All-In with Chamath, Jason, Sacks & Friedberg - E45: Theranos & VC fraud risks, China bans video games, Texas SB8, Apple app store, CA fires, Rogan

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

Hold on, let’s see if we can get Sax on the line.

Alright guys, I guess Sax is blowing it off because he’s too busy with his app.

No, fuck Sax.

We’ll start without Sax.

Let’s start.

We’ll start without Sax.




Hey everybody, hey everybody, welcome to the All In Podcast.

With us today, the queen of quinoa on fire in California, which also happens to be on

fire sadly, and the dictator Chamath Palihapitiya.

David Sax will not be joining us today.

He’s too busy with his All In app.

Oh, I’m sorry.

It’s actually Call In.

He put a C in front of it.

No, no, no.

Before he co-opted the All In podcast.

It’s Callin.



His Callin app.

It’s free.

But Sax will be, if you’re a Sax stan, I think Sax is.

No, we’ve done one show without Freeberg.

Now we’re doing one without Sax.

Yeah, this will be the Sax free episode.

It is what it is.

Sax free episode.


So we got a lot on the dance floor.

I’m here.

I’m here.

I’m here.

Oh, look who joined.

Look who joined.

I’m all too eager to take credit for Call In on Twitter, so don’t pretend like you’re

not part of it now.

The All In app.

Oh, I’m sorry.

I meant Call In app.

The All In app.

I hope Call In is worth a trillion dollars.


I can’t believe it.

This guy is complaining that I’m leveraging the pod.

You know, we should have done the Adam Neumann style licensing of the term All In to Sax

and gotten paid like seven million dollars in equity for him using our name.

Oh my God.

I gave you guys so many shout outs, you know, during the whole promotion.

Oh, shout outs.

By the way, no, he did.

Because I listened to his interview with Emily Chang and I listened to his thing with Axios

with Dan Premack.

Oh, did he?

He’s very, David had a very good.

It was magnanimous.

Presentation and then he was really magnanimous and kind.

So thanks, Saxy Poop.

Oh, really?

And I gave so much credit to J-Cal.

I said that if it wasn’t for J-Cal, I never would have done this whole podcasting thing

because it was too hard.

I never would have figured it out.

And then you gave me a shout out because like of organizing it so that we could all be friends


I like that.

I appreciate that.

Very nice.

I actually haven’t listened to it, but give us a, for those who don’t know, David Sax

has created a podcasting slash casual audio app.

It’s called Call In.

It’s available for download for iOS, just coming out of private beta.

My understanding is you’re at somewhere around 10,000 folks.


I mean, there’s a lot of signups yesterday.

I haven’t got all the latest numbers yet, but yeah, no, it’s taking off.

All the reviews of it have been sort of rave reviews.

People are really excited about it.


But yeah, look, the concept is we’re combining social audio with podcasting.

We call it social podcasting.

You’ve seen these apps where people create a room and they have these many to many conversations.

They tend to be ephemeral.

No one really records or saves them.

And the quality of the conversation, it’s a little bit chaotic, but we’ve taken that

concept and put it in the service of creators who can now essentially like record their

pod in front of a live studio audience.

They can bring up the, we call them callers.

They can bring up people from the audience one by one to ask their questions.

It’s much more organized and structured.

It’s not a free for all to try and grab the mic.

And then once you record the episode, you can then go into post-production in the app.

You can edit the transcript in order to edit the episode, and then you publish it and you

can share it.

Is it like, so it’s basically like only fans, but audio.

It’s only fans, but for people who don’t look good on camera.

Do you still jerk off at the end?



Family show.

Family show.

Come on.

I do.

I do when this becomes a unicorn.








No, not delete!

It’s my birthday today, God damn it.

All right.

Happy birthday, Chamath.

Thank you.

We’re going around the horn here.

Everybody’s patting themselves on the back.

Let’s all take a moment to say what we like about Chamath.



Let’s get back to the episode.

That was quick.

I was thinking about what birthday present do I get for Chamath?

And then I was like, gee, what do you get for the dictator who has everything?

I don’t know.

What does Kim Jong-un need?


Hey, guys, wait a second.

What did they get MBS for his birthday?


Hey, we don’t know.

Well, actually, I’ll tell you.


Very rare wine.

Very rare wine.

Very rare wine.

There’s actually an answer to that question.

And apparently, Madeline Albright once got Kim Jong-un a basketball signed by Michael

Jordan for his birthday.



Apparently, that’s what you get a dictator.


You get them access to people they wouldn’t normally have or a bone saw.

A very, very, very old French Burgundy.

Ideally white, but the white doesn’t hold up as well.

But if you go back, I mean, I wonder if you could drink.

Like yesterday, I had the two the two fills, Deutsch and Muth at my house.

And we had we drank nineteen ninety six Salon Clos de Mesnil.

No, sorry.

Nineteen ninety seven Salon Clos de Mesnil.

And then we drank a bottle of nineteen ninety six Paul Roger Sir Winston Churchill champagne.


Only champagne.

It’s fabulous.

We could also get you some plenonium plenonium if you want to.

No, guys, guys, I don’t want to take out some enemies.

I would like you to come and play poker next Thursday, you fuckers.

And then I was just bring a bottle of bring a really nice bottle of wine or champagne.

We’ll drink it.

That’s fine.

Oh, my God.

I got cases of terrible one.

I’m going to bring him.

No, you asshole.

Did you hear what this fucker did?

Oh, my God.

This piece of shit showed up last week.

And he’s like, come on through these fantastic bottles.

And I looked at this like nineteen eighty five came and said, I’m like, that’s not a good year.

I’ve never heard in the right in the garbage.

Five is right in the garbage.

It gets better.

It gets better.

He has two bottles.

And so he gives them to Joshua and Joshua looks at them.

And Joshua doesn’t know what to think.

And he looks at me.

I’m like, just like, you know.

And so Josh was like, wow, David, thanks, Friedberg.

This is incredible.

I appreciate it.

And then Friedberg does the fucking most brutal thing.

Open it.

Open it.

Let’s just get Josh was so appalled.

He opened it and poured it on.

I threw it out.

I took it right to the garden.

No, he said, where did you find this?

He goes, oh, it was in my basement in the hot, temperate, humid, fucking San Francisco weather for ten years.

Yeah, I didn’t know.

I moved, you know, I moved like two weeks ago and I went to the basement, like get all my boxes.

And I’m like, I’ve got like hundreds of bottles of wine that I have not seen in years.

And I started not temperature controlled furnace.

They weren’t lying flat.

I’m like, these are all like they’re all core.

They’re all they’re all.

And there’s like stuff in the 80s, 90s.


So me a Josh took them and poured them over the arugula salad.

He didn’t want to ruin the arugula.

No, he didn’t.

The arugula would ruin the fucking vegetables and herbs in the garden.

He basically cleaned the drain.

I’m going to burn them on Chabot’s windshield.

Do not bring any more wine to my house.

Oh, my God.

I’m bringing wine for your dog.

If your dog’s coming back with Nat.

My dogs are coming back today.

Yeah, they’re flying back.

All I have to say about that game is thank God.

Mr. Beast has 100 million followers on YouTube.

Rest RIP, Mr. Beast.

All right.

You know, by the way, I want to say give a shout out.

Mr. Beast is fucking incredible.

He’s a great.

What a great.

What an incredible entrepreneur.

What a great human being.


I am.

I mean, for 23 years old to be that sophisticated.

Twenty three.

Twenty three.

This guy.

I thought he was guy.

This guy is clearly on track to being an enormous figure in culture.

Oh, he’s going to be a fucking multi multi billionaire.

He is determined, hardworking, smart, kind, good, ambitious, clever, ambitious.



And his ideas.

He’s creative.

And he’s just a good human.

Mr. Beast was one of the most impressive people I’ve met in a really, really, really long


I mean, he and I had been texting for a long time on Twitter and then and then just on


But then to finally meet him and we had talked on the phone and we had zoomed before, I’d

never met him in prison.

But what an incredible.

Oh, why don’t we have him as the best guest on the pod?

He totally like he totally fit in with the group, too.

He was great.

Just funny.

All we should do is we should all round everybody up.

We should fly to to Greenville.

We should surprise him.



Do a little game at his.

Well, here’s an idea.

No, we could do is we could tweak Phil Hellmuth and just have a game and replace Phil in the

game with him as our new bestie.

Oh, my God.

That’s great.

Let’s replace.

Let’s replace the mute with Mr. Beast.

Replace the mute with Mr. Beast.

Replace the mute with Mr. Beast.

Kind of like a better bestie in many ways.

OK, listen.

By the way, are we skipping next week to record at the symposium on Monday or are we going

to do next week and then also do Monday?


Double down.


Double down.

Yeah, let’s keep it.

Let’s double down.

All right.


We have a lot of shit to cover.


Good notification.

We’re doing our first all together recording of the all in pod a week from Monday.


At the TPB symposium.

No reason to.

The production board.

The production board.

No reason to publicize it.

But I’m excited because it’s a closed event.

What is the purpose of the event?

I just get together a bunch of scientists, investors, entrepreneurs and CEOs.

And it’s a day of science talks mostly and then some business talks on the next day.

But we’re having a really fun event the night before with poker.

Our friends are all coming to play poker and we’re going to record.

I’m coming for the science day.

I’m there for the science day.

I’m staying for the science day too.

I want to learn.

But the poker night is going to have poker and we’re going to record the all in pod live

or together in person for the first time.

First time.

Yeah, that should be really cool.

And for those of you wondering, you know, we’re going to do our own all in summit, which

will be probably like 100 or 200 iconoclastic people.

And we’re going to probably do that in the first quarter or second quarter of next year

post pandemic.

We got to choose a date.

You know, my people are going crazy because you won’t give them a date.

I still think we should do it in.

Here we go.

In Rome.



If dictator wants Italy, Rome.

Sax wants Miami.

I’m telling you guys their hotel in Miami is the sickest hotel in the world.

And I’ll tell you why.

The people you have never seen these people ever.

These people are amazing.



In Rome.

They are great.

It attracts the hottest people.

I mean, it’s fucking right.

We’re not doing it based on aesthetics.

We’re doing it on ideas.


It’s not just aesthetics.

Wherever you are.

People are going to go to Rome.

You know, Miami.

The good thing about Miami is we know it’ll be open no matter what.


You know, we can’t count.

We can host our own super spreader event.


No, I mean, we’re a host.

The, uh, the code conference, Kara Swisher’s conferences at the end of the

month and sky and Brooke and I are hosting our poker again.

And I was like, is there any way this conference is going to occur?

And if it does occur, what happens if they’re, I mean, obviously

everybody’s going to be vaxxed.

Everybody’s going to be Mac.


I don’t know if they’re going to do testing.

You think everyone should be mass at the conference?

They’re going to be, unless it’s, well, they’re going to be because it’s

indoors and there’s a breakout event amongst the vaccinated, which can

happen between Delta and Zeta two.

You’re, uh, you’re, you’re going to be forced.

What do you think sacks?

Well, I just think, how do you effectively have a meeting with people

when everyone indoors, when everyone’s wearing a mask?

I just think that’s, and by the way, I mean, there’s so much


Indoors, not during the dinner and stuff.

Look, I mean, I think for poker, but we are testing everyone on

entry all three days.


That makes sense to me.


We do a rapid test at the door.

And so, but then once you’ve done the test and someone’s negative,

why would you need a mask?

Once you go in?

I don’t know.

The stupidest thing is they do stuff like make you wear the mask, but

then take it off for dinner.

Like what you, you can’t get COVID when your mouth is full.

I mean, how does that work?

It makes no sense.

Put your mask on.

Let’s do risk assessment here.

And then take it off when you sit down three feet away.

It’s security theater.

Well, let’s do it.

Let’s do risk assessment.

None of us would go to an indoor event if it wasn’t fully vaxed.


Would anybody attend an indoor event of this nature?

Hundreds of people.

If they didn’t have the VAX requirement.

I would.


I don’t.

You would.

Well, I mean, what I would care about is I wouldn’t attend it.

If people weren’t all being tested on entrance.


Well, I’m trying to do.

The VAX doesn’t seem to eliminate.


So for you to go to an event, you would have to be vaxed and tested that


Morning of rapid test.


Look, I mean, I think in general, everyone’s kind of standard.

It’s like, make sure VAX, because it reduces the likelihood of

transmission, but still like, it’s not stopping transmission.


I’d rather, what I care more about is, is point of entry testing,

which is what we’re doing at our symposium.

I just want everyone to get tested upon entry.

What would you do?

Let’s talk about something important.


Let’s move on.

All right.

Listen, I think the most interesting thing going on in our industry

this week is Elizabeth Holmes.

His trial has begun.

Jury selection started this week.

And it’s going to cover 12 counts of fraud and conspiracy to commit

wire fraud over false claims.

She made about the blood test results from Theranos.

They have now selected a jury of 12 Northern California residents

consisting of seven men and five women.

It took two days to question around a hundred potential jurors about

their answers to a 28-page questionnaire that included news outlets

they read, what news outlets they read, if they knew any witnesses,

and if they had any negative medical experiences.

And it was complicated to get these because it’s impossible to not

know about it.

And now it seems the interesting thing is Elizabeth Holmes,

who worked on this company for close to two decades and was involved

in this fraud from start to finish, is now taking the position that

she was under the control of her business partner, Sonny Balwani,

and that he had been abusing her and controlling her.

What are your thoughts on?

And so he’s being tried separately, by the way.

They’re going to be tried in sequential order.

So whenever this trial ends, then he gets to get tried.

What are your thoughts on if she will be convicted

and her defense strategy?

I think this is less about the specific evidence against her,

and it’s much more right now about the whole Silicon Valley

fake it before you make it approach to entrepreneurship.

We all hear this from all the entrepreneurial advisors

and stories of experience and stories of success,

that in order to achieve success as an entrepreneur,

you really have to oversell and promise and create an incredible narrative

about where your business is headed.

And in many cases, that gets ahead of you.

Now, the public, the general public that doesn’t operate within Silicon Valley

with as much breadth as we do, I think they hear the stories

of the Adam Neumann’s and we work in the collapse and Elizabeth Holmes

and this Trevor Milton guy and Nicola.

But there’s 1000s of these other sorts of smaller stories

where VC rolls his eyes where the first board meeting

after raising money is like, wait a second,

we’re actually going to be half our forecast when we raise money,

or the numbers are going to be way below

or the product doesn’t actually work as we presented it.

Sorry, I don’t think I’ve ever funded a company

where that hasn’t been the case.

Exactly. And so I think that’s the big question, right?

Does this trial kind of indict the way Silicon Valley operates

and the storytelling models and the narrative models,

there are examples of these people getting a little too far ahead of their skis

and maybe you can argue, they could perceive something to be non fraudulent

while other people can kind of perceive it to be fraudulent.

But don’t we see this kind of broadly in Silicon Valley

and doesn’t this kind of bring up a question on like,

are all startups now and is the industry going to have a shift

as a result of this trial in terms of behavior as investors

and as entrepreneurs and how you tell stories, how you diligence, etc.

This is only going to get meaningfully worse.

I don’t know if Elizabeth Holmes committed fraud or not.

I think that these folks will be able to figure that out in detail.

But here’s something that I do know pretty precisely,

which is the amount of money that’s trying to get into Silicon Valley

is going exponentially up.

And as that happens, you guys now see it every day

where there are firms whose entire business now

is just to literally write a check every day.

They’re closing deals every single day.

They’re doing zero diligence.

And so what that’s going to create is an incentive for founders,

particularly those whose backs are against the wall

or who’s doing something that’s highly speculative and hard to diligence

to stretch the truth to get the capital.

And it’s impossible for guys like us to actually step in

and do diligence on a lot of these companies,

even if you actually have time.

But then if the competitive dynamic is such that you don’t even have the time

because somebody else beside you is going to rip in a check

by just meeting somebody and, quote unquote,

having done the work on their own, which is impossible

because you don’t have access to somebody’s financial books,

this problem is only going to get worse.

And so I think we as an industry just have to realize that

there’s going to be an incentive to lie.

There’s going to be an incentive to stretch the truth.

And it’s because of the amount of money that’s available

and the lack of diligence that’s happening.

Saks, is this an example in the case of Elizabeth Holmes

of somebody being delusional as a strength

or somebody committing fraud as a crime?

It’s probably both.

Now, look, I think you guys are giving a little bit too much credence

to the media narrative that Theranos is a, quote unquote,

Silicon Valley failure.

The truth of the matter is there was no major Silicon Valley VC firm,

in fact, not even a minor one, that invested in Theranos as far as I know.

There was no VC on the board of Theranos.

We’ve talked about this before.

It was a bunch of kind of grand poobah types.

And there was no one who actually had the technical competence

to do diligence.

And so, Elizabeth Holmes isn’t so much an example of Silicon Valley

as somebody who was selling Silicon Valley.

She was selling the promise of Silicon Valley.

She was selling the idea that this was going to be a decacorn

or a centacorn to people who are too unwitting to know.

And I see, you know, Tim Draper a lot.

People are really hanging their hat on the fact that Tim Draper

wrote a seed investment to Elizabeth Holmes.

You know, that really is very different.

You know, when you write a seed investment,

clearly Elizabeth Holmes was like a neighbor of his.

Yeah, their daughters were friends is my understanding.

Yeah, and she clearly was an impressive person.

You know, she came across impressively in person.

She obviously cast a pretty big reality distortion field

to a lot of, you know, smart people.

So, you know, she’s the type of person who you would write potentially

a seed check to just based on, you know, a talent bet.

The fact that she later chose to engage in fraud,

I don’t think that’s like Tim Draper’s fault.

And it doesn’t make this like a Silicon Valley fraud.

Again, you know, show us the VC firm that was hoodwinked by this.

But you are seeing, David, this trend of the firms coming in

and not doing diligence, not having audit rights,

not having information rights, not doing proper diligence,

and basically relying on the previous investors.


How troubling is that?

And what are you doing to protect Kraft’s LPs?

Yeah, so look, I think there’s a big difference between

going into a board meeting and finding out the projections

were inflated because, like, frankly,

we all take projections with a grain of salt.


But versus the founder lying about the past.


So people are always going to put the rosiest picture.

They’re going to puff up what the future is going to look like.

And it’s up to you as the investor to determine if that’s true or not.

But they cannot lie about the past.

They cannot lie about what their revenue was last year,

what contracts they signed before you invested.

That is fraud.


And that is what – that’s where Elizabeth Holmes crossed the line.

She wasn’t just painting a rosy picture of, you know,

what the technology would look like, you know, years from now.

She was lying about their capabilities at the time people were investing.

That is the line you cannot cross.

Look, we conduct diligence.

We, you know, try to look at financials.

We try to make sure that the numbers are all true.

You know, frankly, we’re not investing in things

that involve a tremendous amount of technical risk,

a lot of technology risk.

So we always use the product before we invest.

The idea that the product would be faked,

I think it would be hard to perpetrate that kind of fraud with a SaaS company.

But so, look, I mean, that’s what we look at.

Well, it’s interesting you bring that up.

I just dropped a link into the Zoom chat.

Co-founder and former CEO of Palo Alto-based startup technology company,

Headspin, charged with securities fraud and wire fraud.

And this guy, Lakhwani, 45 from Santa Clara County,

basically was lying about their ARR in a SaaS company.

And they raised a bunch of money.

So this is an example of somebody…

It can happen in every company.

Yeah, it can happen at…

I don’t think you’re inoculated just because you invest in SaaS.

My point is, if you have a person that’s willing to rip in a check,

$100 million, three hours after meeting you,

asking for no diligence, at some point, David,

your back is going to be against the wall

because you’re going to have to justify to your LPs

why you aren’t in some of these theoretically good deals, right?

And some of them will become fraudulent.

They’ll just turn out to be.

It’s just the laws of distribution.

So it’s a bit of a prisoner’s dilemma, you’re saying, Shamath.

You don’t do…

You have to get deals done.

And you’re up against people who won’t do diligence.

No, it actually comes down to something different,

which is then you have to differentiate with real brand,

meaning if somebody really wants you on the cap table,

they will absolutely slow everything down to get you.


So for example, let’s assume it’s Mike Moritz.

I’ll use that.

There is nobody in the world, I think,

who’s not a complete buffoon moron

who wouldn’t slow his process or her process down

to get Mike to be on their board.

And so if you’re willing to basically just scuttle an entire process

and just take the fastest money,

I think it actually says something

that there is more risk in backing somebody like you

than somebody that wouldn’t slow it down.


So then, you know, the problem is there’s fewer

and fewer Mike Moritz’s in the world.

You know, I think Sachs is one of those people.

I think Peter Thiel is another kind of person.

You know, Bill Gurley is another kind of person.

So there are these people in our industry

where I think that you will slow things down.

And I do think allow these folks to do diligence.

And I think there will be less fraud in general for that cohort.

But if your platform becomes one that’s just about ripping money in,

and I think the late stages are roughly this,

it’s all brand independent because the money is the same,

the valuations are the same.

Freeberg, Freeberg.

Doesn’t it introduce the risk of the retail investor?

You know, we’re seeing more retail participation via syndicates,

you know, via, you know, one-off investments,

online kind of marketplaces, and also SPACs,

where the retail investor relies on, you know,

Chamath, some of these kind of bigger institutional

or perhaps some name that gets some carried interest

in an investment doing the diligence.

And if the activity level is going up and the dollars are flowing in

and the margin of error is increasing, you know,

is there not some inevitable kind of SEC backlash

or consideration around how are private companies

ultimately raising money and how much they are disclosing?

And we kind of face this regulatory threat.

I can address this as a syndicate lead.

You know, we only take accredited investor money at this time.

And so anything that happens is with obviously sophisticated people,

the top 4% of Americans investing in companies.

And in our diligence now, we have seen a spike

in what I’ll call massaging or painting the picture

in a way that I’m not comfortable with.

And we have maybe tripled the amount of time we’re putting

into diligence now because I really care about my reputation.

And maybe 20%, 30% of the companies we wind up

after initially wanting to invest, maybe giving them an offer,

getting an allocation.

In recent history, 20%, 30% were winding up backing out

during the diligence process because their revenue

was not software-based.

There was $100,000 in consulting revenue.

For me, it’s like if you’re going to make these kind of decisions

early on in the company, I think it’s indicative of future fraud

or future moral or ethical issues.

So we’re sitting out in a lot of cases.

There are public platforms now, Republic and SeedInvest,

which I know are also increasing their diligence process

because there are so many newcomers to the space.

And I think there’s a level, I’ll be quite frank here,

of entitlement amongst founders that is being, let’s say,

encouraged unintentionally by the lack of diligence

that’s going on.

People are not taking the process as seriously

as they did 10 years ago or even 5 years ago.

Well, yeah.

Look, I agree.

I think the diligence you’re doing is really good.

And here’s where I agree with Chamath.

So we have seen this trend in our industry

of the private equity money coming in in greater volumes,

in greater, you know, earlier and earlier

and faster and faster, right?

And it started with, you know, you have these,

like frankly, like public company investors

were looking at the value at IPO relative to the last private round

and they saw, wow, there’s like 2, 3x market peer for one year.

Those are phenomenal returns.

Let’s arb that by getting into the last private round.

Then they look at the second to last private round.

They’re like, well, wait, there’s a big return there.

So they keep moving earlier and earlier to arb out that return.

But to Chamath’s point, it’s just they’re applying a financial model

where they’re not in the diligence business.

They’re just, and I think they just see like fraud

as a cost of doing business, right?

Something they can model out with a portfolio.

But the only reason they can model it out that way

and have the fraud be an acceptable and predictable

sort of cost of doing business

is because you had these firms in our industry

who actually did diligence at the seed, at the Series A, right?

And now the private equity guys, they’re moving so early.

They’re actually even now doing the, they’re moving all the way to Series A.

So no one’s doing the diligence.

And so that is a risk, I think,

because it might actually change things.

And this is where, bringing it back to Elizabeth Holmes,

I think it’s important here that there’s a conviction.

I think she should do time.

This was clearly a major fraud, big time fraud.

And even if she didn’t directly perpetrate it on Silicon Valley VCs,

I think the message to the industry would be absolutely horrible

if she gets away with it.

And frankly, I’m a little concerned she’s going to get away with it.

You know, because-

Well, she is incredibly charismatic.

John Kerry was saying on a CNBC hit

that don’t underestimate her charisma and ability to snow people.

And the Shvengali defense, and she just had a baby,

which, you know, people don’t want to discuss

because it seems like it’s sexist.

But she is a Shvengali herself who will manipulate people in the-

I like the way you say that, Shvengali.

She’s a Shvengali, like a-

I think you mean Svengali, but Shvengali.

Yeah, I’m talking out of Brooklyn right now.

Sax, what do you handicap her likelihood of conviction at?

I think it’s probably like a 50-50.

And I think, so here’s the thing.

When she was running this company,

she wanted everyone to believe she was Steve Jobs.

She even did the media tour with the turtleneck.

She wanted everyone to know that she was a Jobsian micromanager

who made every decision and was responsible for the success.

Now that she’s on trial,

she wants us to believe that she wasn’t calling the shots.

She wasn’t the person in charge.

She had 99% voting power in the company,

from what I’m understanding.

Yeah, look, this is sort of the

Romy and Michelle’s high school reunion defense

where she wants us to suddenly believe

that she was sort of like, you know,

the sort of ingenue who didn’t know anything,

but she might get off because she kind of looks like Lisa Kudrow.

Wow, this is a lot of deep polls here.

You have a lot of deep media polls here.


That is deep.

The number of polls there.

Based on the number of polls,

I know exactly how old you are too.

Romy and Michelle’s wedding.

Lisa Kudrow is her galore.

She’s going to go up there

and pretend to be Lisa Kudrow or something.

It’s also offensive.

It’s super offensive that she wants to get up there

and say that she was this abused woman.

I mean, for women who actually are abused,

for her to get up there and say she’s an abused woman

because she perpetrated this 20 year.

Hold on, hold on, hold on, hold on.

I’m sorry.

We don’t know whether she was abused or not.

And if she was,

it may or may not have implicated in what she did,

which we don’t know whether she did,

because again, thank God for the laws in America,

she is presumed innocent.

So let’s all just like,

I think what David where I agree with you is the following,

which is we do need to know that, you know,

investors, we all sign up

for expressing the fiduciary responsibilities

on behalf of our LPs or on behalf of our stakeholders.


There needs to be some equivalent standard

that founders are held to.

And there needs to be consequences for lying,

particularly about the past,

because in the future you say,

I’m just projecting,

but in the past, you’re right.

You have to be able to rely on what’s given to you.

Like, look, when we do diligence in a company,

we are given everything that they have, right?

We talk to their lawyers.

We talk to their lawyers, lawyers, in some cases,

in the public markets,

all of this has to be transparently published

so that we can come to our own conclusion.

Sometimes those conclusions are right.

Sometimes they’re wrong,

but we can at least know that they’re not lying to us.

The minute that it turns out

that they were fudging the numbers that they gave us,

you’re making the best decisions you can.

You’re assuming that it’s great data,

but if the data is fudged, you’re fucked.

And so to the extent that she did that,

then she should be punished.

She needs that standard.

This goes beyond money.

She was switching people’s results.

She was saying that she was giving them a blood result

on her incredible Theranos machine,

and she was running it to the back

and running it on an Abbott machine.

Is that right?


So she was taking investors,

putting their blood into her machine,

the Theranos machine,

then taking them for coffee,

running it to an Abbott machine,

and giving their results.

I mean, this was the definition

of a premeditated, deliberate, and multi-year fraud.


I put her at 80% likelihood of guilty,

and I put the over-under at 32.5 months served.


I don’t know what the-

Take the under.

You’re taking the under of 32.5 months?

I’ll take the under.

Saks, observed, observed.

I’ll take the under.

What do you got, Saks?

Well, I hope you’re right,

because I’m a little worried

that she’s going to figure out a way

to pull the rug over people’s eyes here.

What are our kids going to get in jail

if we were Chinese right now

and they played video games?

How many months are they going to get?

Basically, I think you would do harder time.

So, moving on to our next story.

No, the consequences is to the Chinese internet companies.

No, what’s the consequence to the kids

if they’re caught on video games?

No, no, no.

The companies have to turn it off.

Right, right, right.

All right, here we go.

China bans young people from playing video games.

This is for kids who are under the age of 18.

They are now restricted from playing games on weekdays,

can only play for three hours most weekends.

And these were set as a response

to China’s physical and mental health

being affected by gaming, according to Reuters.

It limits…

I think they’re doing what all American parents

would want our government to do for our kids.

I don’t disagree with that.

Gamers are now penalized if they don’t obey,

and the gaming companies will be as well.

Gaming companies will have to prove

they have an identification system in place,

like requiring monitors to use their real names.

Do you know how fucking hard it is?

I have three kids in that age range.

I am sweating who they’re texting,

who they’re talking to,

what game they’re playing,

the new game they want to download.

Fuck that.

This is the only thing I’ve ever said

that would make me want to move to China.

This one rule is the most incredible thing

I’ve ever heard, and they’re so smart.

By the way, what’s so beautiful is

they send fentanyl and TikTok to us

so that we get addicted to that shit.


You know what I’m saying?

And they’re like,

no, you guys are going to learn STEM

so that you can take over the world.

It’s beautiful. It’s brilliant.

Yeah, I would say everything about China

is a measured decision, right?

The Politburo, the decision makers

are not sitting there,

randomly shooting from the hip

based on intuition and saying,

hey, I think we should stop video games.

They seem bad for kids.

There is clearly evidence and data

and statistical models

that are driving this decision

and their objective function

is improve the health, the longevity

and the economic prosperity

of our society as a whole.

I’m sorry, did you get this statement from China?

What are you doing?

Continue, comrade.

Comrade Friedberg, continue.

I’m pointing out,

these guys generally don’t make decisions

based on someone’s kind of like

flippant intuition.

They make decisions based on

what they believe to be in the better interest.

And I’m not saying it’s right or wrong,

but in the better interest

of economic prosperity and longevity.

They got a 100 year plan, let’s be honest.

They want to win.

And I think we all know it intuitively.

We can certainly read reports,

but in the United States,

we value individual liberties above all else.

And so we don’t find ourselves

in a circumstance that seems foreign

and scary and crazy.

But again, it’s another, in my opinion,

it’s another tool that China will use

to outcompete the century.

Yes, that’s true.

But let’s be clear.

We don’t value individual liberties.

That’s not true.

That’s just what we tell people.

But that’s not totally true.

And you know that.

I’m not going to go there, but yeah.

Well, I mean,

we are literally sitting here fighting.

There is a group of individuals

who are fighting to wear masks

or not have to wear a mask, rather,

not have to take the vaccine.

And at the same time,

and I don’t know if we want to go there,

we are denying a woman’s right to choose.

Can I, can I, can I?

Let’s go to David Sachs.

David Sachs, are you in support

of Texas’s abortion ban?

No, no, let’s just hear it on China.

No, no, I think it’s a stupid law

and I’ll explain why in a second.

But just on the China thing for a second.

This is, I’ll be a dissenting voice here.

This is like if we had given

Tipper Gore dictatorial powers.

I mean, this is insane.

They’re going to, they’re going to determine

how many hours a kid can play video games.

I mean, look, I get the potential benefit,

but this is incredibly intrusive

into the lives of citizens.

And I’m not sure that video game playing

is altogether a negative thing.

You know, I think it’s mostly

our kids go through a phase

where they play a lot of games

and they grow out of it.

And, you know, you talk to developers,

like computer programmers,

they all went through some phase

where they were like hyper addicted

to video games.

It, you know, builds hand-eye coordination.

It builds sort of, you know,

computer literacy.

So I’m not sure it’s like that.

Look, obviously, if someone does nothing

but computer games their whole life,

that’s a problem.

But as a phase that a kid goes through,

it’s not the end of the world.

I agree with you,

because I used to play three hours

of fucking Zelda a day when I came home.

No, because I was a latchkey kid.

No, because I was a latchkey kid

and I didn’t have anybody

to take care of me.

I don’t think, David, though,

that that’s what kids are getting

when they’re playing four hours

of fucking Call of Duty every night.

Four hours?

These kids are playing 10 hours a day.

By the way, I think China has another motivation

for this ban, which is

they’ve got a lot of,

because of the one-child policy, right,

they’ve got a radical misbalance

of, you know, male to female ratio.

They’ve got a lot of young males

without romantic prospects in that country.

Basically, they have an incel problem.

They have a ton of incels.

It’s a giant incel problem.

I don’t think we hear much about it

because they control the media.

But I wouldn’t be surprised

if there’s a lot of just random violence out there.

And the last thing they want to do

is have these incels

playing Fortnite and Call of Duty,

shooting people five hours a night,

and then getting their brains wired that way.

That might be playing into this decision.

I don’t know.

Well, again, you’re just validating

the mental health aspect.

They’ve studied the mental health implications

of these video games.

That’s my point.

I’m not arguing for the ban.

I’m arguing for the fact

that China has certainly done something

to indicate they have some data

that indicates why they should make this decision.

It may be, you’re right,

it may be about kind of, you know,

growing, getting people to be more romantic

and get out of the house

and go get married and have kids and whatnot.

But there’s certainly a…

And remember, their objective function

is always about longevity and economic prosperity.

So, you know, there’s something

that’s making them say

that we can increase economic prosperity,

increase longevity by doing this.

And that outweighs

whatever the detrimental social

and other effects might be.

And, you know,

I think there’s something to read into it.

But no matter what,

every big decision they make

has some degree of competitive advantage for them.

And, you know,

those kids, if they’re not playing video games,

they’re going to be doing something else.

Like, I don’t know,

programming computers,

doing biotechnology in a lab,

figuring stuff out on the internet,

writing the next cryptocurrency.

I don’t know,

but there’s going to be some advantage

that’s going to arise

out of the time and the productivity

that’s going to be generated by this.

And I think that’s the calculus

that they’re undertaking here.

I’m not saying it’s right or wrong.

No, no, we all agree they’re thoughtful.

The question is,

what is this going to do for this generation

if they don’t play video games?

Are they going to be more productive?

Are they going to be, you know…

They’ll be good drones for the collective,

you know.

That’s right.

You’re right.

You’re right.

You’re exactly right.

And that’s the downside here

is even if they get it right

in this particular case,

how much freedom do you have to give up?

How much state surveillance

is there in the enforcement?

And how many other insane policies

will they foist on people

with this mentality of

you don’t get to live your life individually,

you got to serve this collective?

This is actually, I think, your best point, Sax,

is that I think what could happen here

is you can overplay a hand

and by squeezing people too tightly,

you can’t play video games,

you can’t run your own companies,

you’re going to get replaced,

you can’t practice your own religion,

you can’t say what you want,

be a journalist.

These things could add up

and they could, you know,

piss off a young group of people

who do what happened in Tiananmen Square

or in Hong Kong

and they could be dealing with,

you know, their own revolution.

And what if it’s video games?

Revolutions have started over similarly,

seemingly simple acts

by an authoritarian government,

taking away people’s right

to sell fruit on the street,

you know, famously started

the Spring Awakening

in the Middle East.

So you could see this, actually,

I think, you know,

maybe it’s a small chance,

5% or 10%,

you know, creating a lot of social unrest.


All right, should we go to Texas?

You guys want to talk about that?

Speaking of social unrest.

I’m going to lose my mind here.

All right, here we go.

SB8 creates a private cause of action

that enables Texans to sue

those who perform or aid and abet

the performance of abortions

after a fetal heartbeat has been detected.

The ban comes two years

after abortion restrictions

were proposed in Georgia, Mississippi,

Kentucky, and Louisiana.

The previous propositions

were spoken out publicly against

by progressive tech companies,

companies with a female customer base,

women-led businesses.

That proposed bill never became law.

Sax, you want to just frame for us

the legal sort of case here?


Let’s go to…

Do you want to go back

and actually frame Roe v. Wade

and Planned Parenthood versus Casey?

I think those are important

to understand what the hell

is going on here.


Okay, well, so, you know,

Roe obviously gave women

the right to choose,

you know,

reproductive freedom

over invalidated abortion laws

in a very, very sweeping way.

Casey sort of modified Roe.

It upheld it but modified it

saying that the state

could impose some restrictions

as long as it didn’t place

an undue burden.

That was a key term,

undue burden on a woman’s right to choose.

And I think what was at issue

in that case was,

I think it was Pennsylvania.

The state of Pennsylvania

imposed a waiting period

and some consultation with an advisor.

And so it delayed the abortion

but it didn’t restrict

or didn’t otherwise limit it.

Let me add.


So, Casey, Roe as modified by Casey

is really the law of the land right now,

which is the undue burden.

Then Texas comes along.

And do you want me to explain this law?


So, this law is,

regardless of what you think about abortion,

it’s a really bizarre law

because what it does is

it doesn’t just ban,

it doesn’t ban abortion outright.

What it does is create

a private right of action.

Basically, a right to sue in civil court

anyone who aids and abets an abortion

after about five or six weeks.

Six weeks.

Six weeks.

Basically, after a fetal heartbeat

can be detected.

So, which is about six weeks

into the pregnancy.

And the way the law works is that…


So, point one,

abortion providers are prohibited

from performing abortion

if they can detect fetal heart tones.

Again, that’s six weeks.

There’s no exception for rape and incest.

I think that’s really explosive politically.

And horrible?

Do you think it’s horrible as a human?


I’m curious your personal position.


Well, let’s get that.

Let me just explain the law.

So, the law puts the onus of enforcement

on private citizens,

not government officials.


They do that to avoid,

to make it harder

to legally challenge this under Roe and Casey.



So, what the government has done here,

what Texas has done is

it gives private citizens

the ability to sue abortion providers

or anyone who aids and abets someone

to get an abortion.

So, it could be an Uber driver.

It could be a friend

who simply drives someone

to the abortion clinic.

It could be a person

who provides financial assistance.

It could be a secretary

who works at the abortion clinic.

They can all be sued now

under aiding and abetting.

And here’s really the…

The person who had the abortion

cannot be sued,

but anyone who aided and abetted can be.

That’s how they’re getting around

the right to choose.

And here’s the craziest part is

the citizens who choose to sue

don’t need to show any connection

to the person they’re suing,

and they don’t even have to live in the state.


So, there’s no connection to them.

There’s no personal injury to them,

but they’re basically suing

under a personal injury,

under a civil right of action.

And if they succeed,

the law states that they’re entitled

to at least $10,000 in damages

in addition to their legal costs.

So, if they win,

their legal costs get paid,

but if they lose,

they don’t have to cover

the defendant’s legal fees.

So, they just get a free shot here,

which is also…

I’ve never seen a loser pay rule like this.

I mean, there are loser pay rules,

but they’re symmetric.

So, we have an asymmetric loser pays rule.

But I don’t think we’ve ever had

a civil law like this

where somebody can sue

where there’s no injury to them.

There’s no standing here.

This is the thing that’s fundamentally,

I think, at odds

with our entire legal tradition.

And I think,

regardless of what you think about abortion,

this law will eventually be invalidated

by the Supreme Court

or a lower court on that ground

that they’re allowing people

to sue without standing.

And it’s a horrible precedent

because can you imagine if…

What Texas is basically doing

is deputizing private citizens

to enforce in civil courts

a prohibition that they cannot

or will not pass directly.

Is this the best they could come up…

In your…

Well, hold on.

Let’s just state a couple more facts.

Like, this was an extremely

well thought out law.

I think that the pro-life faction in Texas

clearly had some very smart

constitutional thinkers

that were able to navigate around

Roe v. Wade

and Planned Parenthood versus Casey

to get something written

that could be passed in a way

where, you know,

Sam Alito basically punted

and said, we’re not going to give a stay.

And so this is going to have to

meander through the courts.

There is still a risk

that it could just get kicked down to Texas

and it could remain a state issue,

which there is a big risk.

And if that’s true, then,

you know, other states

could basically take a run

at copying this law.

What I wanted to talk about was

if you bring it all together,

you know,

Friedberg said something about,

like, you know,

we really value personal freedom.

And this is where I was like,

cynically like,

no, actually, that’s not true.

This is an example in my,

in my opinion of where this is just like,

we are very hypocritical where,

you know,

if we talk about a vaccine mandate,

you know,

there’s just an entire fiery,

you know,

up in arms of people,

usually typically in the same states

that are very anti-abortion

that are like, you know,

you know, tread on me lightly.

You can’t touch my body.

You know,

I have the right to decide.

But when it comes to this topic,

they abandon all of that

and they go to the extreme opposite side,

which is the government mandates.

And to be able to say that

to 50% of the population,

that just because you were born

with reproductive organs,

that you’re treated different,

specifically, you know,

a uterus, ovaries, and a vagina,

you’re treated differently than a man,

to me just seems absolutely insane.

And just like fundamentally

just erodes this idea of equality,

like at just a very principled level.

And the even worse thing is that then,

you know,

the corporations that actually used

to be on the front lines

of helping to drive social justice

so far have been completely absent, right?

You have to remember in 2019,

when we had these very repressive

abortion laws,

I think it was in Mississippi or Alabama,

you had all of these companies come out

and say, hey, no, not here,

not under our watch.

Then when you had all these

voter suppression laws in Georgia, right?

You had all these companies come out

and say, hey, absolutely not,

not on our watch.

We will leave the state

if you implement these things.

But so far,

what you’ve seen in this law

is complete radio silence in Texas.

And this is, you know,

you have to remember,

Texas is the ninth largest economy

in the world, right?

In the world.

So you have every single kind of company

from technology to otherwise

who have chosen to either start

or relocate their businesses in the state.

And I got to think that,

you know,

these employees and these leaders

of these businesses

should be saying something

and they haven’t said a damn thing.

Freeberg, you have thoughts?

And then we’ll go to you, Sykes.

Look, I feel like

everyone has a limit

to what they believe

defines individual liberty.

You know, should everyone have

complete freedom to the point

that they can take a gun

and go shoot anyone that they want?

The answer is no.

I think even the most diehard libertarians

would argue that there’s some degree of

what is it?

John Stuart Mill’s sex.

You know,

you should have the ability

to do whatever you want

within your sphere of influence

as long as it doesn’t intersect

with the sphere of influence of others.

And so the philosophical argument

that I believe the pro-life movement made,

which is really a different

point of view on values,

is that the sphere of influence

of a fetus exists

at some point in time

and therefore shouldn’t be invaded

by the mother.

Now, I’m not speaking,

obviously, my point of view.

My point of view is extremely pro-choice,

just to be very clear.

But the argument is, I think,

one that we all kind of blush over

and assume that it’s about

taking away a woman’s right

without recognizing the voice

on the other side,

which says that there is a right

to life by a fetus

at a certain point in time.

And so to me,

there’s almost like this

principle debate that arises,

and it probably certainly falls

more along religious lines

than it does along

on a religious spectrum

than it does on a

kind of a libertarian spectrum

or a spectrum of liberties

that kind of defines

that crossover point for people.

But clearly, Texas is a really

interestingly confused state, right?

There’s this argument about

individual freedom,

but now what comes across

is a highly kind of

conservative point of view

with respect to the freedom

of a pregnant woman.

And so, you know,

I don’t know if there really

is an easy answer.

It certainly seems to me

nowadays that the pro-choice

movement is the majority.

The pro-life movement

is the minority.

And maybe I’m off on that sack.

You probably know better.

But, you know, I’m not sure

this truly does set a precedent

that becomes kind of

a widespread recognition

of a new way of addressing

kind of the pro-life movement

or giving the pro-life movement

some additional movement.

I still think that the

pro-life movement remains

a minority.

And over time,

that will, you know,

there’ll be perturbations,

but there’ll certainly be

some resolution over time

in favor of what I think

the majority…

Where are all the politically

correct people?

Where are they?

Where are they right now?

Where are all the politically…

I mean, I guess they were happy

to get Mike Richards

or whatever the guy’s name was

fired from Jeopardy last week,

but where are they now

when we really need them?

But Chamath,

are you really saying

there’s not enough outrage

about this?

I mean, I’m seeing a ton

of outrage on social media

about this.

Yeah, I see everything.

I see nothing.

I see a lot of useless

virtue signaling.

I don’t see anything

that’s actually organized.

My prediction is gonna be

a million-person march

within 45 days.

Okay, well, let me go back

to Chamath’s point

about whether, you know,

he called this bill smart

in the sense that it was

really thought through.

I agree that it’s a deliberate

attempt to circumvent

Roe v. Wade

and make it harder

to sustain a legal challenge

against it,

but I don’t think this is smart.

I think it’s stupid



and legally

for the…

even for the people

who are in charge

of this bill.

I don’t think this is smart.

I think it’s stupid



and legally

even for the pro-life movement.

So, philosophically,

I think the problem here is

they’re creating

unlimited standing

to sue

across state boundaries

by somebody

who hasn’t even experienced harm.

I mean, this is so far

from what conservative

jurists and legal scholars

have always professed to believe.

I mean, I remember

20 years ago,

tort reform

and ending frivolous lawsuits

was the absolute bedrock plank

of the Republican Party.

So, they’re just throwing

that out the window here

with unknown consequences.

Hold on a second.

For example,

why wouldn’t this be used

to circumvent

people’s Second Amendment rights?

Why wouldn’t you just create

a private right of action

to sue anyone

who could,

you know,

aid and abetted

a gun crime?

You know?

So, I think this is going

to boomerang

on conservatives.


Wait, okay.

Let me get to the

political stupidity of it.

Henry Belcaster wanted

this as one piece

so he didn’t have to do

so much editing.

No, look.

The Wall Street Journal

has a great editorial today.

Okay, this is…

The Wall Street Journal

editorial page

is a great piece.

This is from…

They basically say,

look, they said,

sometimes we wonder

if Texas Attorney General

Ken Paxton

is a progressive plant.

That’s the guy behind this.

His ill-conceived

legal attack against Obamacare

backfired Republicans

in last year’s election

and lost at the Supreme Court.

Now, he is leading

with his chin on abortion.

How about thinking first?

So, they’re pretty clear

this is going to get overturned.

And frankly,

then politically,

this is just handed.

This is…

Democrats are already

having a field day with this.

So, Biden said,

this law is so extreme

it does not even allow

for exceptions

in the case of rape and incest.

I mean, look,

he’s right about that.

And Gavin Newsom,

the polling for him

is now going through the roof

because all he has to do

for the next 10 days

is talk about

right to choose

in this Texas bill

and he’s going to cruise

towards defeating the recall

because it’s basically…

You’re talking about

something differently than I was.

What I’m saying

is something very specific.

If you go back to Roe v. Wade,

it was written by a man,

first of all,

which, you know,

we can debate

whether that makes

any fucking sense.

But Harry Blackmun

went to the Mayo Clinic

and lived there

for like six or eight weeks

reading medical textbooks

and came up with

this trimester framework.

And again,

I’m just going to go out on a limb

and say I don’t have

a fucking clue

what’s going on

in a woman’s body.

And I don’t think

Harry Blackmun did,

even though he was

much smarter than I

And then Casey

tried to clean this up

by going to this

fetal viability thing.

So we have this law

that was really

kind of ill-conceived

but was kind of going

in the right direction

but it was really

a very first form

of judicial activism.

We tried to clean it up

in the early 90s

but it’s always been

an issue

where eventually

what’s really been happening

is we’ve been pushing

this to a state’s

right issue.

And I think that

the cleverness

of this bill

and it’s dangerous

but it was very well

thought out.

This was not

a random thing

where two haphazard

dipshits got together

and wrote this bill,


I think that this was

methodically planned out

for years.

They are dipshits though.

It’s totally going to

backfire on them.

It’s not going to


for example,

we now have

an activist

Supreme Court

who may actually

not opine on this

on the validity

of the issue

but say this is a

state’s right issue.

If this stays in Texas

and doesn’t get

outside of Texas

you will have

this specific thing

hold and stand.

And I think that

that’s a very

bad precedent

to have set.

I think that these folks

planned this out

and I don’t think

they thought that

it was an easy way

to overturn it

and I think that’s why

when everybody

was waiting with

bated breath

for Alito to

basically stay this

he didn’t.

Listen, I think

there’s a lot of

hysteria and hyperbole

on social media

right now saying that

Roe v. Wade’s

been overturned.

The Supreme Court

has overturned Roe v. Wade.

I’m not saying that.

But they’re saying that

because the Supreme Court

ruled on very narrow

procedural grounds

that it wasn’t ready

to hear about

the Texas law

because a harm

hasn’t been committed yet

but they haven’t said

they won’t look at it

in the future.

I believe they will.

I believe that this

law will be found


not necessarily

Hold on.

Not necessarily

because of abortion

but just because

there is

because they’re changing

the legal definition

of standing

in a way that

flies against

everything we know

about how the

court system works.

I just

I think ultimately

this is too clever

by half

by the

by the state

attorney general.

I think it was

I don’t think

I think he’s a

he’s a tool.

All right.

Do we want to move on

and talk about

Apple allowing people

to link to their

own websites?

The Apple thing

is really big news

because it kind of

goes to show you that

you had

you had a pretty


legislative framework

in South Korea.

I don’t think it’s

particularly a huge

market for Apple

because most of the

most of the

app activity

I think is Android

more than it is


But they basically

just seeded the market

and by deciding to

basically conform

to this law

then then

they started with

these reader apps

and allowing


along the


It’s the beginning

of the beginning

for you know

the app stores

to be deconstructed

and opened.

This just so people

could use the media

apps to create

in-app links

to sign up

pages on

those companies

websites allowing

the likes of

Spotify and Netflix

to bypass the

iPhone makers

cut of subscriptions.

Now of course

you can use

Spotify and Netflix

on your phone

but you may have

probably people

haven’t experienced

this because

they’ve already

become members

of it and did it

on their site

but you can’t

actually pay

through your

phone and

you can’t sign up

through the media


So what do you

think Saks?

I think

Tramath has

kind of said this

the beginning of the


I think there’s

some truth to

that look I

think the

root of this

is the fact

that Apple

has this 30 percent

rate on any

in-app purchases

and like

Bill Gurley

said it’s a

rake too far

right just because

you can charge 30


doesn’t mean

you should charge

30 percent.

So I think

this 30 percent

rake has


backfired on


It’s created a

huge backlash

and now they’re

paying the


They’ve already

had to roll it

back for these

so-called reader


So you know

if what you’re

doing is

buying a


to say


or Amazon

or whatever


buying a


to say


Netflix will

now be able to

redirect you to

the website you

can buy it there

and then consume

the content

you know on

your iOS app

without Apple

getting a

part of the

split but

this now opens

the door for

this type of

thing to apply

to games as

well where

there’s a lot

more in-app

purchases like

like Fortnite


So I just

think this is a

case where you

know what’s


right now is

Apple is



Apple has

been a

hog and

now it’s




By the way I

want to point

out like this

is a really


experience of

the free

market you

know clearly

consumers and

the developers

on the apps

in the app

store ecosystem

were vocal and

angry enough

that that

is important

and relevant

that is that

yes the market

is functional

the market is

functional and

having the

government and

regulators come

in and you

know people

complaining to

the Senate

about Google

and Apple

monopolizing them

out of their


ultimately gets

resolved when

enough there’s

enough kind of

collective mass

from the

consumer slash

partner that

says to the

the big

Apple think



enough fear here

right to kind of

to kind of get

start giving

concessions right

some modest

concession that

yeah if you’re

a Spotify or

a Netflix or

audible we’re

gonna let you buy

through the app

I mean

regulation and


well yeah

don’t you think

this is a nice win

for the free


yeah I do

well look I

I don’t think

monopolies are

I don’t think

I don’t think

letting monopolies do

whatever they want

is free market

okay I mean

the monopolies

and competition

they will squash


they will you know

they will


get in the way

of permissionless

innovation so

I you know I’m

in favor of

reigning in these

monopolies and

the two big

issues I think

with Apple and

Google well

Apple especially

is number one

side loading of

apps so the idea

that they have

total control over

the iOS device

people want the

ability to

create alternative

app stores that

already exists for

Android right so

I think that is

coming for Apple

Apple claims it’s

a security issue


it is I mean

what they should do

is if you click on

low side load

apps it should just

give you a warning

you are no longer

protected by us

you know you’re

you’re subjecting

yourself to phishing

scams your

information and

buyer beware and

then people can make

their own decision

I’ve always thought

that was a good

decision for what

I like about this

is I think this

gives Apple the

ability to now

just compete against

everybody in the

app store without

having to have

this you know

what we’re partners

with you they are

not partners with

people in the app

store they watch

the app store and

when something great

comes and emerges

they will copy it

they just do it

slower than Facebook

so Apple music

studied Spotify

and they created

their own Apple

product Apple TV

plus now with

Netflix they watch

Netflix and I

signed up for Apple

Arcade for my

daughters because I

didn’t want them to

be paying for

like in-app

purchases I’d rather

just have the games

be stop upselling

them and that’s

been wonderful for

five or ten bucks a

month to have that

and I pay for the

news product so now

they can just compete

against everybody

directly I think all

of these media

companies are going

to be video games

podcasts TV shows

and music so I

don’t know if you

saw Netflix is going

to be doing podcasts

about their shows and

video games I think

Amazon will be

video games content

it’s all going to be

one thing and Disney

plus will have games

built into Disney plus

I bet in that

subscription price so

the consumer is going

to win ultimately

you know I think

monopolies are good

because monopolies

are just like lazy

and it’s easier to

innovate and compete

against a monopoly to

be honest than it is

to compete against

cronyism when

there’s kind of

embedded kind of

government regulation

that prevents

monopolies from

competing against

government regulation

that prevents

emerging competitors

from competing

effectively it’s a

lot harder to win

than against some

slow big

uninnovative monopoly

and well yeah go

ahead well here’s

here’s the kind of

argument so I agree

with you that big

slow lumbering

monopolies can be

great to compete

against but here’s

the problem when

they could pull

access to an

ecosystem when

they’re gatekeepers

that’s the problem

because now you have

to go to them and

they’re going to be

slow lumbering

monopolies and

they’re going to be

slow lumbering and

stupid in terms of

allowing you to

innovate and when

they see you

becoming a threat

they’ll squawk to

you that’s the

problem if these

guys didn’t control

platforms that would

be one thing but

they control the

most important

platform there is

which is the

operating system so

I just think that

you know this is

Microsoft and

Windows all over

again except there’s

two of them right

there’s iOS and

Android and

Microsoft example

you could load

whatever software you

want into the

operating system and

they’re just saying

we’re going to give

you Internet Explorer

with the operating

system so this is

even worse I mean

right Apple said

you can’t even

install your app

yeah Microsoft was

actually pretty open by

comparison but but

there is like a

version of bundling

here what Spotify

said is look when

we have to pay 30%

and Apple Music

doesn’t have to pay

anything we can’t

compete with that

you know and they

have a point there

yeah it’s a it’s a

completely valid

point California’s

on fire this is

the fourth year in a

row this has gotten

acute for the Bay

Area people are

now making plans as

Freeberg mentioned

on the last spot I

think that there’s

or two pods ago

there was like two

or three weeks of

the year maybe even

a month where you

just can’t really be

outside and do

stuff in Northern

California you can’t

you can’t be outside

have you seen

our friends yeah

three of the three

of our friends have

been evacuated

because you know

they they moved up

there in the middle

of the pandemic they

had to come down

they said it was

you know one of our

friends’s homes is is

literally threatened

it’s it’s it’s just

like and then the

fire season is moving

up earlier and earlier

in the year you know

my kids were in

camp in Tahoe this

this July and they

had to be evacuated

and fortunately for

us you know we had a

really good friend of

ours a neighbor here

whose whose kids were

also at that can’t be

able to drive up in

the but my god like

that was you know

there’s there’s about

what’s going on

there’s about eight

trillion dollars

worth of

evacuees in


and you know if you

assume a tenth of

that is exposed

in the middle of

this kind of

dense fire

these dense fire

regions let’s say

it’s a let’s say

it’s a trillion

dollars but the

trillion dollars a

real estate value

that you cannot

insure anymore

so I had an idea

about this free

burg I was

looking two or

three years ago

when these fires

started maybe it

was four or five

years ago now for

a blanket that

could go over a

home could be

insured and

insured and

could go over a

home could be

installed or

dropped over a

home with

helicopters I

know this sounds

crazy but is

there a material

that’s light

enough that you

could put it on a

helicopter and

drop it over one

of these yeah

yeah well why

doesn’t the startup

exist I mean

this would be

amazing imagine

if these homes

had on the

roof some

sort of a system

that when fire

heat got there

just deployed the

blanket and

protected the

home from

the flames and

fires and

the fire




kind of a


factor in


particularly in

all the

areas with

lots of

forest land

there’s a

hundred million

acres of

forest land

in California

so if a


dollars of

real estate

is actually

exposed to

fires and

you can’t

do anything

about it


going to

be a





the federal


going to

have these

like Katrina





all these



that are

going to




going to




shift in


value that

we’re going

to someone’s

going to

have to pay

for over the

next decade

and this is

just the

beginning of

it all is

my is my

strong belief

I tweeted

this out about

maybe six or

seven months

ago but

with another

with this



named David

Soloff I




and you

know we’ve

been trying

to build

models and


this kind

of insurance



you know

social media

kinds of

like disruptions

civil unrest


things that

are very



sorry and

to your



it is

really really

hard to

be a

provider of

this kind

of insurance

what I’m

telling you

know what I’m

learning is

man these and

we’re negotiating

multi hundred

million dollar

policies with

these big


and you know

for example

like you know

they want


insurance if

there’s the

next delta

variant or

whatever and

I have to

shut down my

facility and

here’s my

house burns

down yeah

it’s very

hard so

this kind of


insurance doesn’t

exist which

means that if

you live in

any of these

areas like I

basically I

think what it

means is that

climate change

is going to

ravage suburbs

and it’s going

to ravage these

sort of like



because nobody’s

going to want

to step in

there and

ensure the

parametric risk

of climate


And so

you can buy

weather insurance

online and

you underwrite

the risk and

the way you

underwrite risk

like this and

auto insurance and

any kind of

insurance is you

look at past

data you build a

statistical model

that’s represented

by the past data

and the frequency

of certain things

happening and

that’s how you

price the


The problem

now is the

past data has

absolutely no

information about

what’s going on

in the




like fires

which is

something no

one’s really

good at.

No one

has any

ability to

do because

we’ve never

seen this

kind of




never seen

hot year

after hot

year, dry

year after

dry year.

And so

there’s no

way to do

this and

you can’t

build homes


Talk about

functioning markets.

I think what

we’re realizing

is the market

now is so

convinced that

global warming

is real and

you can’t

deny it that

we just can’t

insure for it

therefore we’re

going to have to

make serious

societal changes

and that’s part

of this process.

Insurance being

denied for

hurricane zones

and insurance

being denied




And so


accepting the

reality that

we’re not

doing enough.


J. Cal, the

problem is not

that it’s

going to be

denied, it’s

that you’re

not going to

be able to

get it and

if you are,

you’re not

going to be

able to

afford it.

And so

it’s not

even that

people are

really open

to it.

I’m not sure

that that’s

what everybody


Or it’s going

to change


I mean, we

saw now in

Florida and

other places,

you know,

Louisiana, other

places that are

flood zones,

nobody builds

on the ground

floor anymore.


builds, you

know, on

stilts and

they put a

car garage

underneath it

because it’s

going to

flood it.

It’s going

to take

one hour.

15 people, my


has died in

basement apartments

because they

couldn’t or

they didn’t get

out in time.

It’s kind of

hard to


but I guess

people stayed

in their

apartments while

they were

filling up

with water

and then

it broke


Did you see

the video of

the flood

waters ripping

into the


When we build

new structures,

the first floor

is going to be

built like they

built them in

Miami, which is

for water to

flow straight

through them.

And the

garages underneath

are designed

to accept

massive flood


I’ve been

spending a lot

of time on

water recently

and the thing

that I learned

this week,

which, not the

thing that I

learned, but a

great way to

summarize this

is that

when we have


dryness or

heat, it’s

going to be


And when it

rains, it’s

going to be so

extreme and

we’re just

going to get

buffeted back

and forth

between these

two extremes

and this is

only going to

escalate over

the next

20 years or

30 years

because we

have so much


pollution that

we have to

work our

asses off

to actually

fix it.


was all


my head.


question is

why is

this so



wait this

is my

god damn



What the




the happy

birthday women’s

rights are

being taken


The planet

is on fire.


doing it

like nuts

right now

and it’s

pretty exciting.

I like the

way you



because I

say it


but you



It’s a

very literal

pronunciation of



look, I


you’re a




of the





the good



Colin’s doing

really well.




look, I

think I

think that

in terms

of processing

all the

bad news,

I do

think we

have a

tendency to


how much



sort of

whip things

up in any










to talk



Rogan got


He was

I think



what he




saw the


quote where

he said

should a






then he

got it

and he

had to

cancel some



think there’s


kind of

funny here

but also

kind of

serious here

about the

way the

media covers

news like


First of

all, the

media is



whenever they

can report

news like







is a


treatment or



think you

have to do

a double


study to

figure that



also think


dishonest to




as a










do take it

as a





It also

happens to

have a

benefit in


horses but

that’s one

of its



describe this

drug as

a horse


as if it

was the











is a










is a










is a