All-In with Chamath, Jason, Sacks & Friedberg - E14: Salesforce acquires Slack, DeepMind’s AlphaFold breakthrough, Trust Fund Socialists & more

🎁Amazon Prime 💗The Drop 📖Kindle Unlimited 🎧Audible Plus 🎵Amazon Music Unlimited 🌿iHerb 💰Binance

Okay, besties are back. Besties are back going around the horn. Rain Man David Sacks calling

in from an undisclosed location, suffering through two code 13s in one lifetime.

And David Friedberg is here, the queen of quinoa, spacking everything in sight,

living the life, calling in from a nondescript Ritz-Carlton room, it appears to be.

And of course, the dictator himself, Chamath Palihapitiya, cackling like a fool.

Welcome back, everybody. This is what you pay for with your subscription to the All In podcast,

brought to you by Slack. If you didn’t own Slack shares, raise your hand.

It’s been an incredible week on a number of levels. We’re going to talk this week about

Salesforce buying Slack, Trump and Section 230, the ongoing Coinbase saga.

Friedberg found some interesting science that could save humanity. And of course,

the trust fund socialists in the New York Times who hate their parents for giving them money.

Let’s start off with-

Let’s start off with the most important thing. What is that shirt, undershirt combo you’re

wearing? I mean, look, you have buttons on buttons.

Did I break the layering rule?

You can’t. If you’re going to layer properly, you can have only one layer of buttons,

but to have two layers of buttons-

That’s not how it works?

J. Cal went in and got-

I don’t know. Layers are for players, not me.

No, he got like an almond milk cappuccino. And he’s like, I like how that barista dress is,

and I’m going to wear that from now on.

Wait a second. Can I ask a technical question? Can I have buttons? I can’t

have buttons on buttons, but can I have buttons and then a zipper up like with the-

No, you can’t do that either. Listen-

Chamath has had a weird aversion to buttons ever since he spent that time in Italy.

Was he button shamed in Italy?

I wasn’t. I was a little button shamed, but I’m looking at Sax has buttons on his collars,

which just makes no sense. Sax is wearing the same Brooks Brothers shirt that he graduated

high school in. At Brooks, he owns 17% of Brooks Brothers at this point from the number of

lasers he’s bought there. All right, let’s get off to it. We’ve insulted each other.

I don’t think Freeberg’s taken the brunt of anything yet. Anybody have any

chop busting they want to do with Freeberg or is that just sort of built in?

No, Freeberg took the tablecloth that I use for a picnic in the summertime

and made it into a shirt. There it is.

You know, you have to be frugal at this time. And also,

Freeberg cares about the environment. He’s not going to just let a picnic-

What was it? A blanket go to waste?

It was a hemp based tablecloth. And so I knew it was going to get taken and stolen.

I love how I choose to spend my time with you guys.

It just pays off. Here we go. All right. Can we kick this off?

All right, let’s kick it off with our advertisement for

nobody because Chamath will not let me make any money off of this podcast.

And thanks again for the suggestion that we launch a syndicate with no carry.

Now a bunch of dipshits on Twitter are like, hey, when is the all in syndicate starting?

I’m like, never. I need to make a living. I need to get my beak wet.

I’m sorry, but I think an all in syndicate would be super, super disruptive and cool.

I’m totally fine with running it as long as we can have the 20% carry

and I’ll manage the whole thing. We got four people on the call.

We each get 5% carry, but we got to make a living here.

Not everybody’s made it, Chamath. Not everybody’s got SPACs A through Z

or had all of their Slack shares bought. I think we’ll kick it off with that.

Chamath, we saw this week, in fact, just two days ago, Salesforce in a record transaction

for a SaaS company. I think it’s the highest ever paid for a SaaS company, $27 billion,

$27.7 billion for Slack, which has only been public for just over a year, I think.

I think did the Series B in Slack right after they did the pivot at Social Capital. I don’t

know if that was in 5.1 or 2, but Phil Helmuth keeps talking about it.

It was the Series B in TinySpec, but it was the Series A in Slack.

There’s a really important story, which is that myself and Ray Ko, who’s my partner at

Social Capital, we’ve worked together now for, my gosh, I think it’s probably 15 years,

wrote a really great memo justifying the investment in Slack. It had to do with one

thing and one thing only. We ignored the revenue and ARR. I mean, it was fine and nice and good,

but the single biggest thing that we were attracted to was something that we

looked at and which was called intercompany edges.

And even back in 2015 or 16 when we did this original investment, there was this dynamic

where people across companies were communicating via Slack channels. I was completely stunned by

this idea because that was effectively a substitution for email because the only way

you communicate across companies today is by email. David is at and he

emails me at and I email Jason at That’s how we communicate across

businesses, except now all of a sudden you could be messaging and having a much more real-time

interface. That to me was incredibly disruptive and it justified the entirety of the real forward

looking investment thesis. Now fast forward five years later and these guys have more usage on a

daily basis than Facebook, which is stunning because these guys have 10 million DAUs and

Facebook has 2 billion. So it just goes to show you the quantity of traffic and the volume of

information and theoretically productivity that’s happening on Slack. And so I’m not sure what

Salesforce bought. I actually think that you can make a case why it’s a shame that it got bought,

a very strong one in fact, but what they did get, whether they know it or not,

is an intercompany edge effect, which is the most disruptive thing to email.

And in the hands of Salesforce and that sales team, I think it has the ability to really

be a very disruptive force for good in enterprise software.

All right. So Sax, this is a natural passing of the ball to you and the baton because you did

Yammer, sold it to Microsoft for a billion dollars. And obviously Slack was the mobile successor to

the desktop version of Yammer and you got a lot of your fingerprints all over this.

But the fact is you did a tweet storm about it. Slack is an unbelievable success. Stuart is a

great founder. He sold his first company Flickr for 30 million, this one for almost 30 billion.

So that’s pretty nice. But there was one failure and you pointed out in your tweet storm,

explain what the one failure, if you could pick out of the hundreds of things, thousands of things

they did right, there was one thing they did wrong that to Chamath’s point would have resulted

in them remaining an independent company that could have become worth more than 27 billion.

Yeah. It was a slowness to embrace the idea of enterprise sales. And by the way, let’s put this

in context. I mean, Stuart and the Slack team did a phenomenal job, $30 billion exit, seven years of

just about flawless execution. And also, I was an investor in the company, so thank you to Stuart

for letting me invest. I definitely don’t want to sound like an ingrate or a critic. I mean,

they did a phenomenal job. But if you were to nitpick just one little thing that I think they

could have done faster, it would have been embracing enterprise sales. The big learning

from Yammer, we learned this at Yammer from 2008 to 2012, is that enterprises don’t self-serve,

right? They don’t self-close. Bottom up, SaaS products are phenomenal for generating top of

funnel, basically generating leads, but you have to have salespeople close the deals and

enterprises don’t just kind of pull out a credit card and self-serve, they need a salesperson.

And I think there was something in the DNA of Slack that actually I see really very commonly

in the DNA of sort of product-y SaaS companies, product-y SaaS founders, which is they kind of

have a reflexive dislike or distaste for sales, and they resist the idea of sales and they want

to believe that they can just be entirely product-driven. And what I see across the board

is they all come to the same realization that we had at Yammer, which is we have to have a

sales team. And I do remember back in 2014, the whole Yammer sales team was basically rolling off

because of Microsoft acquired the company in 2012 and there was an integration period.

And by 2013, 2014, they were all looking for jobs. And I remember my former CRO,

I think, was interviewing at Slack and it would have been such a perfect thing for them

because he had just learned all the lessons of how you layer on kind of an enterprise sale on

top of a bottom-up product. And they just weren’t ready to make that hire yet. And so, look,

if you’re going to nitpick, look, $30 billion outcome, no one’s criticizing, but if you were

to nitpick, it’s an A-plus regardless, but this would be the one thing you could say.

Well, congratulations all around to everybody involved, especially Phil Helmuth, who was an

LP in one of Chamath’s funds. So, if you need insights on Slack or any of the inside information,

you can just follow Phil Helmuth on Twitter at being the greatest or I am the greatest,

or I’ll always be the greatest. One of those Twitter handles is his.

But Jason, I mean, you basically came to the same conclusion in your emergency pod, right? I mean…

I did. I hadn’t seen your… I think a tweet came after the emergency pod, but

yeah, it just seemed to me this company, unlike Zoom, should have been able to grow quicker. And

if you look at their numbers, they had 87 companies that were spending over a million dollars.

You put a rabid sales team on that product and they go in like Benioff does with his sales team.

I mean, he was just hyper-aggressive at just putting huge numbers out there and saying,

you have to pay us this much money. So much so that I don’t know if you remember Elon getting

into a public spat with him where he’s like, Salesforce is horrible software, get it out of

the organization. He basically banned it because they came to him with the bottom-up people using

of Salesforce and said, hey, you owe us this amount of money. And Elon was like, F you,

banned forever from inside of our organization. We’ll build our own software. We don’t need it.

And they didn’t have somebody and Stewart didn’t have that DNA, I think, to say aggressively,

we need to charge what this product is worth. And you saw that in, I think, one of their strengths

and weaknesses, which was they only build you for people who were actively using the product. Now,

that’s a beautiful, awesome feature. It makes you not scared to use it. But on the enterprise level,

I mean, that seemed to be like maybe one of those non-cutthroat things that maybe

were holding them back. David, do you have any insights on this or should we go on to AlphaFold?

It’s really important to remember the mechanics and the game theory around M&A, especially

big game hunting when you’re doing $30 billion acquisitions. It’s also kind of true at billion

dollar levels, but less so. But the bigger the acquisition gets, you have to remember that

there’s an asymmetry of information between buyers and sellers. And the question is,

who does the asymmetry favor? Because you could look at this acquisition and say, wow, Salesforce

is crazy for spending $30 billion. And somebody else may say, wow, Slack was really stupid for

selling it for $30 billion, right? The reality is that I think that there was asymmetries on both

sides. I think that what Slack probably saw, and I don’t know because I’ve been off the board now

for more than a year, but I think what they saw was, as David said, just a level of sophistication

and scale and ability to cross sell and upsell that was needed for enterprise scale. Either you

overcome it with precision and speed, or you overcome it by going the same pace as somebody

like Microsoft, but with an equivalent product portfolio. So, that’s sort of one realization

that Slack had. But in the case of Salesforce, what they probably had was a realization that

they couldn’t go wall to wall inside of a customer because they didn’t really have a product

that was useful or usable to every single individual inside of an enterprise.

And so, both of those two things create asymmetries. There’s a level of fear inside

of Slack, and there’s a level of fear inside of Salesforce. Both of them are about the fear of

disruption. And then the question is, who gets the better of the other person in the middle of the

acquisition, right? So, the deal could have probably gotten done at $22 billion. It probably

could have also gotten done at $45 billion. And that’s, again, to a combination of how well you

play poker in that moment, right? Who blinks first and the quality of the bankers.

This is like two people having top pair on a very textured board.

And they’re just raising versus each other.

Yeah, it’s who outplays them. Because it’s similar also to how Microsoft bought LinkedIn,

right? Because if you think about what happened in LinkedIn, if you remember when that happened,

it was almost to a T very much like Slack. LinkedIn had a one bad quarter.

They got decapitated by… And I owned it at the time in our public fund. It got decapitated by

like 50%, 60%, 70%. I mean, something insane for missing numbers by a few pennies, okay?

And all of a sudden, it took a lot of the wind out of their sales internally. It didn’t change

the user momentum at all. Because the users that were signing up for LinkedIn didn’t care what the

stock price was yesterday, today, and tomorrow. But it all of a sudden created a fear. And I

think Microsoft was able to exploit that fear. And within a year, this company was bought for

$25 billion. Not dissimilar, Slack had a hiccup, and they got rerated, the stock bounced back.

But I think that if Salesforce was smart, they probably created sort of like a white knight

kind of bid that said, listen, you need enterprise scale and the ability to cross sell and upsell

give it to you. And Slack probably said, listen, you need to go wall to wall. So I understand why

you need me. And you know, the price is what the price is. If you look at the pricing, right? So

Slack, normally the way these big M&A, you know, public company M&A deals get done, is the board

has to approve the price. And they have to say this was the right deal for us relative to other

options. And one of the ways you assess that is you look at where the share price has been

historically. And if you’re getting a premium to where the share price has been historically,

let’s say 30 40% higher than it’s ever been, then the board says, great, that’s a good deal,

we should take it because we’ve got a long way to grow into that value. In this case,

the deal was done not at a very high premium to where Slack traded just in the summer. Is that

right? Chamath? So it looked like a peak. It’s basically if you look at the it’s a 10% premium,

right? Yeah, 10% premium. Yeah. 10% premium. Yeah, we opened the direct listing at 40 or 41.

And this was at 45. Right. And so there clearly was a sense of weakness from the board, which is,

I think why the Salesforce stock traded down afterwards, because if they were willing to sell

at that small of a premium, the forecast internally is probably feeling not that strong. And then

people translate that into, hey, Salesforce bought something that’s not that strong.

You know, there’s there’s something a little bit amiss, but but obviously, to your point,

they’re missing a lot of the cross selling and the synergy that that will, I think it’s a huge

slam dunk acquisition. And I go back to the this idea of intercompany network effects. I think they

exist, and I think they’re real. And I think that the Slack, the the Slack product teams ability to

innovate around that was not as fast as it could have been, but it was still very unique. And I

think it was, it was a true moat. And you know, the, the tragedy is, we won’t see what the terminal

value is if they were left alone to execute. And in this weird way, like I’ve always struggled with

why Microsoft was so overly obsessed with Slack, because if you look at the team’s product, it was

much more directly competitive with zoom. And to this day still remains much more directly competitive

with zoom than Slack. But you know, there we have it. And if you look at the revenue, Slack was

doing 800 million run rates, I know we rounded up to a billion, and yet Salesforce at 20 billion.

So 5% revenue to revenue, and then they got 10% of the company. So in that way, if you look at

on a percentage basis, which is, you know, how you might look at the Facebook, Instagram, and

WhatsApp is what percentage of the existing entity did they get?

Slides going about 60% a year and Salesforce is growing about 22% something like that.

The other thing is the president of Salesforce is Brett Taylor, who was our CTO at Facebook,

who I worked with. And so I think Brett also understands network effects really well.

And you know, by the way, in this interesting twist of fate, Benioff was the underbidder,

I think for LinkedIn. And so, you know, we’ve, we’ve seen mark around the hoop on these,

you know, social network network effect business tool acquisitions before and finally,

also Twitter, he was running, he was hanging around the basket with Twitter. And then they

also brought his name up for Tick Tock, which made no sense. So I think Benioff is just looking at

this, like, if if Google and Microsoft and Apple are too scared to buy things because of antitrust,

well, I’m under the radar of the antitrust trillion dollars. So I’m the only one.

He’s, he’s, he’s under the radar, because he doesn’t have a play in this sort of communication

or collaboration space. And so therefore, there are no antitrust issues. If Microsoft were to do

it, it would definitely be scrutinized, because you could argue that they’re adding to their

existing dominant market share and, and collaboration. But Benioff’s dream has

always been at least since he, you know, launched chatter to compete with with us when we were

doing Yammer, this is back in 2010, 2011, is he his dream has always been to have a product that

could get him onto every seat in the enterprise, you know, his current product set has is departmental,

I mean, you’ve got kind of the CRM product for sales, and they’ve got the support cloud for

customer support, and they’ve got the marketing cloud for marketing. And so he’s gone department

by department, but he’s never really had a sort of pan like cross company. Yeah, something that

the entire company would use, like a central login system, right? And Slack is that central

login system. But when you when he came up against you, it was very, you know, Benioff,

you’re friendly with Benioff. Benioff came at you so hard. He threw three or 400 engineers at

chatter. He took out full page Wall Street Journal ads. He tried to poach your people.

He tried to make the product free. He made it personal against you after you would not sell to

him. True or false, David Sachs? I don’t I don’t think he made it personal. But it was definitely

feel personal. No, no, no, no, no. He did. That’s I understood what he was trying to do.

That’s your way of saying no, I mean, if we had sold to Salesforce, like we ended up so what I

would say is, yeah, we got in like a very, it was a very competitive situation. He didn’t beat us.

You know, I was that he found does that product even exist? Yeah. It’s sort of like a feed inside

of the the CRM product. It didn’t really succeed as a standalone collaboration product. And so

we won that battle. But it definitely I would say it scared us enough to sell to Microsoft.

Because, you know, the what did we were about to we were about to enter a new stage of competition.

So here’s what happened is he launched his product to kind of be a clone of Yammer inside

of Salesforce, but he was initially charging $15 per seat, we were charging like five.

And so they massively overpriced it and they event and then they they were on this like,

slippery slope where they kept lowering the price to compete better with us.

And then finally, they realized that they should give the thing away for free as a strategic move.

And that was when we decided to sell it to Microsoft is we didn’t know,

we knew we had a better product than chatter, but we didn’t know how it would go. If we were

up against a free chat. Tell us honestly, how much did he offer? What was the meeting like

where he made you the offer? We Yeah, so take a look. Yeah. So here’s I’ll tell you the backstory.

I mean, this hasn’t been publicly publicly revealed. But

in service of the all in podcast,

in service of trying to get us from number three to number one on the charts.

No, you know, it’s funny, we launched Yammer at the TechCrunch 40 conference that Jason,

as you know, you’re the co founder of, and Benioff was like a judge, he was a panelist,

and he was raving about it. And you could just, you know, from from the moment we launched,

he was raving about it, you could see the light bulb go off with him. And he realized that like,

social was going to be it was, you know, at the time, obviously, social was big with consumer

social networks, but he saw the potential social or collaboration inside the enterprise.

And so yeah, I mean, like, I think a year later or something, they were interested in buying the

company for around $250 million. The big issue for them, though, was that Benioff had a bunch of

like engineers who wanted to build it in house. And so they, they actually, I don’t know what

would have happened if, if they, you know, didn’t want to build it themselves. But basically,

they vetoed doing a deal. And so they ended up building chatter. And they threw the 300

engineers at it. And they basically spun their wheels for a few years. And anyway, it turned out

to be much better for us, because we ended up selling the company for five times as much

to Microsoft. You know, if we had sold to Salesforce in like 2010, it would have been a

much smaller deal. But yeah, that I mean, he was very interested in it from the from the get go.

All right, folks, so you have a breaking news in the background on what actually

happened. Congratulations to Stuart and the team.

I want to ask a question to Martin Sachs. Did you guys keep all of the shares you you

originally invested in? To the exit here, just to set the context for folks,

you know, you invest in a company, it’s a small startup, 30 billion? Yeah.

For every share that I owned, half of it were half. No. Yeah, for of 100 shares that I owned,

per every 100 that I owned. 10 of them I sold at 38 right at the direct listing.

I want to say 40 of them I sold in the mid 20s. And the rest of it just got taken out at this price.

So your dollar cost average to the you know, whatever high 30s, maybe 40 or so?

Yeah, I don’t know my exact. I mean, I sold some and I still own some. So

um, yeah, I definitely got my my beak wet from this acquisition.

But no, but look, I think I probably sold, you know, more than half of them,

you know, and that was a mistake. And you know, one of my biggest

learnings as an investor has been to let your winners ride. You know, my biggest mistake as an

investor has not been the losers. It’s all it’s been selling the winners prematurely.

Yeah. Uber as well, David. And I sold some Uber before, but I kept a lot of my Uber,

maybe most of it, or half of it, I think. Anyway, Uber, Facebook, I mean, Facebook,

you know, when they IPO it was worth 50 billion. We all thought that was like unbelievable. I mean,

because it was over a 50 x return. But what’s the lesson? Just never sell anything if you can help

it. I sold my Facebook in 2014 and bought Amazon and Tesla. I think that you have to be able to

sell for two reasons, liquidity, and moral obligation. Hmm. Yeah, I mean, that’s an

exaggeration. I mean, you can never it’s people need to be able to sell but to the extent you can

hold on. Just don’t sell everything, you know, always, you keep

Yeah, keep selling. I mean, think about the people who were at Apple in the 80s or Microsoft

in the 80s or Amazon in the 90s. A lot of those people got frustrated holding the shares for so

long. And I think keeping at least 20% of your shares forever, you know, could be amazing. There

was somebody told me had never sold a single share of. I don’t know if that’s a true story or not.

I told you that you can’t be leaking that information.

Okay. Anyway, I didn’t know that was a leak.

Boop. Boop. Boop. Boop. Boop. Boop. Boop. Boop. Boop. Boop. Boop. Boop. Boop. Boop. Boop. Boop.

More breaking news.

Boop. Let’s move to AlphaFold. Let’s move to AlphaFold.

Let’s move to AlphaFold.

Must credit all-in podcast.

Oh my God.

The same may or may not be true with **** and his shares.

You know what we should do is we should do a we should put beeps in there, Nick. I was told

had never sold a share of and then we just let everybody react to it.

This way, nobody knows what we’re talking about.

I do know that **** has not sold a single share of **** and it has only sold

shares of **** to fund capital calls, which is an incredible statement to

fortitude and vision. Incredible.



By the way, it’s not always worked out because he did the same with **** and those didn’t go as well.

Yeah. I mean, look, you have to diversify when you’ve got all your eggs in one basket

in one company. Obviously, you have to sell some shares. But one of the things I’ve just learned

over the last 20 years is probably people ask me, what’s your biggest regret or learning or

whatever? It’s just selling too early is like one of the biggest mistakes you can make.

Look at PayPal. PayPal is now a $250 billion company. We sold it in 2002 for 1.5 billion.

We thought that was a great deal at the time and we sold it for less than 1% of what it’s

worth today and the product’s basically the same. It’s just compounding.

Is the lesson. Never sell. If it’s a winner, ride it. You can pair.

Okay. Hold on. Hold on. I’m going to put a final nail in this coffin. Then we’re

going to go to AlphaFold. There’s a great quote by Warren Buffett, which is,

if you know what you’re doing, the best thing you can do is be as concentrated as possible.

Nobody ever got rich in their seventh best idea. And I think that that basically sums it up. But

you have to be in a position to have the ability to have that kind of portfolio allocation.

And I think that’s hard.

Freebird, explain AlphaFold, please.

Okay, let’s explain. Give me two minutes on I’ll explain proteins and then the importance

of proteins in an AlphaFold. So the numbers to remember are 4, 3 and 20. There are four

nucleic acids that make up your DNA. We all learned this in high school biology.

Sets of three A, C, T and G combinations define an amino acid. There are 20 amino acids.

And a protein is a string of amino acids. So in your body, in every cell, there are these

organelles. They make proteins by reading the DNA, taking a copy of it and turning it into

amino acid chains. And that’s what we kind of call proteins.

But what’s interesting is when you make a chain of amino acids, so there’s 20 of them

that you could put in each point in the chain, it doesn’t come out as a long chain. What happens is

those amino acids, the whole thing collapses and it turns into a very specific shape.

And the shape of that protein is what defines its function.

So pretty much every biological function across all life is undertaken by proteins doing something.

Some proteins like hemoglobin in our red blood cells will have a very specific little pocket

where oxygen molecules stick into the pocket and then it moves the oxygen from your lungs

to your cells. It’s a pretty amazing protein to exist. And it specifically is shaped to do that

exact function. There are other proteins that can, for example, rip apart other molecules,

break a molecular bond. There are other proteins, for example, that can take nitrogen out of the

atmosphere and put it into plants, cells that the plants can then use to grow.

There’s an incredible, you know, a set of potential on the nanoscale of what you can

do with proteins. And we see that in life. And we’re just shocked and awed and amazed by it every

day. But in order to figure out how to create proteins that do specific things, you have to

know how do those amino acids turn into the shape that the protein ultimately takes. And that’s

what’s called protein folding. And so the hard thing is, and, you know, why is this important?

It’s important because we can easily read DNA and therefore we can figure out what amino acid

sequence is being made to define that protein. But what we don’t know really well is what is the

shape of that protein? And therefore, how does it undertake the function that we see it taking in

biology? And if you think about the reverse of this, the reverse of this, if you have a function

you want to undertake in biology, you can design a protein to do that function for you, for example,

bind to a specific point on a cancer cell, or, you know, take carbon out of the atmosphere,

or pretty much anything else your mind can kind of imagine. On the nanoscale,

proteins can be designed to do the challenges, how do you write the code, which is the DNA

to make the protein that does that thing? Well, we don’t know how the code turns into the shape.

And that’s what folding the folding problem is. So the folding problem, there’s a data set,

and the data set is what’s the three dimensional shape of a protein? And then what’s the DNA code

that defines the amino acid sequence that makes that protein? And how do you figure out how to

predict the shape of the protein from the amino acid sequence, it has been an impossibility. And,

again, if you think about this chain of amino acids, they each have little,

you know, electrical spaces, and the way that they bind to each other, it’s very complicated,

you can’t just deterministically define it. You know, we don’t have that level of understanding

on a quantum scale. So what alpha fold has done is they have now been able to predict

from a sequence of amino acids, what the protein shape will ultimately become,

by learning from a database of hundreds of 1000s of structural protein

shapes that have been defined through really, really, really difficult, you know,

scanning microscopes and other techniques to really try and scan a protein on a microscopic

scale. And then looking at the DNA sequence and figuring out, okay, what’s the relationship?

And the accuracy of their predictive model now is within the range of error of the microscopes that

are being used to actually scan and measure those proteins. So that’s incredible. Because now,

theoretically, you could come up with a design for a protein. And you could actually build that

protein by writing the amino acid sequence. And that protein can do any number of things you want

to do. And this has been a difficult problem that’s been intractable by humanity. And we’ve

been challenged by it for decades. For this machine learning breakthrough, to kind of be

realized in literally less than three years. I mean, these guys were at a score of 40.

Last year, and this year, they’re at like nearly 90, which is incredible. And so now, you know,

we can now predict what the shape will be from the from the DNA sequence. And,

and this is going to unlock this ability, everyone’s now going to take their model,

if they license it, or whatever they do with it, or people are going to go learn using the same

techniques that DeepMind used. But it just means that it’s possible. And then scientists will go

away. And they’ll say, you know what, I want to do this particular thing on a microscopic scale,

let me design in three dimensional space a protein to do that thing. Okay, now let me go figure out

how to make that protein by writing the DNA code, which is really easy if you can use this algorithm

to solve that for you. And it is literally dollars and pennies to make proteins, we can write DNA on

a computer, we can get printed DNA sent to us in 48 hours in a FedEx envelope for a DNA printing

facility, we can put it in a in a microbe, and we can get that microbe to make the protein for us in

a day, the lab costs, any high school biology class can do this now. So by being able to actually

figure out what DNA to write, based on the objective function of what do we want the protein

to do, it’s going to unlock this universe of things we can do in medicine. In environmental science,

we can do things like break apart PET plastics, we can do things like fixing nitrogen from the

atmosphere and getting rid of fertilizer plants, we can create all sorts of new,

you know, food solutions, health solutions, environmental solutions,

any chance you can make a pizza that doesn’t have carbohydrates, because that’s what I’m

thinking about here is, is there a way healthy pasta or pizza, or something like that? But in

all seriousness, what do you think the early wins will be out of this technology? And is this a

theoretical win that will benefit from in 20 years? Or is this a serious breakthrough that

we’re going to benefit from in the near term, like no, I think one to five years,

both are true. This is an incredibly important advancement in machine learning.

But the reality is that, you know, Google will still have to spend a deep mind will have to

spend a lot of time refining it. And then they have some really big ethical challenges ahead

of it. How do you expose this technology to whom and under what conditions. And it’s the same

situation that open AI has with GPT-3. Although a lot of people I think, you know, the scale of

the computer science challenge maybe was a bigger win in GPT-3, because it was a much more open

space. And I think this is a much more specific, sort of almost expert system in a way. But the

downstream commercial implications of this are just enormous. And so just think about this,

like this is where like, you gotta you gotta love companies like Google, the fact that they exist,

because from, you know, page rank in 1999, to CPC ads in 2003, and four,

we have alpha fold in 2020. And that to me is just that’s just an argument against breaking

up tech, because only a tech company with this amount of resource knowledge can then go spend

a billion dollars on deep mind. I mean,

alphabets burning four to $5 billion a year on their quote, unquote, other bets line,

and people give them a lot of shit for it. But I mean, you hit any one of these things,

and it’s $100 billion payday. I mean, look at YouTube, YouTube’s easily $100 billion payday

on a billion dollar bet, billion six. Oh, no, that’s it. That’s a 250 to $500

billion applied semantics. A lot of people miss this, but applied semantics was $100 million

bet. And that’s the entirety of AdSense initially, Android, Android.

Is this is this the first commercial application of deep mind? Because until now, you know,

they’ve had alpha zero. So there was a period of time, a lot of people, I don’t know.

Let me just think about this for a second. Alpha zero was really good.

I want to be careful about this. But I do think it was disclosed that they’ve used deep mind

to improve ads quality and improve YouTube viewing. And as a result of that,

you get the number of hours per day of the average user on YouTube to double or triple

ad revenue goes by three x. And I think in one quarter, Google was able to generate

something like an incremental 15 billion annualized revenue from deep minds.

And you know what that deep mind actually did on YouTube? It sent everybody to the

alt right and info wars and Ben Shapiro. Congratulations. Be careful when you

set people’s minds with artificial intelligence. Maybe you just argued to break them up.

Yeah, but I understand sacks that it’s being used broadly across the products at Google.

In a in a now now in a much more careful way is my understanding. Look, I’m a I’m a I’m a big

ally of alphabet. I’m a big fan. And I love you know, they were and I used to work there. And I’m

very close to people there. So I know he used to be on the board and was the major backer of that

company. Deep mind founders fund founders fund. Elon Musk, too. And he begged them to not sell

to Google because I mean, $400 million, $400 million exit was a steal for 40 or 50 scientists.

Yeah, absolute steal.

No, Elon. I mean, Elon has publicly said that he thinks deep mind is like the greatest threat.

Well, he thinks AI is a great threat to humanity. And of the people working on

AI, deep mind is the furthest along and therefore most dangerous.

He tried to stop me. I mean, he told me straight up, like when he’s been very public about the

sense that he he said, I’ll give you an unlimited amount of money to not sell to Google. He’s

friends with Larry Page, too. But he said, don’t sell. I want you to be independent. I want you

to keep working on this. But he said that when he saw the AI there become aware that it was an AI,

that that was when he was like, wait a second.

No, wait, deep, deep mind is not alphas, alpha folder, alpha zeros, not self aware.

That’s felt it was becoming self aware that it knew what it was. I don’t know if that was just

Elon, you know, just sort of no, it’s not. It’s not self aware. So I mean, I’ve watched

the Yeah, I mean, the amazing things that deep mind has released prior to this were

games, right? They had this chess, this chess AI called alpha zero, which rapidly became not just

the best chess. It not only beat every human in the world, it also beat every chess engine because

computers became more, you know, better at chess than humans long time ago, because of their

sheer computational power, but alpha zero plays like a human, but with kind of that same

computational power. And so that created a whole revolution in chess engines. And then they also

did that with a game called go the credit alpha go. And basically every single game that you can

think of, deep minds created, you know, an alpha, whatever alpha version that destroys both humans

and computers. But this is the first thing they’ve publicly announced that, that seems like

it will be available to others. Eventually, that could have tremendous social impact.

Imagine the government trying to understand this. Can you imagine them being brought before

like senators? These are these are these are the new weapons of mass destruction. I mean,

let’s be honest, like if, if somebody else had had alpha fold, and probably somebody doesn’t

just hasn’t said, you know, I mean, Google actually values transparency. So that’s the

only reason why we know. Imagine what they could do, as Friedberg said, it’s like, you know, the,

the opposite of this is basically to design a specific protein that basically, you know,

destroys organs, or there are proteins called prions, which are the scariest thing known in

biology, in my opinion, a prion is a protein that it actually finds similar proteins. And

based on the shape, it gets those proteins to change, and it becomes like a virus.

And prions actually are, there’s an extremely sad series of diseases that are related to prions,

where your body expresses a protein in the wrong way. And then that protein itself gets other

proteins to change and creates copies of itself. And it spreads. It is a fascinatingly scary

biological phenomenon. But you know, there are extremely scary things you can do with the

designer protein capability. Basically, you could make a bio weapon that would be similar to what

the aliens and Prometheus and aliens were doing the engineers even much worse, even much worse.

This is why I think they’re going to spend years before. So this is why back to that earlier

question, it’ll be years before this sees the light of day because they’re they’re smart enough

to know what they’ve uncovered. And I think they did they did the right thing by talking about it,

because I think there’s a lot of really amazing R&D. But the reality is that Google for the next

20 or 30 years, we’ll have layers and layers of oversight. Because, you know, it’s not like you’re

going to allow a company to enrich uranium in Mountain View without oversight. And this is the

equivalent, it’s just the we’re we’re buying time until governments realize that they have to do

that they have to do it. But let’s also remember the protein data set they trained on is publicly

available. You know, anyone can access this. And with the, you know, a catch up in machine learning,

you know, capability to deep mind, infrastructure wise, theoretically, you know, someone could,

could I think it’s, it’s an inevitability that in the next 24 months, someone else will write this

right now, I think what DeepMind has done is showed that specific techniques of learning

can overcome limitations in compute. But to your point, David, like we’re accelerating silicon at a

fast enough speed where, you know, if like, if you can throw 510 50 100 500 pet ops at a problem,

you’re, you know, you can run, you know, some really, really old version of TensorFlow and

probably get to the same answer. Yeah, I actually think they published, I’m going to find it while

you guys are chatting, but they published what the compute needs were on running this. I’ll find it

in a second. Tell you, because

I may make one sort of slightly dissenting point on the whole WMD thing. I mean, look, obviously,

the, you know, who has access, this technology needs to be controlled, we do have to make sure

it doesn’t get into the hands of bad actors. But the reality is, there’s plenty of existing WMDs

out there that have been around for a long time that bad actors could get their hands on,

they could already make, you know, extremely dangerous viruses in a lab, they could,

you know, take something that’s as contagious as smallpox and make it as deadly as Ebola or

something like that. And it’s these new technologies that provide a way for us to

combat those those WMDs. Because, you know, technology has a tendency to become democratized.

You know, was it 75 years ago, the US was the only country that had an atomic weapon. Now,

what, like close to 10 have, you know, nuclear atomic weapons. And so, you know, these,

these sort of nefarious technologies get democratized anyway. And we really need some

of these new technologies and new abilities as a way to combat them. It’s like last week,

we were talking about the ability now to basically print, you know, a vaccine using this mRNA

technique within two days, you know, you can imagine, you know, if someone tried to use a

bioweapon create a new virus, we could print a vaccine the next day. Those are the kinds of

capabilities we’re going to need to fight the spread of WMD. I think you’re right. It’s just

that you then have a law of large numbers problem, meaning, you know, the previous problem before is

you had 180 190 200 state sponsored actors. So if you had a 1%, you know, rate of people who are

just bad, you’re talking about two states. Now, when you talk about 5 billion people getting

access to code that’s basically running an AWS or GCP instance someplace, and you have a 1%,

you know, bad guy rate, all of a sudden, that 1% really matters. And I think that’s the problem.

It’s just the law of large numbers, David applied to very, very small rates of immorality.

But I mean, you can already do very scary things with, you know, recombinant DNA,

taking DNA from one organism, putting in another and sending that organism out. And, you know,

theoretically, you could have designed a virus that would spread throughout humanity and cause

a lot of death, right? I mean, there’s a lot of this capability that people would have found that

out. Because like, you can’t run these labs, and you’re not going to get, you know, monkey models

or mouse models. It’s like, there’s there’s a trail of breadcrumbs there that is easier to

track, wouldn’t you agree that just running an instance in a simulation on GCP, sending it

someplace to then have a protein printed that comes into FedEx envelope to you.

And you have to hire, we saw in Iran with, you know, their chief scientist being whacked by

whoever accidentally whacked him with 60 people. Like, you need to have the brainpower to do this,

once you have the brainpower to do it, you can track that brainpower. And we had, for the last,

I think it’s like, since we even tested nuclear bombs, we’ve had these special planes flying

around the globe looking for the signature of nuclear detonations, or any kind of nuclear

fallout. And we’ve been flying those forever. I think, I think, I think, I think biodefense is

going to become probably one of the biggest industries on planet Earth, starting in the

latter half of this century, because you’re going to get to a point where digital biology is like a

tool, just like software was in the 80s, where suddenly everyone could access it, everyone could

use it, everyone could do stuff with it. You have this ubiquity of scary shit happening.

Hackers everywhere. Hold on, Freebird, didn’t we have that as well in those same claims about

nuclear power? And we were been able to, for 100 years, with nuclear, nuclear, in particular,

with nuclear, in particular, there is a material problem, you have to source and refine material

to do something scary. With biology, you don’t, you can do this anywhere, you can do it on your

desktop at home. And you know, it’s getting easier, cheaper, faster. And you can use software

and a printer and you know, a cheap sequencer and do stuff. Do we believe that China has this

Freebird? Yes, China, for sure. Yeah. I mean, look, this is yeah, I think the head of DeepMind

are behind 100% 100%. So here’s the stats that DeepMind put out, it took them the equivalent

of 100 to 200 GPUs run over a few weeks to build this model. That is, I don’t care how advanced

DeepMind is at this point. That’s, you know, if that’s the model, then someone else can replicate

that, you know, someone, that’s what happened to alpha zero, that DeepMind chess engine after they

proved it, now there’s a whole bunch of chess AIs. And I think we’re within within one year,

Jaykal, of a lot of startups replicating this alpha fold technique, and then using that to

go do drug discovery. And you’ll see 50 startups getting funded 12 to 18 months from now based on

some novel protein idea. And I think that this we got to get our beach wet on this on the ISAs.

Everybody go to this is getting ridiculous. Everybody go to the slash all in.

We should create a protein folding syndicate. Yeah, absolutely. Here it is. Everybody go to

the slash all in. If we do this, I’m collecting the emails now.

I will make my first series of bets less on the application and more on the protection.

I think biodefense 30 years from now is going to be so important.

If you want to invest with the best ease,

can there is there going to be a protein that prevents Rudy Giuliani from farting?

I mean, what is going on sacks? Let’s throw to you as our resident right wing.

Joking sacks. Don’t take it so personal. We know you didn’t vote for Trump.

We know you did a write in vote for Tucker Carlson.

Let me ask you this. Have you have you or have you not had dinner with Tucker Carlson?

That’s a big pause. I call all in.

I’ve actually. Yeah, I know. I don’t think I’ve had dinner with Tucker.

But you’ve been to a party with Tucker Carlson. No, no. But let me let me get to

here’s what’s happening is, well, I feel my dream of gridlock in Washington for the next four years

is slipping away. You know, the you know, I described this as sort of like it was kind of

a dream scenario that you’d have a divided Congress and the Republicans, you know, they won

50 they won 50 seats in the Senate in November. And then, you know, because of this stupid rule

in Georgia that you have to you can’t just win. You have to win by having over 50 percent.

The Republicans would have had 51. But now there’s a runoff for these two open seats.

And the Republicans were ahead in the polls at the time. They were the more I think it was

mostly it’s based on the candidates being more popular than the Democratic candidates. But now,

because of all these antics around the election, the Democrats have both Democrat candidates have

pulled ahead. And so, yeah, they are now Democratic candidates in the last couple of the last week or

so. Ossoff is ahead of Perdue by about two points, which is a stunner because Perdue has already

beaten him before he beat him in the November election. He’s a better candidate, though,

right. And the margin of error was sworn to the Republican. Right. But Warnock is seven points

ahead of Loeffler. So that one is outside the margin of error. He’s clearly beating her. And,

you know, and now it looks like Perdue’s in danger to the Republicans just need to win

one of those in order for us to have, you know, divided government in Washington,

which I think tends to produce better results than giving one party all the levers of power.

But but this is this is the crazy thing. And so I think even from Trump’s point of view,

you know, I think this is a branding exercise to, you know, prove that he didn’t lose. The problem

is, how’s that going? Well, it’s not working. And it looks like it’s going to cost Republicans

the Senate, which is something that I think he won’t come back from. So if I was advising the

president, I would tell him to drop this, you know, these these legal challenges. They fired

Sidney Powell from the legal team, which I think was a good decision because of her crazy wild

allegations. But now Rudy’s out there doing the same stuff. Rudy Giuliani.

The answer that I gave you is they didn’t bother to interview a single witness.

Rudy Giuliani. He was adjusting. He wasn’t waking up the genie. He was he was tucking his pants in,

laying down in the bedroom, having a drink with a Russian underage.

I mean, Rudy is just I mean, fresh off his his guest starring appearance in the Borat movies.

I mean, it’s uncredited. Yeah, it’s like he’s reenacting my cousin Vinnie or something in these

in these hearings. How many it’s going to cost Republicans the Senate?

Yeah, I think they’re it’s so amazing. Like the Democrats basically have now have a stone cold

free roll, because there is a very good chance that these guys are going to win these two Senate

seats, which would just be absolutely incredible. Absolutely.

So Republicans are definitely figuring this out. Rich Lowry had a great column. He’s a editor of

National Review. He’s on the right, but I think provides very good objective political analysis.

He’s sound his last column sounded the alarm bells about what was happening in Georgia.

And look, if the if the issue in the Georgia runoffs is are these antics if it’s Rudy and

Sidney Powell, the public is going to lose the seat that both seats if the question of the

election is whether Democrats should have a free hand to ram through whatever legislation they want,

then I think the Republicans win. So the question is, what is that election going to be about? And

the longer that Rudy stays on the stage, making these crazy wild allegations, the worse it gets

for Republicans. When is the Georgia runoff election? This January 5 or 10. It’s one of

those two. January 5, I think. My gosh, would anybody here if they had gray hair, and I know

we have three gentlemen on the call who have gray hair, Friedberg, somehow you’re you’re you’re you

might be maybe I’ve answered this question just not on his head. Just would any of you

dye your hair if you were a 7987 year old Rudy Giuliani? No, my hair is white and getting

whiter. It’s like it is what it is. It’s a passage of time, I would just move on.

David, would you consider just taking that gray right out of your hair? Because you have the

you’re the silver fox as it stands. Would you ever consider it? You can see the decision I’ve made,

but look, that’s not I mean, it’s Yeah, I mean, that was just like a meltdown. I mean,

a literal meltdown, a literal meltdown. And it was so like representative of the moment,

the congressional republicans want to use a hook to get Rudy off the stage. I mean,

they cannot wait to get him off the stage. And why don’t they just stand up and just tell

Trump to shut this down? I think I think it’s coming. It’s coming. So yeah. Oh,

wow. So the republicans are gonna stand up to Trump with four weeks left in office. Wow.

What a profile and courage. Friedberg, are you dying your hair? Do you have gray hair?

And are you actually dying? Or have you not hit gray? Just tell us right now. It’s an emergency

pod. No, it’s the truth. David, are you dying your hair? Yes or no? This is it.

Is there so many ways have an opinion on whether Trump is allowed to pre pardon himself and his

kids? It’s exactly where I was going. Yes. Well, yes. All right. When he definitely pardoned his

kids. I don’t know that there’s an open legal question whether he can pardon himself. Can you

pre pardon? What does it mean pre pardon in this definition? You mean, you can only pardon for a

committed crime, right? I mean, that’s traditionally no part of it was a blanket,

right? Well, you can pardon for things that happened in the past. I don’t think you can

pardon for things that happen in the future. And you can you can get a blanket part. No,

I don’t think you have to define it. I think you could just do a blanket pardon.

The I would advise Trump not to do it if I were one of his advisors. And the reason is

that he can only pardon for federal. And the big problem the Trump family has right now is,

you know, the Southern District of New York, these mad dog prosecutors who are

Democrats, you know, I don’t approve of it. This is this is to me, this is the to me,

this is the criminalization of political differences. I don’t I think it’d be great

if he could pardon because I do think that those guys are again, they’re trying to criminalize

political differences. But but pardoning doesn’t solve the problem with the Southern District of

New York. And Biden has already said that he doesn’t believe in having any having these having

like a federal investigation of Trump. And so I don’t think I don’t think Trump has anything to

worry about federally. I think the problem is, can I just say, it’s just so fucking decent and

classy. Like, isn’t it refreshing? It’s actually boring. But isn’t it just wait, we’re talking

about Biden is just so decent Biden. Like, I haven’t seen that guy. He’s he worked for us.

He’s been great. No, I mean, like, well, he disappeared. He doesn’t disappear. He’s just

not crazy. He’s Biden, Biden, Biden has done a really has done a few really smart things. I mean,

in his acceptance speech, he did what Churchill advises you to do in victory, which is be magnanimous.

He’s made the right sort of sounds towards reconciliation. I think saying that he didn’t

believe in going after Trump criminally. I mean, look, I don’t think that would have been a good

political move anyway, because it would have created a backlash, but it was a smart thing

to say. And so and then I think the other smart thing he’s done is, which is very Biden anyway,

which is he’s got an establishment all the way for his cabinet. He has not put he hasn’t named

any totally crazy progressives to his cabinet yet that the republicans could latch on to

for the Georgia runoffs. And so Biden’s doing a very good job right now of appearing non threatening

and doing nothing to nothing to blow up his honeymoon. He and his advisors have run a

perfect, perfect, flawless floor. It’s been flawless. I mean, David, you just nailed it,

like all of all the things he could have done to potentially put the Senate at risk,

or to potentially give republicans sort of something to hang their hats on. He has given

zero space, right? Like he has not created a single opening. So you you would have thought

that coming into this election cycle, the way that Trump tried to paint Biden was like,

this, you know, gaffaholic, and instead, he has just been picture pitch perfect.

rocks. Well, I think I think I think he’s a he’s a gaff machine when he speaks spontaneously,

which he has not done. I mean, every time I’ve seen him speak, since the elections be reading

off a teleprompter. But I think that his campaign has run a really good, they have run a good

strategy. And now look, it helps that the press doesn’t really challenge. It’s like, it’s like

weekend at Bernie’s, except it’s like presidency at Bernie’s, you know, it’s like four years,

they hit him in a basement, he only reads a teleprompter, hold him up, put him in the stage.

But yeah, the press, let him get away with it. I mean, no, no other candidate could have gotten

away with a basement strategy. But the press was so determined to go after Trump that they

really gave him a free pass on what Biden believed in what he was going to do. But look,

Biden has run by Biden has run a very good campaign and a very good transition. And really,

I think the biggest mistake he made during the campaign was not declaring definitively

that he would not try to pack this report. That was his big mistake. And what happened?

The voters split the ticket to give the Senate to the Republicans so that Biden wouldn’t be able to

pack the court. And so he wouldn’t be able to do it anyway. And I think maybe his administration

has learned from that mistake, which is don’t do anything or say anything that’s going to give

Republicans something to latch on to to say that Biden is really a radical, we got to stop him.

And anyway, so now George is in play and Biden could win the Senate.

That’s a perfect insight, Sachs, because what you haven’t seen as well as you haven’t seen

Kamala Harris out there all that much, because that’s something Republicans could

glom on to. And you haven’t seen AOC, Bernie Sanders, or Elizabeth Warren,

they are persona no grata. They are not involved in this.

Wow, they are MIA.

They are MIA and the Democrats won’t bring them up. And you have Bernie Sanders, like,

wasn’t he supposed to be in charge of like…

Elon Omar wants to cancel rent and mortgages. I mean, they’re throwing everything out there

just to see if anything sticks right now.

Yeah, but Biden has really given Bernie Sanders and that wing of the party the high hat

in these cabinet choices. In fact, he just named a woman to be the head of OMB,

the budget director, who has a huge Twitter feud with Bernie Sanders and the Bernie folks are up

in arms about it. I don’t think she’s going to get through. But yeah, I mean, Biden has really

stiff-armed a lot of the progressives in this administration.

He doesn’t want to be associated with the hysterical left. I mean, it’s a,

why would you want to…

I also think it’s…

I think it’s an appeal to the right.

I mean, he is appealing to the right to some extent, right? I mean, like,

by not putting those people in place, I think all the moderates on the right are…

He’s never going to be able to appeal to the Trump base. But what he’s going to be able to do

is prevent the Republicans from sort of labeling him as a radical and therefore,

win over those independents that he needs.

By the way, back to Trump for one second. I apologize, because I wanted to ask you, David.

I mean, the other thing that could tip Georgia is this whole craziness where Trump is like,

I’m going to veto the defense bill, unless we repeal Section 230. And if you’re a military

person in Georgia, you’re like, wait a second, you’re going to leave my brothers and sisters

in arms, basically lollygagging without any financial support, because you don’t like

Twitter’s tweet policy? It’s going to seem kind of crazy.

Yeah, it was one of these classic Trump moves where you feel like… I think he does have a

good point with respect to the social media companies. I do think they’ve been engaging

in censorship. They’ve overstepped their bounds. They do deserve some sort of comeuppance or

control. I personally don’t think that repealing Section 230 is the way to go.

It’s for a bunch of reasons that we could get into if you want. But yeah, it was one of these

reflexive Trump tweets. And you heard Republicans in the Senate were very, very quick to shoot it

down. And there was an article in Politico where Republicans were quoted, well, anonymously saying

they’re pretty sick of this shit. That was the quote. And so, yeah, I mean, I think that

Republicans on Capitol Hill are kind of ready for those types of antics to be over.

Okay, should he or will he pardon himself and the kids? I mean, I guess that’s what it comes down

to. And I think we should move on. I don’t think so. And I don’t think it’ll

matter because I think Biden will leave him alone, and it will not help his biggest risk.

And this is, by the way, why they tried to get Jake Clayton to resign from the SEC and move over

to the Southern District of New York, because they thought maybe he could run some kind of

interference. But I mean, I think the state AGs will want a pound of flesh here. And if I were if

I were advising on Yeah, just if I were advising Trump and and advising him on how to maximize his

legacy, it would be you know, pardon pardon people in the administration been treated unfairly.

There’s no need to pardon yourself. I don’t I don’t think he has federal exposure.

And I would and I would tell him that, you know, if Republicans lose these Georgia Senate seats

that he will be blamed for among the base for a long time, and that I think will be hard for him

to get past in four years. And so it’s very important, I think, for him to make sure that

at least Purdue wins his election. Yeah.

What are you guys? Can I ask another question? What do you think is going to happen with? So

Trump is trying to make his case. But no one’s listening. Twitter keeps putting up his fraudulent,

you know, this is disputed claims, disputed claims thing. And he’s been pushing Newsmax and

OANN. Do you think those become viable and real kind of media businesses now? And are they actually

going to steal an audience away from Fox News? 100%? It’s already happened. It’s just the

increasing fragmentation of media, right? Cable networks don’t pick them up, do they?

The cable companies? I’ve seen I’ve seen Newsmax Newsmax

My theory is this entire twisted, like crazy, right? All right. Mania just fades into oblivion.

And the Republican Party reinvents itself. No, no, because they can’t win. They can’t

win, David. They can’t win with this brand. They did. They did win. They did. And they

will not in the future because they just lost. The Republicans won like 10 or 12 seats in the

House. They’ve almost got the majority back in the House. They almost certainly will win back

the House and retire Nancy Pelosi in two years during the midterm election. I’ll put money on

that right now. They held the Senate local elections. They held the Senate presidency

again with this strategy. You think we can win with the demographic shift with Trump in 2024?

Really? Yeah. You want to go back to that level of crazy?

People don’t want the they don’t want the crazy, but this idea that the issue set that Trump ran

on and won on is dead. I don’t I don’t agree with that. Yeah, those issues are still there.

You’ll have a better branded face and a standard bearer for those issues. And if you say it in a

less crazy way, and you’re generally less crazy, I think that it will resonate with a lot more people

than have already proven that it resonates with. It already resonates with 70 million. Could it

resonate with 75? And could they overtake the White House? It’s not inconceivable.

So I think I think we can’t all of a sudden say this is signed, sealed and delivered. It’s a

fait accompli. And all of a sudden, it’s just Democrats the rest of the way. David’s right,

the down ballot results for the Democrats were not good. And it’s a sign that moderate

centrism is the only winning strategy. If you really have a strategy where it’s like,

I really want to win. And not just me, but my party and generations of people after me,

you have to run a centrist campaign, which is why they’re retiring the AOC Elizabeth Warren

Bernie bro contingent, right? So well, yeah, there’s a house member group of crazy,

right? There was a there was a democratic house member, I think, Elizabeth Spanberger,

who almost lost her seat, I think in a like a Virginia, like kind of a swing Virginia district,

there was a big call of the Democratic House caucus. And she was just laying into Pelosi and

the leadership there. Because she was basically saying, don’t ever mention defund the police

again. You know, if you want me to win my, my swing district next time, do not mention this

ever again. And she was just, this was all in the Washington Post, you know, they, the call was

leaked by about a dozen different press out outlets, which tells you, there was a lot of unhappiness

among the house members who almost lost their seat because of these like radical ideas.

The other the other thing is, and you know, unless all of a sudden, the folks that are in their 20s

and 30s are radically different than many, many generations before them. The reality is that they

will as they get older and wealthier, generally speaking, get more conservative, and we are about

to go through over the next 20 years, $30 trillion of wealth transfer. And so, you know, I mean,

you can wear a Segway, but buttons on buttons on flannel. But at the end of the day, when you’re,

you know, mom and dad pass, pass away, and all of a sudden, you know, you have 45678 million bucks,

and you have to think about your children and your children’s children. I tend to think people

generally do very predictably, get more conservative. And so again, another reason why

you can’t count on a staid interpretation of progressivism, it there will be progressivism,

I think it just will be a different form of policy. And it’ll just be more moderate and

centrist and it’ll be normal. Which is a perfect segue to the New York Times story that came out

on the Friday after Thanksgiving, November 27, the rich kids who want to tear down capitalism,

socialist minded millennials, millennial heirs are trying to live their values by getting rid of their

money. Lately, Sam Jacobs, and I’ll read just a little bit of it has been having a lot of

conversations with his family’s lawyers. He’s trying to gain access to his trust of 30 his

$30 million trust fund at 25. He’s hit the age where many heirs can blow their money on harebrained

businesses or stable of sports cards. He doesn’t want to do that. But by wealth management standards,

his plans are just as bad. He wants to give it all away. I want to build a world where someone

like me a young person who controls 10s of millions of dollars as possible. Socialist

college, Mr. Jacobs sees his family’s extreme plutocratic wealth as both a moral and economic

failure. His parents will be very proud of first of all, Sam Jacobs sounds like an idiot,

and he shouldn’t have any money. So hopefully he gets his wish. Why did his parents give him $30

million? This trust fund should be like given to somebody who deserves it. Like, yeah, but but

what what Sam what Sam what Sam Jacobs wants doesn’t mean that Sam Jacobs gets to decide for

everybody else. And just because that he wants to live in a communist country, he can go and find

one. And the reality is like, you know, we just talked about alpha fold. Well, guess what, you

know, there’s four of us on this on this podcast today, that over the next 20 or 30 years are more

than likely going to invest hundreds of millions of dollars in protein design. And I don’t do that

with any sense of shame. And I’m glad that Stuart Butterfield made me, you know, a lot of money,

because it’s going to go go back into the world in positive ways. And, you know, maybe if my

children are taught properly, they’ll be able to take a small piece of that. And they’ll decide

that, you know, there’s something else that’s important to them. But the reality is that

everybody should be allowed to make their own decisions. And I don’t want somebody like him,

especially a 25 year old dipshit, telling me or my kids who even though they’re, you know,

under the age of 15, are probably smarter than him what to do. David, when you read this article,

if you did read it, what were your thoughts? And especially in regards to parenting and thinking

about our own kids? Because I started thinking about like, Oh, my God, what if one of my

daughters wants to take her trust fund and just throw it into the wind? I really don’t want

to comment. Wait, hold on. I just want to say one more thing. The part that’s completely

reasonable and that I respect is this, this 25 year old seems to have come to a decision.

What I find completely unreasonable, and, you know, just completely lathered with insecurity

is his need to then project it and say it has to be true for everybody else as well.

And the grand arcing statements of how it should never be just completely portrays,

you know, what we’ve learned in how society functionally works. Like if you want democracy,

the only sort of economic philosophy that’s been partnered with, with democracy to work well as

capitalism. And so if you want to change one, you’re going to have to change the other.

And just the fact that, you know, with all of his education, the hundreds of millions of dollars,

you know, didn’t get a course in civics to understand that is kind of sad.

I just before you go, David, I have to read one comment, because it’s so deranged,

that it almost seems like it was part of a script to like some billions or secession.

heirs whose wealth have come from specific sources sometimes use that history to guide

their giving. That’s the New York Times saying that Pierce de la Hunt, a 32 year old socialist,

anarchist, Marxist, communist, or all of the above, has a trust fund that was financed by

their former stepfather’s outlet mall empire. When I and this is Mr. Mr. I’m sorry, MX,

I’ve never seen that before. De la Hunt. How do you pronounce Max Hunt? How do you pronounce MX?

MX de la Hunt takes non gendered pronouns. Has anybody seen MX? I’ve never seen that.

That was the first time. Yeah.

That’s the first for me. So I guess so you don’t have to say Mr. or miss or miss.

It’s like Latinx where you just can group a bunch of people into one thing. I got it.

This is what MX de la Hunt says. I’m just trying to figure out how it’s pronounced.

Maxis Hunt de la Hunt.

Taking a shot. Jason, you’re not showing respect for his pronouns.

I don’t want to get canceled. It just is kind of hard to pronounce MX.

I don’t mean to laugh, but I need somebody to tell me how to pronounce

But this is the quote that is so insane. When I think about outlet malls, and I think this is

what we all think about when we think about outlet malls. When I think about outlet malls,

I think about intersectional oppression. What’s the first thing that comes to mind,

Freeberg, when you think of an outlet mall? Oh, certainly it’s intersectional oppression

or a subway. Look, can I just point out like the New York Times has become

a little bit sensationalist. If you were to ask statistically what percentage of people that are

inheriting wealth are going to be stupid like this, the answer would probably be pretty low.

But they find the one or two characters like this, and they build the story around them.

And then people extrapolate that as if that is the persona of the entire population of people

that are going to inherit some degree of wealth. And that becomes a story. And I’m just so sick

of it. I don’t read the New York Times anymore. And look, I love the New York Times. I would read

it every single day. I still have it on my phone. I still pay for my subscription. But I’m so sick

of the narrative being written by the author’s objective. And then they go and find one or two

facts that meet that narrative. And rather than speaking about it statistically and saying we

surveyed 100 people that were wealthy, this is how many. And if it was 60% of them saying,

I’m going to go give away all my wealth and do crazy shit. Great. That’s the story. But picking

an individual and building the narrative around that individual as if that is the

number David, but David, and that’s the point. Like what they do is they don’t even talk about

people who want to give their money away. What they do is they create these caricatures around

this like, judgment, judgment, it’s it’s all about this like judgment. It’s like,

for example, I am it’s virtue. It’s like I am holier than everybody else because of these

decisions that I made. And I just find it so offensive. Now, here’s Can I just tell you,

I had my physical last week, and I have a doctor in LA who’s superb. And he’s he’s in many ways

sort of a philosopher king to me. He’s been incredibly important in my life. And, you know,

I talked to Regis, I talked to his name, his name is Christian Renna at lifespan medicine. But

anyways, and here’s what you’re and I talked to Chris about raising kids. And Chris has seen,

you know, 1000s of people over the course of his, you know, journey as a primary care physician,

and he’s seen the kids of these folks and etc. And, you know, he boiled it down to me. It’s like,

you know, your job as a parent is to make sure that your children have incredible tools,

married with incredible habits. And so some of these things are very simple, like food,

and you know how to eat and self care and exercise. But some of these things are really important,

which is a worldview, empathy, and he uses this word, which is called awareness. And awareness

is this idea that you understand the world around you. And that’s an incredibly difficult

thing for parents to be able to teach their kids. But it seems like if you could give them that,

that’s independent of anything other than time and care, right? It doesn’t matter whether you’re

rich or you’re poor, it doesn’t really matter whether you’re black or you’re white, you can

really teach the concept of awareness and empathy. And then the other thing that he taught me was,

you know, there’s a really big difference between folks like you meet meaning guys like me,

who grew up poor, and who are focused on the generation of money, right, meaning making money.

And some of you make it some of you don’t, but you’re living in this existential threat that

you feel is hanging over you. And so you go out and you make it and a lot of it is driven by

this insecurity you’ve had since you were young. But make no mistake, your children’s lives is

harder than yours. And it’s about the utilization of money. And whether they want to give it away,

or whether they want to use it, you have a responsibility to teach them whether you’re

giving them $1, $1 million, or $1 billion. And this is where I think somewhere along the way,

these kids as parents, you know, may or may not have done the best. Maybe they did the best they

could. But somewhere along the way, these gaps are are obvious, at least in the telling of the

article. And this is where I go back to, if you’re really going to talk about something like this,

which actually is quite important, because again, we’re going to go through the most enormous wealth

transfer in the history of the world in the next 20 years $30 trillion that could so talk about

that if if enough people took their inheritance and decided to eradicate student debt, it would

be 3% of what’s going to be inherited over the next 20 years. Think about it. So obviously,

you can do some incredible things. But it’s not framed in the right way. It doesn’t promote the

right kind of discussion. And all it is is salacious reporting that makes these kids look

like caricatures. And by the way, remember that money today is invested somewhere. So to pull that

3% out would have a kind of cripple kind of rippling and kind of probably deleterious effect

on on lower No, no, forget about that. It’s factories family. But this is this is my point

also is I think that there’s a responsibility to the stewards of capital, right? They may be you

can call them wealthy all you want, but they really are the people that pull the strings

are where money’s moving. And there’s, I think, you know, to your point, kind of a degree of

responsibility that inevitably has to kind of sit with this, this group.

Here’s the problem with it is, if they just want to give their money away to a charity that they

thought was worthy, and they’ve been they were willing to live like, you know, monks or something

and not need money, that’d be fine. You know, we could respect that. But the reason why they’re in

such a hurry to get rid of this wealth is because they feel like money itself is ill gotten that

wealth itself is, is by definition, ill gotten, it must have come from at the expense of somebody

else, right? You only could have gotten that wealth by ripping people off. And that is the

thing that that’s the idea that’s really pernicious about this sort of like socialism movement,

is they don’t really understand that the way capitalism works, you only get rich by selling

something to somebody that they want, that makes their life better, right? I mean, all of us are

engaged in the creation of new technologies and new products. And that makes the world better.

And people are willing to pay for that. And that’s what creates value. And, and that’s what creates

wealth. And it’s really just kind of sad that people, you know, it goes beyond this article

on these trust fund kids, but this whole condemnation of capitalism and this attack on

any, you know, on billionaires or whatever. The problem with it is it doesn’t recognize the way

that value is created for everybody. Can I give you a quote from Walter Williams,

who just passed away, who’s a very famous economist. Prior to capitalism, the way people

amassed great wealth was by looting, plundering and enslaving their fellow man capitalism made

it possible to become wealthy by serving your fellow man. And that’s really true. And some

are along the way, folks, folks have lost the script and have all of a sudden gone back to pre

historic capitalist times. And I think that we don’t have enough good examples

of constructive capitalism that prove that this is not a bad word.

Yeah. Yeah, exactly. Yeah. I love the Walter Williams quote. Just to give another example,

Jeff Bezos just gave $10 billion to climate change.

And you know what? Teddy, what’s the kid’s name? Teddy Schaefer or something like that. The

journalist has been writing him on Twitter. I think he works for Vox or something like

they have basically been attacking Bezos since he made the announcement that he hasn’t done enough.

And it’s like $10 billion is the largest contribution ever made to a single cause. I

mean, obviously, Bill Gates, how did he do that? Right. And how did he do that? Because he created

Amazon, which has created enormous value for all of us. Imagine if one of these kids in the article,

instead of just giving their money away, by the way, it looks like there’s a bunch of organizations

that have sprung up to scam these kids out of their trust fund. It’s sort of, you know,

a fool and their money are soon parted. There’s a whole bunch of scam artists who are trying to

scam these kids. But yeah, I mean, they’re definitely getting scammed. But imagine if

instead of just getting scammed out of their money, they were to use it to create a business

that created a new product or technology that serve people, then maybe they could turn that

30 million into 10 billion like Bezos did. And if they lost it, they would have done it in the

pursuit of something really grand. And so nobody would actually- Instead of virtue signaling.

Instead of virtue signaling on the New York Times. Yeah, like these guys were so glad to be in the

New York Times to dunk on capitalists and literally dunk on their own parents. Think about that. You

hate your parents so much, you have to go to the New York Times and tell them how much you hate

them. I mean, I don’t know how this changes- Well, by the way, speaking of virtue signaling

in the New York Times, can we talk about the New York Times writing that hit piece on Coinbase?

All right. I mean, if you want to go there, I mean, this is the third rail of the podcast,

but we’ve been talking about Brian Armstrong. Just to set the table here,

Brian Armstrong wrote a memo. He said, no politics at work-

By the way, Jekyll, I just posted an image for Nick to put up here just to-

Don’t tell me it’s a code 13 at Saks again. No, this is not a code 13. It’s to reinforce

your point about the virtue of capitalism. This kind of dates back to, these are three images,

three charts from the year 1500 to today. Energy use has grown 115 times.

Well, so this is basically a measure of population consumption and production, right? And so

the capitalist incentive has driven the ability, while population has grown 14x over the last 500

years, it’s driven a nearly 10x increment in what is available for humans to consume

per capita during that period of time. I mean, think about that. That was driven entirely by

industry. And so industry has enabled, and production has increased by 240x. So we have

a surplus of goods on planet Earth and a surplus of access to goods because of the capitalist

incentive over the last 500 years. And whose right is it to say that that was wrong?

And all of the people that are employed by it and live within that mechanism-

And who are no longer living in poverty, who are no longer slaves.

All of a sudden, 50,000 people can virtue signal because they’re sitting in their warm

homes in America telling everybody else to fuck off. I mean, I find it kind of a joke. I mean,

I would like you to go and live where I was supposed to live before I emigrated.

Right. Sri Lanka.

No heater, no roof, no food, et cetera.

Yeah, that’s what these kids should do. They should go to North Korea.

Come to Sri Lanka, I can show you. You go to an outhouse, okay? You sit there,

you squat to go to the bathroom, okay? There’s no fucking three-ply bamboo, press-free toilet

paper to deal with. You literally clean yourself with your hand. You brush your teeth with coal.

I remember we used to brush our teeth with fucking coal, okay? We have a well for water.

And so you have all these people in these situations where all we wanted

was to just give a chance to run the race. And the people that were born with a silver

spoon in their mouth who had the chance to run the race turns around and tells guys like me,

no, you can’t, and it fucking infuriates me.

Yeah, I want to blow up the racetrack, by the way. I want to just get rid of the entire-

I mean, honestly, fuck you.

It’s a serious fuck you to these. They profited and they benefited from democracy and capitalism,

and now they want to revert back to a system where everybody who’s in that system-

They don’t understand-

Is trying to get into this system.

They don’t understand what feudalism is because there are so many layers removed through their

fucking filtered lenses and country clubs and bullshit vacations and all this crap

that they have no idea what it’s like. And I’m telling you,

I am first generation of having escaped that shit, and I don’t want anything to do with it.

But the point is capitalism has allowed not just the US but many other countries to change their

course in life. Stephen Pigners, for all of the controversy he creates, his books on

what humans have really achieved during this great era of capitalism and industrialism and

how we’ve changed our course on planet Earth, improved human health, improved longevity,

improved access to calories, improved access to shelter, to medicine.

It’s all because of an incentive, a market-based incentive system.

And it is very, very powerful. It is the most powerful force we know as a species,

and it’s allowed this incredible acceleration, exponential acceleration of possibility

for our species. Also from the article, a great quote, Elizabeth Baldwin,

a 34-year-old democratic socialist from Cambridge, Massachusetts.

She plans to keep enough of her inheritance to buy an apartment and raise a family enjoying

the sort of pleasant middle-class existence denied to many people of color in the United States.

What does, I mean, that’s just, I don’t know. I just, I don’t see, let’s just move on.

Let’s talk about Brian Armstrong.

It’s so dumb.

They see the world in a zero-sum way where, you know, anything they have means that somebody else

must have, it must have been taken away from somebody else. They don’t really understand

the way that value is created by an exchange and by people creating new things.

And, you know, and that’s what technology is all about, you know, it’s creating new things.

I mean, there was a time when everybody didn’t have access to clean water. Now we

take that for granted. There’s a time when everybody didn’t have access to affordable

food and time and electricity.

And by the way, look at how we started.

All of this is driven by capitalism.

And look at how we started the conversation today. AlphaFold, I think, is the realization

of one of the greatest capitalist enterprises in history, if not the greatest, you know, alphabet.

And they’re still getting started.

And the output of that is going to be an incredible new tool

for drug discovery that is going to extend human lifespan in an incredible way.

There was a window of time where folks who are really, really good at bitching and complaining

had a window of opportunity to bitch and complain.

And what happened was they were not able to seize power.

And then just in the last few months, literally, I think we are nailing that coffin shut.

Because as you said, David, you’re going to have to all of a sudden, like,

look at companies like Google and look at things like AlphaFold and reject them.

And I don’t know how people do because everyone will need something that that company will create

now and that AlphaFold will be responsible for.

We are all going to need a vaccine.

These are all coming from for-profit companies that thrived on top of R&D.

All of it was funded by past drug profits from other things.

And so, we’re going to have to really look at ourselves in the mirror and say,

did we not want that?

Did we want to just die on the street to prove a point?

And I don’t think anybody actually wants that.

I mean, what is the ultimate criticism of Amazon?

They made iPhone chargers $5 instead of being $40.

You can’t have your cake and eat it too.

You can’t actually complain about Amazon on the one hand,

complain about no action on climate change on the other,

complain about this, complain about that, complain about the other thing,

then you’re just a fucking whiner.

And nobody wants a whiner around because they’re not additive.

They’re not useful.

You don’t learn anything from a whiner.

All right.

So, looking at the New York Times versus Coinbase, the foul New York Times fake news.

Sorry, I’m just channeling Trump there.


Foul New York Times fake news.

Well, talk about whining.

This is more virtue signaling whining by the New York Times.

And actually, look, this was clearly a hit piece because they don’t like Brian Armstrong’s

decision to make Coinbase an apolitical workplace.

If any workplace has chosen to be political, it’s the New York Times.

There’s a lot of examples of that.

They ran Barry Weiss out of there.

They ran Barry Weiss out of the newsroom.

I mean, these are the most-

They ran the editor page out.

That’s right.

I mean, they ran James Bennett out of there for publishing an op-ed by Tom Cotton.

Remember that?

He got kicked out.

He got forced to resign because he published one op-ed by a Republican senator.


This is the most closed-minded group, the most closed-minded political workplace.

And here they are lecturing a Silicon Valley company that, in their view, isn’t tolerant


I mean, it’s ridiculous.

And it was obvious that it was a hit piece.

The examples in the article were years old.

They weren’t even reported to HR as violations at the time.

So it’s people cooking up things that weren’t reported as problems at the time.

But the really interesting thing about the story, I think, is the way Coinbase reacted

to it by preemptively announcing that it was coming, which really made the New York Times

reporters really irate.

You know, they called it extremely unprofessional.

All of the reporters were upset, and they threatened that they would no longer—the

journalist said, if you guys are going to front-run our stories, we are not going to

call you when we have a story.

And I responded to that, and I was like, are you serious?

Like, you’re literally going to lose what little integrity you have left about fact

checking because somebody wrote a preemptive blog post about a story which was a hit piece?

I’ll say this about Brian Armstrong.

I have a lot of respect for him for making a stand.

I think every CEO has that, right?

And I’m glad that, at the end of the day, the employees at Coinbase were given a humane

way of making a decision to be on the same page with him or not.

I will also say that I thought that essay was not well-written, and that, given the

chance, I could have rewritten that for him in a much better way.

I maintained this the whole time.

But I think he’s in the right here.

Wrap it up, David.

Tell us what you think.

Well, okay, that’s interesting that Chamath is – it’s interesting to hear your support

for Brian.

So, we’ve talked about – this has become a recurring topic on the pod.

But anyway, I think the important thing is the way that I think the tech community fought

back against this hit piece.

And it was, like you said, Jason, the front-running of the story.

Somebody – a WAG on Twitter had a great comment saying – basically said, you know,

I try to walk up – I agree with the New York Times on this.

I try to walk up to somebody and kick them in the nuts, and they covered their groin.

You know, how dare they?

You know, how unprofessional of them.

It was a slow-motion kick in the nuts.

Yeah, exactly.

It’s coming Sunday.

It’s Wednesday.

But on Sunday, we’re kicking you on the nuts.

So, yeah, the New York Times – the Coinbase just covered his groin so the New York Times

couldn’t kick him in the nuts.

And of course, the reporters all went hysterical about that.

But it was a really brilliant PR tactic by Coinbase because what it did is it almost,

like, released a spike protein.

You know, by sort of pre-announcing the New York Times story, it created this spike protein

that trained the immune system of Silicon Valley to be ready for this pathogenic New

York Times story.

And the story just really fell flat.

It didn’t go anywhere.

Yeah, it was – and they did the same thing with the Away CEO.

She was too hard on people in Slack.

All of these stories, to go full circle, involve some leak from a Slack room.

So if you’re a CEO or you’re managing anybody, don’t have any difficult or legal issues

discussed on Slack.

Go for a walk with somebody.

Talk to them face-to-face because you’re going to get destroyed.

All right.

Listen, everybody.

This has been another amazing episode.

We have 10 more stories we wanted to get to that we weren’t able to get to.

But while we were doing this, I asked my crack team – sorry, at the syndicate.


What was that?

To set up slash all in.

So I’m not saying we’re doing a syndicate.

Yes, we are.

We’re going to figure out how to do something.

We’re going to do something to let the people who listen invest alongside us.

We’re going to figure it out in 2021 at some point.

But you have to write a review on iTunes.

No, you just got to sign up.

Just got to sign up at slash all in.

If we do a folding protein company or a unicorn in the ISA space,

maybe everybody who listens to the all-in podcast gets to wet their beak for the Rain

Van Davis sack.

Wet the beak.

Wet the beak.

Wet your beak.

Wet the beak.

Wet your beak.

Wet your beak.

We need to get merch.

I can’t wet my beak is like the merch.

The t-shirt guy that listens to us, we love you.

There’s a code 13, obviously.

But wet your beak or wet the beak.

We have to figure out which one’s better.

I think we have a new tagline for the pod.

Wet your beak.

Wet your beak.

Wet your beak and code 13.

These are great merch opportunities for anybody who wants to go do merch.

You can go do merch on your own.

We don’t care.

We’re not in the merch business.

Put it up on your own website.

Love you, besties.

Love you, besties.

So for Bestie Rain Man, the dictator Chamath Palihapitiya and the queen of quinoa himself,

Metro Mile founder, spacker, piper, laying pipe and spacks everywhere.

I’m Jason Kalaganis for the besties.

We’ll see you next time, which could be in a week or a month.

Who knows?

On the all-in podcast.

Love you, besties.