01:28:34
position on wanting a National Abortion
01:28:37
ban has nothing to do with trumps and
01:28:38
Trump's wins in that situation so here
01:28:41
we are I think it's a similar situation
01:28:43
Biden might have been captured and
01:28:44
wanted to do this crazy wealth tax and
01:28:47
this you know seizure of people's assets
01:28:50
whereas maybe she actually is much more
01:28:51
moderate and that's what people around
01:28:53
her have always said is that she's more
01:28:54
moderate and that she's coming to
01:28:56
actually form her own platform and she
01:28:59
just needed time to do that I'm I'm
01:29:01
giving what I'm hearing from the left
01:29:03
this isn't necessarily my position sacks
01:29:05
this is what I'm hearing from the people
01:29:06
around kamla Harris okay let me tell you
01:29:10
what's really going on here long okay
01:29:12
here we
01:29:15
go the long time Democratic pundit Roy
01:29:18
tashera just had a piece out called
01:29:20
Vince Lombardi Democrats where he quoted
01:29:23
Vince Lombardi saying winning isn't
01:29:25
everything it's the only thing and so
01:29:28
obviously what's happening now is that
01:29:31
KLA Harris will say whatever she needs
01:29:33
in order to win but the the question
01:29:35
that voters should be asking who is this
01:29:37
person really because obviously what
01:29:39
she's going to do once you give her the
01:29:41
the keys to the government is going to
01:29:43
be different than whatever she's saying
01:29:45
right now and we do have a lot of
01:29:46
background on this person she came up
01:29:48
through the San Francisco political
01:29:49
machine she was a product of the
01:29:53
progressive Pelosi machine in sanan
01:29:55
Francisco she then Rose to the Senate
01:29:58
she was voted by GV track as the most
01:30:00
liberal member of the Senate and just a
01:30:02
few weeks ago when she first announced
01:30:04
her economic proposals they were all
01:30:06
this super far-left stuff like the
01:30:09
unrealized gains tax and a 44% cap gains
01:30:13
rate so that's where her instincts were
01:30:16
that was what was in the Biden Harris
01:30:17
budget that was in her campaign platform
01:30:20
and that was in her Economic Policy
01:30:21
speeches and then what happened is there
01:30:24
was a huge negative reaction to all of
01:30:25
that so now she's changing her talking
01:30:27
points but it's obvious what's going on
01:30:29
she's going to say whatever is necessary
01:30:31
to win the election but you're a fool
01:30:34
and kidding yourself if you think you're
01:30:37
going to get something really different
01:30:39
after the election you're GNA get a
01:30:41
continuation of the Biden Harris
01:30:44
Elizabeth Warren economic program that
01:30:47
we've had for the last four years how
01:30:48
would you say Trump's position on
01:30:51
abortion relates to to that you know
01:30:53
don't don't people adap their position
01:30:54
based on winning I mean I think he's
01:30:56
done a master class in changing his
01:30:57
position in J he never changed his
01:30:59
position you don't seem to understand
01:31:02
how that issue Works he was in favor of
01:31:05
returning it to the states he's been
01:31:07
completely consistent on that and I
01:31:09
don't know why you keep bringing it back
01:31:11
to that always whenever Comm Harris
01:31:13
isn't doing well it's always about
01:31:15
abortion for you well no I think it's a
01:31:16
great example of a politician moving to
01:31:19
the center on the issue he just said
01:31:21
this week that he wants more than six
01:31:22
weeks right and so he's moving towards
01:31:24
he didn't just say that it's always been
01:31:26
his position he's always been a moderate
01:31:27
on the issue jcal yeah he's against a
01:31:30
National Abortion ban he's always been
01:31:31
in favor of returning to the states I
01:31:33
don't even understand how this is like
01:31:35
you're still talking about this well the
01:31:37
reason I talk about is because there's
01:31:38
so many States including the one I'm
01:31:40
living in where women can't get an
01:31:41
abortion okay they're gonna have to
01:31:43
cross the state line you're right that's
01:31:44
an issue so I mean I I think women feel
01:31:46
differently about it than you know you
01:31:48
brushing it aside they feel that Trump
01:31:49
I'm not brushing aside I'm just stating
01:31:51
what the truth the issue is yeah no no
01:31:52
I'm just saying the truth for women
01:31:54
on a second if you want to vote on that
01:31:56
issue that's your right go for it all I
01:31:58
ask is that you correctly State Trump's
01:32:00
position on that issue which he stated
01:32:02
on our own podcast yeah and that's the
01:32:04
point I'm bringing up is I think States
01:32:06
the evangelicals are really upset about
01:32:09
him in their perception changing his
01:32:11
mind and women their view of it is he
01:32:13
took away their right in the states
01:32:15
where like the one I live in you can't
01:32:16
get an abortion okay everybody this has
01:32:18
been an amazing episode of the all-in
01:32:20
podcast we got your business UPF front
01:32:22
great discussion politics that got super
01:32:24
toxic at the end it's the mullet that
01:32:26
you love business and then political
01:32:28
parties at the back for the Sultan of
01:32:31
science who did an amazing job setting
01:32:34
up all these amazing speakers and doing
01:32:36
all the work on the all-in summit taking
01:32:38
place next week we thank you for your
01:32:41
efforts Sultan of science David freeberg
01:32:44
you excited here for the team J it's a
01:32:47
team it takes it it's a team sport
01:32:49
that's right for the chairman dictator
01:32:51
look at that look at that silver fox
01:32:54
look at him with that great hair when is
01:32:57
it going to stop you going to cut it for
01:32:59
the summit or you
01:33:00
just wow he's going big
01:33:04
and the ar welcome to 48 welcome to 48
01:33:07
the architect David Sachs my bestie
01:33:10
welcome toter welcome see you on Twitter
01:33:13
sxy welcome to 48 welcome to 48 I think
01:33:16
you st making a fo of yourself on
01:33:17
Twitter going I
01:33:19
think yes and you should do another 30
01:33:22
tweets a day about UK we'll see you all
01:33:25
next time everybody
01:33:27
byebye let your winners
01:33:29
ride Rainman
01:33:34
David and instead we open source it to
01:33:36
the fans and they've just gone crazy
01:33:38
with it love
01:33:42
[Music]
01:33:47
you besties
01:33:49
are that's my dog taking driveways
01:33:53
oh man oh man myit meet me we should all
01:33:58
just get a room and just have one big
01:34:00
huge orgy cuz they're all just useless
01:34:02
it's like this like sexual tension that
01:34:03
they just need to release
01:34:10
somehow we need to get merch
01:34:15
[Music]
01:34:20
our I'm going in and now the plugs you
01:34:26
can subscribe to this show on YouTube
01:34:28
yes watch all the videos our YouTube
01:34:30
channel has passed 500,000 subscribers
01:34:32
shout out to Donnie from Queens follow
01:34:34
the show x.com thee all inpod Tik Tok
01:34:38
the all inpod Instagram the all in pod
01:34:40
LinkedIn search for all in podcast and
01:34:43
to follow chth he's x.com chth sign up
01:34:46
for his weekly email what I read this
01:34:48
week at chat. substack docomo
01:34:53
. gro.com and see what all the
01:34:56
excitement is about follow saxs at x.com
01:34:59
davidx and sign up for glue at glue.
01:35:01
follow freedberg x.com freedberg and
01:35:04
ohal is hiring click on the careers page
01:35:07
at ohal genetics.com I am the world's
01:35:10
greatest moderator Jason cakenis if you
01:35:12
are a founder and you want to come to my
01:35:15
accelerators and my programs founder.
01:35:17
University lunch. closeapply to apply
01:35:19
for funding from your boy jcal for your
01:35:21
startup and check out Athena wow
01:35:24
this is the company I am most excited
01:35:26
about at the moment Athena wow.com to
01:35:28
get a virtual assistant for but $3,000 a
01:35:31
month I have two of them thanks for
01:35:33
tuning in to the world's number one
01:35:34
podcast you can help by telling just two
01:35:36
friends that's all I ask forward this
01:35:39
podcast to two friends and say this is
01:35:41
the world's greatest podcast you got to
01:35:43
check it out it'll make you smarter
01:35:44
it'll make you laugh laugh while
01:35:45
learning we'll see you all next time
01:35:47
bye-bye
