So, Sax, are we going to talk with each other today or, you know, or is an ISO

player?

He turned into an ISO player.

He’s like the Carmelo Anthony of this.

He’s the Carmelo Anthony of the all in pod.

Sax, you want to pass the ball or you just want to you want to clank it off the room?

Raymond, I think we should have a focus on having a dialogue with each other

today, several points in the thing, as opposed to all standing up,

saying our piece and then we lost a little bit of the fiber of this team here.

There’s three people playing as a team.

And then there’s I would love to ask you questions and I would love

my job to pass the ball, Jake.

Al, you’re the guard.

You pass the ball.

I’m supposed to score.

Oh, really?

Remember what Shaq used to say when he wasn’t getting the ball?

He gets really unhappy.

So pass the ball to the big dog.

He’ll score.

Yeah, I’m Shaq.

You’re you know, you’re not Kobe.

Who is the shitty little like Fisher?

Yeah.

You’re Derek Fisher.

Make sure the big dog gets the ball.

There won’t be any problems.

I’m Bob Cousy. OK, I’m Gary Payton in this.

OK.

Rain Man, David Satterthwaite.

And it’s said we open source it to the fans and they’ve just gone crazy.

Love you guys.

Nice.

Queen of Kinwam.

Hey, everybody, welcome to the all in podcast

where three besties talk about a range of talking topics and one monologues

about Biden derangement syndrome with you again this week,

the sultan of science and the dictator.

Chamath Palihapitiya, David Friedberg, and playing

Iso ball somewhere in the wing is your political commentator.

Tucker Jr., Rain Man, David Sachs.

It’s an active projection.

First story, which Sachs is going to lose his mind over.

He’s got two monologues prepared.

Justin Trudeau has invoked an emergency order to freeze bank accounts

linked to trucker protests in Canada.

On Monday, Trudeau invoked an emergency law

that requires financial institutions in Canada to examine customer records

and take action against people involved with or aiding in the protest.

Here’s Trudeau’s tweet from yesterday.

If you’re watching on the video streams, illegal blockades

and occupations are not peaceful protests.

They’re a threat to jobs and communities, and they cannot continue.

In the House of Commons earlier today, I joined members of the Parliament

to speak about that and about the need

to invoke the Emergencies Act, the counter signal,

which is a right leaning Canadian digital publication reported

that 34 different crypto wallets were also being targeted by Canadian officials.

This law grants the government extraordinary powers

like the right to ban public assembly in certain locations.

The Canadian Civil Liberties Association said a plan to challenge

the government’s decision in court.

Remember, Sachs wrote a piece on financial

deplatforming for Bari Weiss’s Common Sense about a year ago.

The piece was about the private sector financial platforms, deplatforming folks.

So your thoughts, Sachs, you have 90 seconds on the uninterrupted clock

on the shot clock. All right.

Thank you, Jake. It’s true.

Last summer, I wrote a piece for Barry Weiss

is some stack talking about how financial

deplatform would be the next wave of online censorship.

And here we are. It’s actually happened.

What I could not have predicted is that it would occur in our mild manner

neighbor to the north and that the reprisals would be directed

by the government itself, not just a consortium of private actors.

And what Trudeau has done is he didn’t just employ the Emergency Act

against the truckers so that he could basically arrest them and break up

the protest.

They have now directed banks and any financial institution,

even cryptocurrency wallets to freeze the accounts, not just of the truckers,

but anybody who’s contributed to them.

Basically, anyone has contributed twenty five dollars or more.

There were two crowdfunding sites that they raised money from.

All those people, the thousands of of just ordinary Canadians

who did nothing more than contribute to an anti-government protest.

They are now at risk of financial ruin because their bank accounts have been frozen.

And you have to wonder what is the ends here that justifies the means.

COVID, you know, Omicron is on the wane.

It’s on its way out.

At the same time that Trudeau was announcing these dictatorial measures,

Ford, the the guy who runs Ontario, the largest province, 15 seconds

forward, was out there saying that he was going to that COVID mandates

were going to be over.

So why exactly are they doing this?

You know, we’re at the end of COVID.

And let me ask you a question.

If if there were people online making donations to the criminals who loot

and kill people in San Francisco, which you’ve railed against

being criminals who are breaking the law and should all be put behind bars.

Do you think that it would be appropriate in that context for the government

to block their donations to supporting criminal activity in a criminal ring?

You know that I think we all agree, you know, shouldn’t shouldn’t be transpiring.

Well, but your the implication there is that truckers are using violence

or something like that, and they’re not.

I mean, it’s been it’s been largely a peaceful protest.

It’s been very annoying to people who, you know.

But isn’t the case being made that they are actually breaking the law

by blocking streets?

And that’s not you know, there’s a peaceful protest

where you can go and get a permit and actually go in a public zone

and peacefully protest within the confines of the law

and what’s allowed in that jurisdiction.

Look, but what these folks are doing is civil disobedience,

which is not a peaceful protest.

It is, you know, kind of breaking the law to make a point.

It is peaceful because there’s been no violence.

If you look at actual videos, they’re breaking the law. Right.

Well, let me let me ask the question for free bird and sex.

If a group of truckers were shutting down the Bay Bridge

with three lanes of traffic and then shut down the 280 and the 101

and it impacted this, if they in fact are shutting down roads

and our businesses and ambulances can’t get through,

would you want them to be towed?

Would you want their cars to be towed?

Listen, here’s the thing.

The ambassador bridge, this vital choke point of commerce

between the US and Canada that was blocked and that was creating a serious problem.

But it had already been cleared on Monday by the time that Trudeau

invoked the Emergencies Act.

And then on Tuesday, he then invokes the Financial Act.

Your opinion, Saks, if they if they block roads and bridges,

would you if they were in charge?

Yeah. If they’re breaking the law in that way, it’s not just one lane.

It’s all three lanes damages society.

I’m just trying to understand the standard here, because

just zooming out to last year and the year before, right,

there was a protest happening with BLM and those BLM protests

resulted in damage to private property, to burning cars.

There were protests at the Capitol that involved folks trespassing

into federal land and federal buildings.

And now there’s protests that are, you know, blocking vital trade routes

and, you know, access to emergency vehicles and all this sort of stuff to me.

And also, you know, people in San Francisco breaking the law

and not being put in jail.

My personal opinion is anyone that’s breaking the law.

We should stop them for breaking the law.

And anyone that wants to kind of, you know, follow a peaceful protest

or make a point should kind of make the point.

But if the law is the law, shouldn’t there be a universal standard

to hold up the law?

And if the case and if the case is people are giving money to aid

in breaking the law, shouldn’t we stop the transmission?

Hold on. Hold on a second.

Look, I think you’re conflating a bunch of really important things there.

Aiding and abetting criminals is already illegal.

There are RICO statutes that allow the authorities

to go after people that are aiding and abetting.

Through monetary support, criminal behavior.

Separately, there is a whole body of law at the federal state

local level that allows you to deal with protests. OK.

The real question is, why did you have to go and invoke emergency powers

at the tail end of a pandemic for what is effectively

nonviolent protests?

Again, that’s the key question, right?

So just to give you some Canadian history

as a Canadian citizen, what I can tell you is that we’ve invoked

this Emergency Powers Act three times in the past.

The first was for World War two.

The second sorry, World War one.

The second was for World War two.

And the third was the FLQ crisis, which was a domestic terrorist

organization in Quebec that was fighting for a separate homeland.

That’s those are the three other times in the past that a sitting

prime minister has invoked these broad sweeping emergency powers.

And they did it because you exhaust the natural body of law

and the Constitution and the bill of the Charter of Rights that governs

the normal behavior of a democratic society.

What this was is not any of those things.

I don’t think anybody could claim that a bunch of nonviolent protests.

Yes, they were annoying.

Yes, they basically, you know, stop some commerce.

But I don’t think it was on the order of World War one, World War two

or a domestic terrorism issue like the FLQ crisis.

So why invoke this basically get out of jail free card

where you can behave without any checks and balances?

This is the confounding.

Hold on a second.

Did we exhaust the current body of normal governing law?

And if we didn’t, why is this example OK?

And the counterfactuals are so many.

Imagine Trump invoked this thing during BLM.

Imagine Biden did this right now.

Right. You would be up in arms.

I think that’s well said.

And we just have to make sure that the Emergencies Act that Trudeau invoked

requires something like an act of espionage against the country

or Syria, the word serious violence or in the law or the threat of serious violence.

Those conditions were simply not met.

Yeah. And then on top of that, to go after people who contribute

as little as $25 to these truckers who are trying to support them

because these guys are not making any money.

You know, they’re they have very they’re living under very harsh conditions.

So you make a small check.

You write a small donation to support these people, to aid them.

They’re simple working class people who are protesting for normalcy

and to get their freedom back.

And now all of a sudden your bank account gets frozen.

It is basically creating a it’s going to have a chilling effect

because it’s essentially creating a cast of untouchables

because no one is going to want to associate with, transact with or donate

to this group of people, these designated people now under the Emergencies Act

who your bank can get frozen if you deal with them.

I think it’s going to have the opposite effect.

I think there’s going to blow up in Trudeau’s face.

This is the worst decision making by any major political leader in a long time

to go after a group of people, as Chamath said, in the in the waning days

of a pandemic, what is the point?

Why are we picking this? Why is he picking this?

Why do you guys? So why? It makes no sense.

But why is he doing it?

And Chamath, why? Why did the police not break?

So I totally hear your point.

Why did the police not break up these protests?

Why did he need to invoke the emergency?

Because, look, it happened.

I think that the police in some cases did.

In some cases didn’t.

There were probably a lot of police sympathizers.

There were probably a lot of sympathizers in general,

as there were a lot of people who were detractors.

Are you think the police you’re saying there were police that were complicit?

It’s the nature of a protest.

You have people for you have people against.

But the point is, I think what’s really clear is Justin Trudeau.

First, basically said these people are racists and misogynists.

Then he said they just hold views that are just unacceptable to me.

And then like a totalitarian dictator invoked an emergency measures

act that allows him to do what he wants.

That’s the fact pattern.

He painted himself into a political corner and then tried to give successfully.

He gave himself absolute power for some period of time.

And the real question, I think, is why should this be allowed to happen

in a democratic country?

With democratic norms against people that haven’t done,

as far as I can tell, a shred of violent behavior?

No, it hasn’t been.

You guys think and where it’s clear that the body of normal governing law

hasn’t been exhausted yet, meaning the minute that these people

were asked to actually empty the ambassador bridge, they did.

Guys, we’re Canadians.

That’s what we do.

Yes, we love super nice.

But if you just ask us, we’re just going to do it.

Exactly.

No, you’re right.

Trudeau never tried talking to them.

I mean, why wouldn’t he just try and talk?

Why would he just try and negotiate with them?

Instead, he demonized them right off the bat as white supremacists

and Nazis and even, you know, confederates or which I don’t even

understand in the context of Canada.

This is a yet another example of the dying death right in front of us

of the woke playbook, right?

We talked about this last week.

I think it’s related to the San Francisco Board of Ed recall.

That’s now national and probably even international news.

The the the reaction to Rogan, the reaction to Dave Chappelle.

It’s all part and parcel of this thing where people up and down the

spectrum have learned what the mechanism of action is of this cancel

culture, and they don’t fall for it anymore.

Trudeau did not get the memo.

There’s a person that’s able to escalate it because he’s actually

in a seat of power, and that’s what I think people should be debating.

You mean shutting down dissenting voices from a position of power?

Just because.

And he went on the record.

He went on the record and he said, guys, these views are unacceptable to me.

Well, in a democratic society, that’s not your choice.

Yeah, not your choice, Justin.

I mean,

you could have engaged the views on all kinds of topics all the time.

Unacceptable is not the threshold of World War Two, World War One in the

FLQ crisis.

Do you guys think that there’s a moment here that also is a mile marker on

the road towards the state versus crypto, given the actions that were

Bitcoin wallets, because that seems to be like a big trend that’s going to

play out over the next decade or two.

There are plenty.

Inevitably, crypto is the threat to the state, right?

And so, you know, you’re going to see skirmishes like this that kind of, you

know, hey, wallets that donate are illegal.

And, you know,

Freedberg, this is one of the best points you’ve made.

If you look at what this has done to Bitcoin, and you look at what it’s done

for other cryptocurrencies, this will do more than McDonald’s accepting

Bitcoin, because this is the first time I’ve ever seen a cryptocurrency

accepting Bitcoin, because this is the first time like a Western democratic

state is seizing people’s funds, like in an incredibly unfair, unnecessary

way, which is just going to have more people say, you know what, maybe I

should keep some of my net worth out of the government’s purview, if they’re

going to seize it anyway.

And then now people are going to start looking into the coins that allow

people to conflate having an enemy with having a different view.

Those aren’t the same thing.

Having an enemy is a serious deal, right?

Whether that’s domestic or international.

That’s what we had to do in World War One World War Two in the FLQ crisis.

This is just somebody who has a different opinion.

I don’t agree in mask mandates is what one person says.

I want to mask mandate is what the other person says the idea that you

can deep platform one or the other or fire them from their job or prevent

them from having access to the money that they’ve earned or preventing

other people from donating money.

That’s really it’s a really low bar.

And I think when you normalize this kind of behavior, it’s a very

slippery slope.

And so if if somebody else were to do it, they now have like it’s again

going back to the Rene Girard sort of philosophical discussion from

last week.

One of the things about you know, these stoning rituals, right that

sacks talked about that we talked about last week.

One of the things that Rene Girard talks about is it is always hardest

for that first person, right?

The first person that throws the stone, right?

That’s how Jesus was able to defuse that that incident as described in

the book of John, but in a different example, the first person that

throws a stone all of a sudden normalizes it for everybody else after

them.

And then these stonings become commonplace or became commonplace.

So similarly, it’s like if you’re a sitting Democratic person who just

decides this doesn’t work for you.

You can’t flip the script and and basically remove everybody’s

Democratic rights.

That’s a really crazy.

It’s actually had a closing point you want to make?

Well, okay, just on this point about Bitcoin, the reason why Bitcoin

is necessary is because the tactics that Trudeau is using is essentially

to starve these truckers out to not only basically arrest them, but

he’s also taking away their insurance licenses.

He’s basically preventing them from ever working again.

He’s talked about that.

We’re going to put give you a criminal record.

It’s going to make it hard for you to get a job.

And then most importantly, on top of that, he’s preventing anyone from

helping them by contributing to them by making a donation.

So he’s essentially starving these guys out.

And that’s the reason why Bitcoin is potentially helpful is it allows

people using non custodial wallets to make an end run around that and

donate and help these these people who are being persecuted, essentially.

I mean, he could have just simply chosen to do what sacks his favorite

President Obama did with Occupy Wall Street, which is say, great, you

have something you want to voice.

Here’s where you can do it.

Just, you know, no guns, no violence.

But we let how long did Occupy Wall Street last in downtown Wall Street

and in Oakland and other places like a year or two, and you just wait

them out. And that’s it.

I think when you encounter a sincere protest movement, the first thing

you should do as a leader is actually listen and try to understand what

it is that they’re protesting on behalf of.

And Trudeau never did that.

He went straight to a to 11 with this.

And I think part of the reason why I mean, Jake, are you asked why?

Why is it that that, you know, there seems to be a common denominator

with this and with the Ukraine issue that the leaders are immediately

escalating these situations instead of looking for a way to deescalate

it and they’re doing it with the media egging them on.

And so as harsh as Trudeau’s rhetoric has been, the media’s rhetoric

around this has been even worse.

You have this CNN contributor, Juliette Kayyem, who’s also a Harvard

who basically tweeted that Trudeau needed to slash their tires, empty

the gas tanks, arrest the drivers, you know, making it unclear how

you never get the trucks off the bridge.

But then she said cancel their insurance, suspend their driver’s

license, prohibit any future regulatory verification.

She says, trust me.

I will not run out of ways to make this hurt.

You know, it’s you have the media cheering this on egging on Trudeau.

They’re doing the same thing beating the drums of war on Ukraine.

What is wrong with these people?

Yeah, deescalate.

And where’s the off ramp?

I think the biggest the biggest story is this this Bitcoin thing

because, you know, if you guys think about like, pre 1960s, like

capital wasn’t digitized.

It was like physical.

Like you had to own like a stock certificate or cash or gold or a

bearer bond today.

Everything is digitized, right?

Like there’s a digital record of, you know, who owns what stock and

who how much is in your bank account and none of it is tied to your

having a physical asset and ultimately the law was able to reach into

these digital systems and have greater oversight and ultimately

control, you know, over accounts and so on.

And it’s had a, you know, the digitization of capital assets has had

an incredible ability to drive economic growth and investment and

ease of transaction, but it’s also significantly increased the

centralization of assets or the central influence over assets.

Bitcoin seems to be the resolution to that.

And now you’re seeing the ultimate challenge to Bitcoin and the

challenge to decentralized systems like Bitcoin and cryptocurrencies

and so on.

I don’t want to speak specifically to anyone, but there seems to be

like this trend line over the last 60 years.

That’s now being challenged because you can have your accounts frozen

any moment, you know, for breaking the law or because emergency acts

are are induced.

And I think you’re right.

Probably going to accelerate interest in these kind of off government

chain.

If true, it’s just a separate chain.

Anybody can do it.

They’re doing it in China, right?

And they’re and I don’t know.

I don’t know if you guys know one.

It’s the point of it.

The digital yuan is like this incredible whole point.

It’s like absolute centralization of every capital asset.

Here’s where it gets scary.

Think about dangerous.

The digital yuan is the minute you say something that Xi Jinping

doesn’t like.

It’s a it’s a stroke of a keyboard key and all your assets are all

your assets are locked away.

It’s a database entry and you just basically reroute who belong who

belongs to or it could be it could happen in America.

They say, you know what California now wants to have a wealth tax.

Anybody who’s got money.

We’re just going to take your money out of your account automatically.

Do you guys think we sound like a right wing politics show at this

point?

This isn’t a right wing politics thing.

I mean, I think I think that we have so jumped the shark.

There are things that are happening today every day that you know, if

you had said in isolation two or three years ago, would any of these

things ever happen?

We all would have just looked at each other and said it’s impossible

that these things could happen.

And but the problem is fast forward two years of a pandemic.

I think we have let a lot of our civil liberties decay right under

our nose and we’re not willing to fight for it because it’s become

too tribal and rights have been politicized.

So the idea of having rights, you know, and then standing up for

your rights all of a sudden has to be a decision between whether

you’re left or right.

That’s crazy.

I don’t think that liberties in the sense of government oversight

have decayed as in addition to that.

Liberties in the sense of a social setting have decayed, you know,

we’ve because of cancel culture, we’ve normalized the ability to

silence minority or dissenting voices and this is both in the private

enterprise setting as well as in the public setting.

And it’s you know, I don’t know.

I don’t consider myself a right wing conservative person by any

stretch.

But I do consider myself a person who believes in individual freedom

and Liberty.

That’s called an American by the way.

Yeah, it’s basically being an American and I think, you know, as

we move on to this recall in San Francisco, I think Saks made a

really good point.

Like what are political leaders doing here?

Are they trying to stir the pot and antagonize these situations?

If you look, you know, Clinton, Obama, a lot of people previously

were trying to defuse these situations and then Biden seems to be

stirring the pot, Justin Trudeau.

And then if you look at Trump with BLM, you know, and the immigration

stuff, he never sat down and met with him and he arguably antagonize

them.

So I think this is a perfect segue into what happened.

And you know, so we should expect a little more from our political

leaders.

Great point from Saks.

You just brought up something incredible, you know, Trump railed

against these BLM folks, but at no point did he try to shut down their

bank accounts and take their money away.

And Trudeau can’t, you know, this was not even near in the scale of

BLM.

Yeah.

Who’s the bigger authoritarian?

Yeah.

I mean, it’s clearly if you objectively it’s Trudeau in this

situation.

The scary authoritarianism as we talked about in previous pods tends

to come from the left.

At least the right you see it coming.

I just want to read it’s veiled under moral virtue signaling.

That’s right.

They’re very sanctimonious.

They claim they claim to be the defenders of the working class while

they’re actually prosecuting them.

Such an unforced error, like, so dumb.

He’s gonna lose, right?

He’s gonna lose

if a DA was elected and a police office and police chief were elected

to San Francisco, that said we are going to freeze the bank accounts

and, you know, demobilize the criminals that are ransacking our

city, our people, our stores, would you support that?

No, not if it’s an office and extrajudicial use of power.

I mean, the law specifies what you’re allowed to do.

Do you think San Francisco’s in an emergency situation?

I mean, would you support the mayor taking on emergency authority to

go and fix the problem, which she just did, by the way, in the

tenderloin?

Yeah, but that doesn’t give her the power to go to Wells Fargo and

say to Wells Fargo, we want you to freeze all these accounts with

no due process of law.

That’s basically what Trudeau has done.

That’s the overreach.

That’s the line.

You think is like go and see you should have to go through a court

proceeding to freeze someone’s bank accounts, period.

Can’t just freeze someone’s bank account.

The law allows you to do this.

Now.

It’s called Rico.

So you follow the due process of the law and you can do all those

things free bird that you just mentioned if you want to free

somebody’s bank account, right?

You can actually do that.

The government has the ability to do that.

They don’t need to pass this.

Basically get out of jail free card to do whatever you want without

any oversight.

And to Chamath’s point earlier, have you exhausted the regular law

here?

They have the regular law haven’t even tried.

You can buy Fentanyl for five bucks on, you know, anytime you

want.

And meanwhile, the all the provinces are ending COVID mandates

anyway.

So this whole issue is moot.

So dumb.

It’s this is like the stupidest behavior at the end of a pandemic

that we’ve ever seen and shout out to George Lucas for getting it

right.

I mean, if you look at the theme of Star Wars, it was like, oh, I

just need emergency powers for a minute because of a trade Federation

blockade.

And here we are a crisis, a fake crisis.

Yeah, that wasn’t George Lucas, by the way.

I mean, that goes back to the Roman Empire, right?

Like, yeah, yeah, that was the formation of the Empire Caesar

God, Caesar God emergency authority.

I mean, this is a tried and true.

And the poll, the polls are actually right.

And the polls show that the most of the public in Canada is

applauding.

So what was the line from Democracy dies to applause?

Exactly.

That’s exactly that was Padme’s line in the Star Wars films.

All right, they’re aging.

Well, the prequels three members of San Francisco’s Board of

Education were they were the worst just to be clear, but go

not compared to the three, just huge dumps that Disney took on

the our childhoods with the sequels, three members of the

San Francisco Board of Education were called this week.

Massively, they lost by between 72% and 79%.

These were the virtue signaling maniacs who wanted to change

the names of all the schools wouldn’t reopen the schools,

yada, yada, and this really frustrated and they wanted to

get rid of elite AP classes.

All of this Jason they did they did.

Yeah.

And these three board members are out.

So London Breed,

Jason, Jason, just to be clear in the middle of a pandemic.

I think my understanding is that instead of figuring out how

to get these kids back in class how to figure out how they

could take off their masks.

They wanted to drop Abraham Lincoln and George Washington’s

name from schools because it was it was too regressive.

Yep, they canceled the gifted program because it made other

kids feel bad.

And a gentleman that wanted to serve on a committee

who I think was gay but not minority was excluded because

he wasn’t a minority.

Enough for them.

So these are the three people that 76% of San Francisco

citizens or you know residents just recalled and if you’re

not following this the tech industry had a major part in

this in terms of backing it.

There was a lot of claims which I’ll let sacks address in

a moment that this was a Republican driven out of state

movement.

But if you look there are not a hundred thousand Republicans

in San Francisco in all likelihood.

This was actually parents and a lot of cases based on the

geography of San Francisco and the density of certain

populations.

A lot of Asian Americans came out in force in some neighborhoods

90% were voting to oust these people Gary tan who is a product

of the San Francisco public education system and a great

entrepreneur venture capitalist was a leader in this movement.

So congratulations to him and this all is going to culminate

I think in May or June sacks will correct me with the recall

effort for Chesa Boudin this killer da who will prosecute

anybody sacks.

What are your thoughts on this victory and full disclosure?

You were a major donor to this.

I was the second largest donor and I was the largest donor

under age 90.

Arthur Rock was the biggest donor.

What a badass by the way, the guy is 95 years old.

He donated to $400,000 to this recall.

He was in fairness.

You live in San Francisco.

This is a backdoor issue for you.

You care.

Oh, yeah.

Yeah.

Look, I think crime and schools are the key quality of life

issues in any community and it transcends partisan boundaries.

If your kids cannot get a quality education and you cannot

be safe in your community, nothing else matters and that

matters to Democrats just as much as Republicans and that’s

why like you said three quarters of San Francisco voted for

this recall even though 85% of them voted for Biden.

It’s not it’s basically a 90% Democrat city.

So, you know all these claims that was a Republican recall

turned out to be nonsense.

This was something that was broadly supported and and you

know, look, it’s the same reason that young can flipped a

you know, plus 10 Democrat state in Virginia, which is that

you know, it had a lot to do with school closures.

They kept the schools closed for a year and a half and then

when they were supposed to have conversation a PTA meeting

about reopening it like Jamal Smith said they spent five hours

debating whether to allow this beloved gay parent onto a

voluntary school board.

They didn’t they spent all their time, you know talking

about changing the names of the schools instead of how to

reopen them.

They also there’s chronic mismanagement.

I mean the school is something like 125 million dollars in

debt despite, you know being in a very rich city open for

one day.

That’s right.

Just so that they could get a state piece of the state budget

pie.

So these kids clamored back to school just so that they could

leave technically say, yeah, we were open and to get I think

it was a 12 or 13 million dollar check and then they shut

the schools down again, right?

And you brought a key point Jason, which is that the Asian

American community in San Francisco has been absolutely

galvanized by this issue because the school board also, you

know, Lowell High School is one of the best schools in the

city and it was merit-based and it had great advanced math

programs and this this board basically got rid of all that

stuff and it infuriated the Asian American community many

of whose most prominent members have basically risen out of

poverty because of the education they got at Lowell.

And so this war on merit that’s happening is something that

is going to you know, flip the you know, Asian American

community.

I think to when I when I was growing up, I grew up in a French

ghetto of Ottawa.

And I was supposed to go to a local high school.

That was just plainly trash and I was able to go to an

equivalent of Lowell this a public magnet high school that

had advanced classes and everything a gifted program and

it really did change my life.

And so I really understand what people are saying, which is

like when you’re in poverty, the only way out is through an

education.

Really, you may get, you know, get accidentally lucky, but the

only really predictable sustainable pattern here is is

through school.

And so when you deprive folks from being able to get a decent

education and there’s no real, you know, orderly logic to it.

It’s a really ridiculous kind of an idea.

The other thing is I think that this speaks very powerfully.

As sack said as a non as a bipartisan issue that these

Democrats have to get right because you know, you saw this

also in Virginia where Democrats basically went down this

one tack and you know, the Republican candidate Glenn

Youngkin basically said, hey, listen, the schools are broken.

It’s completely doesn’t make any sense.

We oppose a lot of what’s going on the watering down and the

critical race theory, etc, etc.

And he put it to a vote and a lot of people cross the aisle

there as well, where typically ardent Democrats basically

voted for this Republican governor.

I think the point is that there are just several issues that

are just so transcend like they’re just they transcend all

party lines.

And this is an anchor issue that we have to get right Friedberg.

Any thoughts on this?

Do you think this is the start of maybe a turnaround for San

Francisco because Chesa Boone is way more hated and safety is

an even bigger issue.

I think for a lot of people right now in San Francisco and

It dovetails with Asian hate and the number of Asian people

targeted in crimes.

So he’s got a I mean, if these people got out by 75% on average,

he’s going to be out by 95% is this a tipping point in San

Francisco going to make a read?

I don’t know.

I mean, look, I think there’s generally a broader

trend and momentum around what we classify as woke ism, which

I think is a little bit disparaging to the intention of

social justice and recognizing the primary points of social

justice through action and behavior in civic discourse and

government behavior.

And you know, this like the election of several da’s around

the country who take a different stance to prosecution of crime

to try and create better options for rehab and so on.

I think is not a movement that’s going to go away overnight.

I think there’s certainly a hefty amount of resistance, but

what we’re really doing right now is I think we’re learning

and realizing the boundaries of this movement and of this

moment, the one boundary that I think San Franciscans are too

bad in San Francisco, like, you know, as in the case in tech

has always been so progressive in terms of, you know, doing

these things faster than anyone else.

But what we’re realizing in San Francisco is non-prosecution

of criminals as the DA has undertaken over the past couple

of years leads to really heinous crime and rampant crime and

and this kind of social justice movement within the education

system causes a decline in the value of our education system.

Those are two really important learnings that San Francisco

has had over the past couple of years with this very important

and momentous kind of social justice movement, but it doesn’t

mean that the movement is over.

It doesn’t mean that quote-unquote woke ism is over.

It means that that social justice intent is still there, but

we’re realizing where the boundaries are and how far things

can and maybe should go.

I posted this article.

Tyler Collin, who’s a, you know, pretty well-known economist.

He wrote this op-ed for the for Bloomberg and what he said is

that woke ism has peaked and there’s just these two passages

that the builds on what freeberg said quote by woke ism.

I refer to a movement that on the positive side is highly aware

of racism and social injustice and is galvanized towards

raising awareness on the negative side.

It can be preachy alienating overly concerned with symbols

and self-righteous unquote.

And I think that that probably does summarize sort of like

where it starts, which is I think rooted in a very good place.

But unfortunately all too often where it ends, which is that

sort of moral absolutist judgment cancel culture around it.

And then the second quote that he said was the following.

He said quote woke ism is likely to evolve into a subculture

that is highly educated highly white and fairly feminine.

That is still a large mass of people but not enough to run

the country or all its major institutions in the San Francisco

school board recall.

For instance, the role of Asian Americans was especially

prominent unquote.

So I don’t know.

I just think that all these things sort of people are looking

for affiliation and you start with labels that bring you in

and then you have to sort out are all these labels really

true and how true are they and I think we’re in this moment

now where now that we know the mechanism of action of locus

and I just don’t think it works anymore and I think a lot

of people will say I believe in the high order of deals of

racial and social justice, but I don’t believe in the mechanism

of action.

And so the pendulum swung too far, but but but but the core

intent of a generation of change is underway, which is social

justice and climate change.

I think those are the two big points of concern be done with

this cohort under this will it will be done to this extreme

this fast, right?

And and I think that the pendulum went too fast too far and

it’s and there are boundary effects that are causing recourse

right now and we’re seeing this across the country, especially

in New York with the election of the mayor and San Francisco

that the da recalls happening in the next couple of months.

So sacks, what’s your prediction on the da recall by the way?

Well, that’s 95% but I mean it just to build on your point.

They were talking about 10% of the people in the United States

who are involved in this, you know, retweeting and virtual

signaling and you know, is Twitter a real place?

Well, no, a city’s a real place people have to live in San

Francisco.

And when these ideologies result in unlivable conditions for

people, well, they’re going to say, you know what, there’s

reality here.

How do we get competent people to take the positions sacks that

are being vacated now who should London breed put in these

three positions and maybe tech people need to I mean, this is

what I think has to happen.

I think some number of tech people have to get off the bench

and say, you know what, I’m going to do a tour of duty as

politicians in San Francisco to take back the city.

What should happen here in terms of who takes these positions

because Republicans can’t win in San Francisco.

So you’re going to need moderate Democrats, right?

Sacks before sacks goes, can I just say something?

Because I think I just want to say something that’s really

important sacks.

I’m sorry to jump in.

But Jake, how I think the point you’re making about the tech

people implies the tech people are effective and good at doing

this, but that’s not necessarily the fabric of San Francisco.

I’ve lived in San Francisco since 2001.

The number of people in San Francisco in 2001 that were in

the tech industry was a minority.

Since that time it became a significant size and over the

last two years since the pandemic it’s decreased significantly.

But San Francisco is a city with decades and generations of

history.

My wife’s family is multi-generational San Franciscans.

And I don’t think that traditionally San Franciscans view

tech people as the right people to solve these problems for

them that the intention of that city is not necessarily about

let’s get tech people to solve our problems.

They have a different set of values perhaps.

And so we often overstate and assume that tech people are the

right people and are this the problem solvers, but I don’t

think that that’s necessarily the right problems that people

want to solve.

So I just I just wanted to intervene and take these positions

because right, it’s really far left people are motivated to

take these positions.

I don’t see business people writ large across all political,

you know positions, but specifically San Francisco don’t

want to take these positions.

So is this just going to be replayed sex?

The recall effort was led by two parents autumn illusion and

Siva Raj.

They’re the ones who led this thing.

They’re the ones who rose up to basically oppose these crazy

school board members.

And that is who London breach to talk to.

I mean, she needs to go talk to the people who are successful

in organizing this recall because they understand the issues

obviously and the people are with them.

So either appoint them to the board or ask them for their

recommendations.

And I think what you see consistently, whether it’s with

this SF school board or the school boards that we saw in

Virginia, the young can very effectively ran against is that

they don’t believe the parents matter.

Terry McAuliffe fatal that his last gap was basically saying

that the parents shouldn’t get to decide what is taught in

the schools.

He basically said the quiet part out loud, but that is what

still across the country.

The teachers unions believe and most of Democratic Party,

the activists believe and until they start losing elections,

you’re not going to see a change in that belief.

Oh my god.

How awesome would it be exactor on the school board?

Oh my god.

Yeah, and just to put a pin in this and the cherry on top,

the San Francisco Board of Supervisors voted seven to four

to send a recall reform bill.

So their reaction to all of this is to do a recall of recalls

and say now you can’t recall somebody in their first year

and the people who are placed in these positions can’t run

again.

So now the speculation is that three people who got voted off

are going to run again.

So there’s a lot more to come on this.

Yeah, and also part so they’re putting this to staff that

they’re putting that on the ballot on June 7th, the same

day that we vote on the recall of Jason Boudin, the Board

of Supervisors now put in this measure that would make it

far harder to recall people.

One of the provisions of that is whoever London Breed appoints

as the successor, like you’re talking about, they cannot run

after that.

So it is designed to for no that makes no sense.

They’re basically what they do a great job, right?

Exactly.

It makes no sense.

So you have the Board of Supervisors trying to throw a wrench

into the democratic process.

Meanwhile, these are people who claim to be preserving democracy

saving democracy.

They are trying to throw a wrench in the thing is underlying

it David is they think they know better.

That’s what it fundamentally comes down to.

They’re willing to have democracy up to a point and when

that point is an unacceptable view by somebody else, they

feel like they know better and they’re willing to be really

draconian in whatever they do to decide.

Yeah, and shout out to Mike Bloomberg.

I’ll pull up the the tweet for everybody.

He hasn’t been very vocal or been on the stage much but

obviously did a great job in New York on reforming schools.

The San Francisco School Board recall should be a wake-up

call to elected officials, especially Democrats across the

nation.

Parents are fed up with the status quo and I put adults that

puts adults ahead of kids.

Yeah, well ideology ahead of results.

Well said Mike.

Yeah.

Well said Mr.

Bloomberg.

Yes, that was very good.

And Bloomberg has been very good on calling out the Democrat

their Democratic Party’s blind loyalty to the teachers unions

and until they’re willing to break with the teachers unions

who are their biggest donor.

We’re not going to get any real progress on school reform.

And this is the issue of my favorite political commentator.

One of them is Roy Tashara, who’s a Democrat.

He wrote the emerging Democrat majority.

He wrote a blog post talking about how the Asian American

voters are going to swing away from the Democratic Party

because of issues like this because of the decline of

standards in school and safety and and and the Asian American

community.

I think is galvanized on this Jason Boudin issue because they

have seen in all these cases of Asian hate where elders in

their community have been violently assaulted.

Jason Boudin has done nothing except release the perpetrators

occurs.

All right.

Well, listen, this is seems like a good turning point.

Let’s we talked about on this podcast over and over again

about the compression in SAS multiples in the public market

valuations, something that we’re still working through in the

stock market, which has been choppy at best over the last

couple of months.

An information story came out just this week, major crossover

funds like tiger and D one are slowing down their investments

in late stage private companies.

And I was talking to some folks who said the multiple compression

is here now.

They’re not doing the deals at 75 or 100 x revenue.

This is reported in an article by the information tiger global

told their LPS in a webinar earlier this month that it would

no longer focus on backing late stage startups preparing to go

public instead, they will focus on two things going even earlier

into series A and series B rounds and buying shares of public

tech companies that have sunk in value compared to the all time

highs. Obviously, we know twillow zoom block, all down over

60% from their one year highs, I could get into more details

here. But let’s stop for a second. And Chamath, what are

your thoughts in the dot com bubble?

It took somewhere between three to five years for most stocks

to bottom. And they bottomed, I think, peak to trough somewhere,

you know, towards 80% of where they were in 2000. Right. So it

took three to five years to go basically minus 80%. We did

that in three months, you know, maybe four months. And so the

markets have become a lot more efficient over time. So now that

we have that reset, it’s pretty natural that there’s going to

be a very quick reset on the private market side. And you

know, you have to go where the bodies are buried. And what I

mean by that, in this case is that overwhelming misvaluation

of late stage private companies. And so these folks don’t have

much of a choice, they have a lot of money that they’ve raised.

Before all of this happened, they have a huge portfolio of

stuff that they’ve marked up or have been marked up by others.

And they don’t want to go through the pain now resetting.

So part of the easy strategic decision there is to say, you

know what, we know this is a little bit radioactive. But

instead of really figuring out what the mark on these companies

are, we’ll go to a different sort of part of the playground

and play there. Because we don’t have to go and deal with these

issues. And, you know, we can do 10, 15 $20 million checks

into early stage businesses, pretty normal reaction strategically.

But I think the reality is that at some point in the next year

or two, these other companies have to get public, the hope

is that the market catches back up so that you can defend

the last valuation. And that’s the that’s the way that this

stuff doesn’t require a lot of pain. The problem is, if you’re

high burn, and you are counting on yet another successive round,

or you’re at a point in your life cycle where you need to go

public. In the next two years, if you go public, you will get

taken to the woodshed.

Take the woodshed being your valuation might be half of what

it is in your last round. So there’s going to be medicine

that has to be taken sacks, there’ll be medicine, some people

are gonna have to take some medicine sacks, what’s your best

advice being one of the great operators in the history of

Silicon Valley as a CEO of PayPal?

Well, I’m up there with share. I mean, I think this, I think

everybody agreed the top four people can correct me here. Tim

was a good operator.

I mean, I saw what you did to ICQ, man, you were riding that

that bad boy down. That wasn’t

I delivered a billion fucking users to a company. Okay, it’s

pretty decent.

You did pretty good at Facebook. I’ll say that. But if I would

think most people would say sacks, Cheryl, Tim Cook, Keith

Roy, boy, we’ll put that aside for the debate in terms of

operating a little dark, spicy barbecue pork here. Come on,

give me I’ll put you in the top 25. Sure. Okay. But I mean, it

wasn’t your wasn’t your chosen career. A little dark meat.

Nice. Please don’t get me in trouble. Bring me into your dark

people.

Wait, J Cal, who are your top four? Cheryl?

I put my top four in this order. I’ll give it an order.

So basically, for white people when

basically, Asian and Indian CEOs run most of the tech companies

and I’m talking about number two, CEOs, not CEOs. Just for

the CEO position. To be clear, I’m not talking CEO, I’m talking

to COO. I would say Tim Cook, when he was Steve Jobs, that’s

my number one operator last 20 30 years. Number two, I put

Cheryl Sandberg, who did obviously amazing things for

Google, and then Facebook, right? Those two would be my top

two. And then I tie my top two sacks as a PayPal and Zenefits

even though it didn’t work out. It was still a great run at the

time. And then I put Keith or a boy square and a couple of other

companies he did. Those are my top four. Anybody else want to

come at me? Go ahead. I don’t have complete data set on CEOs.

But where would you put sex? You did I put your mind to disagree?

Who might disagree?

Wasn’t Keith at LinkedIn?

Really? You are J. Cal lately.

It’s a love fest now. Yeah. Okay. There we go. There we go.

They’re back together.

You and Friedberg are at each other’s throats. So I’ll just

let you guys fight it out. And I’ll be all about the love. Yeah,

Friedberg. Why are you attacking J. Cal? Yeah, Friedberg.

Be quiet over there. No one’s asking you. Stay in your lane,

Friedberg. So sacks as an operator extraordinaire. What’s

your best advice to the company that raised 100 million? And

let’s say their valuation is now not a billion. It’s 500 million.

What are the steps you take? You got 14 months of runway in the

bank? Do you lay people off? Do you extend it to 24? What are

your thoughts? Okay, you must be dealing with this with companies

in your portfolio.

Well, there’s a few things going on. First of all, I think Tiger

built a great business and providing late stage sort of

passive non dilutive capital to companies, SAS companies, we

have a bunch of SAS businesses that they provided later stage

financing. I think those valuations are going to come

down. I don’t know that they’re going to be such a great partner

for series a firms because they are passive. And, you know, we

see is that series a companies need a lot of help. They need a

lot of advice, you need a lot of help with recruiting,

governance, governance, they need, you know, when they’re

growing from, say, 20 employees to 100, they need to know what

that org chart looks like, and on and on and on. So I don’t know

that if this report, I don’t know if this reporting is

actually true. But if the goal is all of a sudden for Tiger to

become a series a investor that competes with craft or Sequoia

or these other firms that are not very hands on, does it that

doesn’t seem like a great strategy to me. I do think that

for our later stage companies, they have to realize that, you

know, if they raise the other side of this, sorry, David, I

just want your reaction to this. I think it’s going to work, but

not for the right reasons. The reason it’ll work is there are

way more entrepreneurs now than there are great entrepreneurs.

And so of all of these entrepreneurs that exist, the

idea of getting passive money, where you won’t get fired, where

there is that remember, like, remember, when we were growing

up in Silicon Valley, the risk is always like if you take

Sequoia benchmark, you know, social cap, like there’s a high

bar for that capital, which means we are helping you run

this business effectively. And there’s a cost where if you

don’t perform, you will get fired. There’s always been that

risk. It’s true. And I guess that’s the argument they could

make. But the flip side is that there’s a lot of these. So the

CEO now, why would you take a $15 million Series A check from

Sequoia where they could fire you? Where’s $15 million from

Tiger, they’ll may never call you. We address that by doing

look, if a founder is really worried about that, we address

that by giving them three board seats, you know, we might have

one, they might have three. I mean, my view on it is you just

never fire a founder unless he does something criminal. It’s

just that simple. But so look, I think there’s ways of

addressing the governance where you can get the help or the

value out of an early stage firm without giving up the control.

So yeah, I mean, look, that’s the pitch that Tiger would make,

but I think that’s addressable.

What do you think of that pitch freeberg? We’ll give you the

$15 million Series A, you don’t have to have a board, you can

just be passive and let us know how it goes. Give us a quarterly

report. We’ll look at the p&l.

That’s all of crypto now. Anyways, that’s true. Well, I

mean, that’s a fair point. No governance in crypto is leading

to a lot of weird stuff. I can tell you, I tell people this a

lot. So I had three term sheets for my Series B. It was from

Andreessen Horowitz, coastal ventures and founders fund and

founders fund came in kind of last minute. But I went with

coastal, even though it’s a lower valuation, because the

node was pretty insistent, like, let me put someone that could

be useful some, you know, government person, because we’re

doing a lot of work lobbying in DC, on your board, we won’t be

on your board, we won’t bother you. And I took the round. And

then my Series C, I took from founders fund, because Brian

Singerman, who’s obviously a good friend, you know, made the

case like, look, our model of founders fund is we let founders

run the business, we’re not here to tell you how to run your

business. And they were both great fits. And you know, it

worked out. Well, I didn’t, I had, I have had experience with

antagonistic VCs on boards. And, you know, generally creates a

pretty negative dynamic. Now, when I was the worst story,

without the person’s name, I don’t think I want to go public

with it. So I’m not going to do that. But when I was on, give us

an idea of what the behavior would be, because there are

people in the audience who want to know what is bad behavior of

VC, just give us a composite. When you’re an entrepreneur, or

a CEO running an early stage business, you live that business

20 hours a day, you know, the details, if you’re smart, you’re

thorough, you’re analytical, you’re creative, there is no one

that’s going to come in the boardroom for two hours a

quarter, and suggest things to you that you haven’t thought of,

there’s no one that’s going to come in the room and be smarter

than you at your own business. And so more often than not,

Vinod’s been exceptional at defining this problem. The problem

is VCs join a board, and they think that they have to quote

add value. So they come in, and they make a bunch of suggestions

and recommendations and push you to do a bunch of things. And

as Vinod has said correctly, many times, they more often than

not add negative value, they can actually destroy and damage

a business, because they need to feel like they’re exerting

some degree of influence over the business. And as a result,

they push the business to do things that the CEO or founder

otherwise wouldn’t be doing. And that often ends up in a kind

of weird sticky kind of place. So I just validated the tiger

pitch right there. I think that’s right. And by the way,

it’s why founders fund founders fund is fantastic. I don’t know

if you guys are LPS, but their investment returns are so far

beyond what I think anyone really realizes they’re incredible

investors. And a big part of it is they try and find the

entrepreneur that doesn’t want and doesn’t need the help. And

then they give them the capital to go and execute and they leave

them the heck alone. And they are just so good at finding those

folks, identifying them and then literally being passive in

how they kind of manage and operate their business. And

that’s why they were so freaking good.

I think the people you’re talking about are a lot of rookie

VCs who come in and then yeah, they think they’re just

experienced x operators, even people who ran businesses who

say I know how to run a business and look, no two businesses are

alike. So maybe the way they ran their business with their team

and their market and their industry worked well for them.

But now when they got to come in and do it with someone else’s

business in some other space, with some completely different

team, you know, they try and exert influence. And really,

it’s just, you know, not want it.

Let me go to sack sacks. Hold on, I want to just get one from

you. Give us an idea because you’ve been in the business for

over 20 years. I mean, by the looks of it, maybe 40, but 20

years, just crushing it in the business. What’s the worst

behavior you’ve seen on a board? You can make a composite of

like a VC being destructive on a board.

Yeah, I mean, look, I think sometimes VCs will have sort of

hobby horses and they’ll keep pushing for things that the

founder doesn’t want. That’s not productive. But what I would

say is, first of all, let me just say like, I’m not somebody

who likes to take board seats. And I, I do it as it’s like I

see it as a cost, not a benefit to me, because it takes up my

time. If I didn’t have to ever take a board seat, that’d be a

great as far as I’m concerned, that’d be a good thing. I’m not

somebody who wants to, you know, insert myself and get on these

boards, you know,

offered as an incentive. No,

I only only took a board seals. Yeah, the only reason I’ll ever

take a board seat is because I have to do it because the

founder insists that otherwise they won’t go with I’ve seen

it with them. So exactly. So you’ll do it for one year,

right? You’ll say, Hey, I’ll do it for a year.

I always time limited now because I just can’t. I mean, I

can’t make a 10 year obligation. You know, it’s typically like

one or two years and then you know, we’ll see doesn’t mean

I’ll roll off in two years, but but I but I need to have the

expectation set up and and the reality is if the company can

perform well for another two years, they’ll be at a different

stage. And maybe they won’t, you know, need my help as much. So

tomorrow, the two most valuable pieces of private equity that

I own is a company called DCG. And it’s a company called

Netscope. And collectively, it’s like a billion dollars worth

of stock that I own what I’m on the board of one. I’m not on

the board of the other anymore. And I text with these guys

maybe once every two or three months at best. So, you know,

completely confirming David your point that great founders are

just end of one individuals, you know, Barry Silbert, Sanjay

Berry, next level guys. But that’s very different than the

the series a playbook because when I ran institutional money,

I’m telling you there is a pressure to be involved and show

some value. And I do think that there is a level of judgment

on the CEO that has happened. Now, maybe that’s changed

historically. But I think that’s the single biggest pivot that

one would exploit. If you were tiger or code two or D one

stepping into the early stage game, which is to essentially

make it a feature and it’s not dissimilar to when DST and Yuri

Milner entered the late stage round. You know, what was his

big differentiation? I’ll take common stock and I won’t take a

board seat. I do not need a board seat to be influential. It

seems so counterintuitive and so against the grain, but he

acknowledged what was this thing that up until that point was

true, which is common and preferred converged in price per

share. So buying common in a late stage company was the same

as buying preferred.

You know, that’s something you should explain a chamath for a

second people don’t know this, but at an IPO,

well, let’s start with it. So when you set up a company, you

have a price per share of the common stock and then a price

per share that the series a investor has. The series a

investor is buying preferred shares that actually looks more

like debt than equity. And what I mean by that is there’s

typically a coupon. There’s a rate of return. There’s

accumulated dividends. All these features give it a certain

price per share and the common has none of those features. And

so it has a low protective provisions and that gap is

typically around 20 to one when you set up a company. Okay, and

that’s what allows you to hire employees and give them very

very cheap options with embedded upside. Then what happens

is you raise more and more of these series B series C series

D these preference stack, right? Preferred shares build up,

but the value of the common keeps rising too. And by the

time you go public, the gap converges. What Yuri realized

was, hey, wait a minute. I’m buying a company a year or 18

months before it goes public. The price of the common and the

price of the preferred are roughly the same. And so I’m

just going to, you know, do that and I’m not going to take a

board seat because it’s clear this company is successful. So

similarly, for Tiger D one and code two, I would just observe

the obvious and kind of put everything that we’ve just said

on the table, which is, hey, guys, I’ll give you the money.

You’re either end of one or not. I’m making a guess that you are

and I’m just going to get out of your way and leave you alone.

I’m bundling governance and unbundling the governance and

advice piece from the capital piece, but you’re gonna still

need that governance and advice piece. I think it could work.

Yeah, I mean, I think there’s a lot of great founders or their

founders who start young and experience become great. And the

smart ones listen to advice on the way and they seek out people

who’ve done it before. And so, you know, yes, they may be an end

of one business by the growth stage. But that doesn’t mean

they don’t need any help whatsoever at the Series A

stage. Such a good observation. Yeah. And look, I think there’s

been I think there’s been an evolution Silicon Valley, I’d

actually say there’s been like three distinct phases in the

venture capital world. And I remember all of them. So you go

back to the the night the late 90s. Okay. When you had this

mentality on the part of VCs, that if a company became

successful, you would just automatically replace the

founders, right? You go bring in a professional CEO upgrade,

that was a disaster. Okay. And, and that’s when founders fund

Peter came in, I think founded founders fund in 2003. And the

reason they called it founders fund is to indicate they were

gonna be pro founder, and they would never replace the founder.

And they would let you do whatever you wanted. And I think

you want to tell the backstory of the Sean Parker stuff and how

that happened. Yeah, I mean, so basically, both Peter and Sean

Parker had, you know, experiences, they felt were very

negative with Sequoia. And by the way, I have great relations

with Sequoia, Roloff, who worked with us at PayPal is there. And

I think they’ve evolved as a firm. So I’m not calling them

out or anything. But, but both Sean Parker and Peter felt like

Sequoia pushed to have them replaced. And so with Plaxo,

specifically, there are a couple of different companies involved.

But when Peter was CEO of PayPal, as well, that, you know, he

felt he felt that pressure as well. So when they then founded

as two of the four founding partners of founders from back

in 2003, the whole point was, we are going to be pro founder,

you’re never gonna replace you will let you do whatever you

want. I think that was that was phase two. And that became I

think, the dominant model. And so becoming pro founder was now

table stakes. And I think the third phase has been, you know,

what Andreessen Horowitz has now done with this massive, like

the services and the value add, which is that we’re going to

basically not only be pro founder, but we’re going to like

bring all these resources to help you. And that’s the era

we’re in right now. I mean, from the, from our perspective, like

as as craft, I mean, look, it’s not in our interest to get into

any dispute with a founder. And if we feel like our advice isn’t

being taken, well, we just back off. You know, of course, we’re

pro founder, like we don’t want the control. We’re not control

investors. And, you know, if it’s if it’s, if it’s becoming

frictional, we’d rather just get out of the way.

No, it’s just not worth it. The underlying thing that you’re not

saying, though, it’s because you have enough of a fund that’s

large enough where you can have enough bets where any of these

any of these things to the upside is a total needle mover.

But anything that goes to zero doesn’t actually diminish the

fund or impair it meaningfully. So there is no upside to getting

engaged and really being non anti founder. So yeah, I think

it’s a I think it’s a part of a business model. But one thing I

want to tell you about Parker, Parker was single handedly

incredibly responsible for keeping Zuck in the seat when he

was president of Facebook, as Parker wrote, you know, the

structure that really allowed Mark to keep control super

voting shares,

it’s active to add on to your your point, I think that there

has been. So there seems to be a bifurcation around the services

model or not. But the fourth thing that seems to have

happened, and you guys tell me if I’m wrong on this, but it

plays into the tiger global story. When I was, when I got

that term sheet for my series B, at Climate Corp, Mark Andreessen,

I was trying to raise like 25 to $30 million. And Mark Andreessen

was like, we’re gonna give you a term sheet for $40 million more

than you were asking for. Because we want you to use that

extra capital to go faster to go harder to grab the market

because we have this big pitch in business is grabbing the

market. And that seems to have also become a bit of a mainstay

but not just a mainstay, but now almost like the kind of standard

pitch that a lot of the later stage guys are taking, which is

like, here’s so much capital that it helps you make the

market. And then the SoftBank Vision Fund kind of took that

to the extreme with $100 billion raise and Tiger Global, I think

last year, have publicly said they deployed about $15 billion

into startups, where a startup may in a natural cycle kind of

evolved to needing $70 million raise or $100 million raise. And

they’re like writing checks for 250 or 300. And saying this

extra capital gives you the ability to move faster. And the

reason is, the faster a business moves, the higher the multiple

they get on their revenue. So the higher the growth rate, the

higher the multiple. So if you can deploy capital faster, if we

can find a business where we can pump money through you to get it

out the door faster, your multiple goes up and Tigers

model was let’s just get the multiples up. There’s multiple

expansion and growth. So we’ll make money two ways when the

company goes public in 18 to 24 months. Obviously, when the

markets end up tanking and all those multiples compress, no

growth rate is going to solve that problem for you. But having

more capital than maybe you were thinking or asking for also

seems to have become kind of attacking. I don’t know if that

if you view that as kind of this fourth evolution, but that

certainly wasn’t the case 20 years ago, when VCs were being

careful about is it a $6 million round or an $8 million round,

what’s the right amount of capital. And nowadays, it’s much

more about take more than you need.

I’ll say there was a 3.5 in there, which is, you saw a

little bit of lack of governance or superpowers on the part of

like some incompetent founders or bad founders. Just you know,

whether it’s we were Theranos, whatever, too much control, not

enough governance, things go off the rail. But, you know,

based on this discussion, I really think this bifurcates

when it’s a first time founder versus a second time founder in

what I see, because I have been doing board training for seed

companies where I will just have three founders sit in on each

other’s first board meetings, we do one board meeting each, and

I train them how board meetings works in what I experienced with

Sequoia on my board and other boards. And first time founders

like the tactical stuff, how to run a board meeting legal HR

hiring partnerships, go to market strategies, man, it is

all tactical all the time. And then when I’ve been on with

second and third time founders, you know, they really are like,

here’s all the materials, here’s what I’m thinking about, what do

we think strategically, so they go from the tactical level to

the strategic and mission level awfully quick. And they actually

seem to enjoy having those four meetings a year. Whereas the

first time founders really need to have six to 10 a year in

those in that first, you know, call it year two of a company.

That’s my experience.

I realized in this discussion, that the market has really

meaningfully changed, meaning when I was actively investing,

even in the early 2000s, or sorry, in the in the, you know,

2011 1213. There was a culture where if you underperformed, you

would get replaced. And I think David, what you just spoke about

which, I guess is true, has really changed, which is if

you’re running a multi multi billion dollar fund, where every

check is $20 million, the upside is billions, but the

downside is negative 20. There’s just no point. And so

you know, Sequoia used to be known as a very, very, very

tough, tough, tough place for CEOs that were underperforming.

Now they got a $9 billion fund. Now you have maybe 20 years

ago, it doesn’t matter anymore. Not No, not even even 10, less

than 10 years ago. I think it was, I think it was known as a

very tough demanding place. I think benchmark was known as a

very tough demanding place because the money was much more

finite, right benchmark still don’t still that case.

Expectation culture, they never they never grew their fund size.

No, Jason, you’re not you’re not hearing me. I am. I think what’s

happening is, listen, I had Sequoia on my board, and I

worked at Sequoia. So there’s a difference between high

expectations, which I think all these folks have to have and the

willingness to replace the founder as CEO. And what I’m

saying is every VC claims this, but there were a handful of VCs

that had the courage to do this. I mean, famously, Mike Morrison,

john door, you know, had it out with Larry at the you know,

right, right after this round, like either go public, you know,

get your business model or give us your money back famously at

Google. So they’re not they’re willing to draw a line in the

sand. I think that that has fundamentally changed at all

these organizations, because the fund sizes have gone up. And the

and the mathematical reality of venture capital has changed

something else you’re missing, which is you got to remember

Moritz and door, we’re not operators. And now these

companies are being run rule off is running Sequoia. And he’s

an operator and he was there. So the changing of the guard and

Mark Andreessen and Ben Horowitz were operators. So the operator

class behaves very differently. I disagree with you. I think

that fun respectfully just takes No, hold on. I think that fun

size dictates his behavior more than any singular other feature.

When you’re running a $9 billion fund, you just don’t sweat that

changing of the CEO. And David said it really well. You just

say, Okay, I’ll cut our losses and move on. We don’t lose. I

think it’s more about the culture change in Silicon Valley

of a bunch of MBA finance people who have never run a company now

moving and running companies. But you know, let’s move on to

the next any closing thoughts on this one?

Well, just I mean, Jason, you start to make this point that if

you’re a founder, and you want to eventually run a great public

company, when you IPO, guess what, you’re going to have

governments. And what I’ve seen big time, right? I mean, there’s

just Delaware law, there’s just a lot of like expectations around

being a public company. And so if you don’t have a board, you

know, and you’re not constituting one until you go

public, there’s going to be a massive amount of cleanup that

you have to do. I mean, that’s what I’ve seen. And so you’ll

end up scrambling to create a board, I think that a board

serves so many purposes early on of giving you advice and giving

you structure of providing support, help services, you can

still remain in control while getting those things. And I’m

just, I’m just skeptical that like, if you form a company with

completely passive VCs, you don’t even serve on a board,

like, you’re gonna have to do a lot of cleanup later, I’d say at

a minimum.

Totally. I think that that’s true, too. Totally. I’m not, by

the way, I’m not saying I advocate this. But I just think

that the reality is that if these large late stage crossover

firms really step into the early stage, I think they could

really build a big book of business. I do think there are a

lot of founders who would love to just be given the money and

just to be left alone. I’m not saying that they think they know

that it’s better for them. But on the margin just to be able to

be left alone. Now, what has changed maybe those everybody’s

going to be very hands off just because all the fund sizes have

exploded. So at that point, then you know, what is the difference

between Sequoia and D one time will tell.

I just know that like when I see a founder doing something that

I think could risk the company going off the rails, I’ll say

so. And then, you know, if it keeps happening, and situation

gets worse, I’ll say so again, I might mention the third time I

might not, at a certain point, I’m just like, maybe after like

two times, I’m just like, they don’t want to listen to me,

that’s fine. It’s their decision, their company, their

decision, they go off the rails, their problem, you know, we’ll

move on to the next one. I mean, that’s the reality.

Sometimes founders have to learn by doing it, like sometimes

their intent and you know what, they could be right and you

could be wrong too. So it’s hard as a, as a it’s hard as a

board member, you know, that’s why I’m very judicious in giving

advice as a board member now, and I’m on a bunch of boards and

do word training, because when the rule of was on my board, and

he still is, you know, he would ask great questions. And he

would be very thoughtful about Hey, have you thought about this?

Or when I got advice from Doug or Michael Moritz directly, you

know, Doug would say, Hey, well, can you share the two year plan

with me? And I’d say, you know, we haven’t built a plan. And he

said, Well, you know, Jason, you know, hope is not a plan. Let’s

make a plan. And let’s discuss, you know, the milestones along

here. And it was amazing to have that level of thoughtfulness

around totally vision as a founder.

I love I mean, as a founder, I love getting advice. And I think

you got to be really dumb not to seek it out. I mean, I when I

was a founder, I would even though I was sort of competing

with any off, I would meet with him and I would like get amazing

tidbits. Just recently, we did it wasn’t like an official board

meeting because roll off isn’t on our board, but he’s a big

investor in one of my incubations, Colin. And we just

did a meeting with him. And, and, and

gets it in every time. Not to be confused with all in, but no,

yeah, not to be confused. We have a trademark.

It was it was me and Axel, who’s the co founder of Colin and, and

roll off. And we had like an amazing meeting where we got

like, I’d say amazing advice from raw, that like, focused us.

And it wasn’t that I didn’t know these things. But it’s just like

when you’re in the weeds, sometimes you don’t actually

crystallize and focus on the most important thing. And I came

out of that meeting, feeling like, okay, roll off just

refocused us on the most important thing. And it was

immensely valuable. And you’ve got to be like dumb not to seek

that out, no matter what stage you’re at. Because I seek it out

today.

Yeah. And think about this, David, you’re in the thick of

things. He’s on squares board, he’s on other boards, he’s got a

picture of the entire playing field. It’s like somebody who’s

the coach of 15 NBA teams. And you’re like the coach of one,

he’s seeing things on other NBA teams that they’re doing in

methodologies and best practices that you’re just not going to

see. So I mean, again, and then if you look at the great

founders, TK used to come to me and say, Hey, you know, this is

the thing I’m going to be doing at the next board meeting, or

here’s the thing, can we jam out? And he would just ask for a jam

session, he came up with that term, and three or four people

would get together and just jam and talk for five hours about

the product. It was awesome. All right, let’s go on to David

Sachs, his favorite section of the show. Science with the

Sultan of Science himself. Oh, I thought you were gonna say his

favorite program. Oh, enough with that. Oh, we can’t talk

about that. That was exciting. You have to you if you are

engaged in the science segment, it’s actually PG or in a fight.

All right, let’s cover it. Here’s the deal. If David Sachs

is engaged during the science portion of the class, we will

let him have his fight. As the as the teacher here, tell us a

little bit about stem cells. And this HIV story, I was gonna tell

sex that the earth is round. Okay, it’s not flat. I don’t

care. Yeah. How does that affect Solana? So sorry, the story that

I think we wanted to, you guys wanted to cover today with the

HIV story, which incredible. Yeah, I suggested this topic. So

I’m interested. Explain it to us. HIV is a retrovirus. Meaning

once you get infected, it doesn’t go away. He doesn’t care.

He’s he’s flipping through his politico notes to figure out

what did he miss saying that he was supposed to say today? He

just flipped over to Ben Shapiro. He’s listening to

Jordan Peterson and Sam Harris in conversation. Go ahead.

Okay, the HIV being cured headline, you know, we can dive

into it for two minutes. But HIV is a retrovirus. When you get

infected with HIV, it stays in your body forever. It actually

ends up living inside of your immune cells. That’s what makes

it such an interesting, challenging virus. And it

destroys those immune cells. So over time, you end up getting

AIDS. And the way it enters the immune cells is through a

specific protein. Some people have a genetic mutation, where

if there’s a change in the their DNA, and that protein is

different, HIV cannot enter their immune cells. And they can

actually they are naturally immune to HIV. CCR five. Yeah.

And so what’s happened is found apparently in white, northern

Europeans. Yeah, like Norwegians, I think. Yeah,

exactly. And anyway, so what’s the interesting study that was

done, all immune cells are made from stem cells in your bone

marrow. And so you know, all the white blood cells that we have

that fight off our diseases come from our bone marrow. And when

you get a blood cancer, sometimes you end up getting so

severe that you have to actually wipe out all the immune cells in

your body, and give yours and you end up with a bone marrow

transplant. So you get new bone marrow put in your blood cells

put in. And hopefully, if you can survive the therapy and

survive that treatment, those that new bone marrow will

produce new immune cells in your body will recover, and you will

be cured of your blood cancer. So what happened is people had

HIV. And when you get this, this bone marrow transplant, you end

up, you know, they give you radiation and chemo, and they

wipe out all your blood cells. And, and then they give you this

bone marrow transplant. So they selectively chose bone marrow

stem cells that came from people that have the genetic mutation

that that prevents HIV. So then when these HIV patients that got

blood cancer got a bone marrow transplant with this mutation in

it, they were cured of HIV. And so it’s a pretty profound kind

of demonstration of what we already knew, which is that this

genetic mutation can can prevent HIV. And there are a lot of

therapies that are underway right now, to actually use gene

editing to induce that mutation in people’s blood cells in their

bone marrow without needing to give them a whole transplant.

The first guy that did it, the first guy that did it was

German, right? Or he was in Germany, I think, and he

unfortunately passed away. They cured his his HIV AIDS, but he

unfortunately had a relapse of the leukemia that killed him. But

I think all three cases of people that that have been

quote unquote cured, have been these leukemia patients.

But I’ll say two things, two things about the future of this

kind of possibility. Number one is you don’t need to get a bone

marrow transplant to have this mutation induced in your cells

to prevent this infection from kind of occurring in your body,

you can use gene editing tools to do that. And so we are now

developing gene editing therapies, where rather than go

and get a whole bone marrow transplant, to cure your HIV, we

can actually edit yourselves, those edited cells will now be

resistant, and you will be resolved of HIV. The second

thing is the way that they gave people the bone marrow

transplant, the way they created those stem cells for the

bone marrow transplant was from umbilical cord blood from from

newborns, which is very rich in stem cells. And this is a

traditional way of kind of giving people stem cell based

therapies is you go and source stem cells from another body, or

your own body, which are called autologous stem cells. But like,

I just want to say one thing, what’s really interesting in the

future is not going to be about pulling other people’s stem

cells into your body, and finding them from you know,

fetal blood or what have you, we now have the technology, which

I’ve talked about multiple times on the show called Yamanaka

factors, where theoretically, we can take your cells from your

own body, turn them into stem cells, grow them in a lab and

use that as the therapy that’s called autologous stem cell

therapy. And rather than use stem cells, we’re trying to find

them and sort, you know, figure them out where they are in your

body and pull them out, we can actually do stem cells from your

body. And that’s like, you know, 15 years out is autologous

induced stem cell therapy, where you actually make your own stem

cells, and then give yourself all sorts of therapies, not just

bone marrow transplants, but you can heal lots of tissue in the

body using these stem cell systems.

We don’t really hear about HIV AIDS anymore. In that article, I

think it said that there was about 37 million people around

the world that have HIV AIDS. And it’s incredible, actually,

the amount of progress that science has made in this

disease. I remember when I was growing up, it was made to be

like this incredible boogeyman. Yeah. And it really governed

like a lot of social norms at the time, because we were still

discovering what HIV AIDS was. And, you know, how, you know,

how do you think about sexual promiscuity, you know, from a

moral and ethical perspective? I think it had a huge impact on my

generation.

Absolutely. It did. It was a death sentence. They made us

paranoid.

So so here’s what’s happened. therapies have gotten so good

at suppressing suppressing the virus. If the virus is

suppressed far enough, even though you are always going to

be infected, if it’s suppressed far enough, the who and the FDA

have both said you can still have unprotected sex and not

transmit HIV. And so even though there are plenty of people out

there that might be having unprotected sex with HIV, the

therapies have suppressed the viral load to the point that

they’re not transmitting it actively. And so that’s been a

big breakthrough in science over the last decade.

And then they also had these prep pills, right, which people

could take proactively if they thought they might, you know,

find themselves. But I mean, Chamath, you and I lived in a

generation where I mean, it was the end of things. Yeah.

Well, I mean, it was the end of days. And they’re like, I don’t

know, it was a single biggest thing that I was that I was

taught in sex ed classes to be afraid of, be really scared at

all costs. And then the problem that it that it created was like

a, you know, in countries that had a large Catholic population.

You know, the Catholic Church was so, you know, evil, they

had, they were undecided on. They were the opposite. They

told people in Africa to not use condoms. When AIDS was

rampant, it was the biggest evil, second biggest evil the

Catholic Church did in modern history. Obviously, the first we

know,

I have a contribution to the segment.

I know, I took this relationship. Look, I remember

how scared people were of AIDS, you know, back in the 1980s,

when this came up. And I remember that there was a head

of the NIH, who even whipped up people’s fear, hold on people’s

fear, by saying that even casual even casual contact within the

same household can spread it. And you know,

yes, we know fact he dedicated his life to trying to solve and

reduce the suffering of solve for AIDS and HIV.

No, in the 1980s. In the 1980s, he was the face of government

difference towards AIDS. And he spread fear and was medically

wrong about it. Go check the records. He was a screw up on

it. He worked tirelessly and work tirelessly on it.

J. Cal, I think sacks is right in the sense that like what we

thought we knew back then turned out to be wrong. And I think

that’s a really important point. You know, particularly in

science, it’s a process of discovery. What we thought we

knew back then turned out it was all a hypothesis. It’s all a

thesis until it’s proven or disproven. And that’s the case.

Read Andrew Sullivan. I mean, you know, Fauci was absolutely

the enemy public enemy number one of the of the gay movement.

Who is it? Tony? Tony? Yeah. Well, it was a Tony, Tony

Perkins. There was actually a debate that Fauci was in on AIDS

where a gay actress literally said to him, I hate you. And if

you read Andrew Sullivan’s blog, he will talk about how he

remembers back in the 1980s, that Fauci was sort of public

enemy number one in the gay community, because of his

position on this during the Reagan administration. And so it

is a lot of civil disobedience, act up, etc. Remember, and he

responded by putting massive resources into this. So I think

you know, if he was that’s not listening to Andrew Sullivan on

this, Andrew Sullivan, he is not that way. Wait, Andrew Sullivan

is the reason why more than any other public intellectual, why

we have marriage equality today. He is number one, he advocated

for marriage equality, and in the New Republic made the case

for it before anybody else and popularize that argument.

I’m a fan of his writing.

Let’s not so don’t try and portray him as a far right

winger, whatever.

Portray fouture, you’re going to Fauci his intent. Anyway, to

believe that Fauci is an evil person.

I think you and many other people have mysteriously

forgotten who Fauci really is.

Okay, you think I know the conspiracy that you think

Fauci his intent is to, you know, cover up the

and he intentionally was working against solving for HIV.

That’s ridiculous.

Do you think Fauci had good intentions?

And if you inferred that sex, do you think Fauci had good

intentions?

I don’t I don’t really care about his intentions. I just

want to look at his actions. It’s amazing. It’s amazing.

It’s amazing to me that a public official who was so wrong, back

then in the 1980s, 1990s, on the public health rights of our time

would just be given a free pass. And along comes a new public

health crisis last couple years. And he’s been completely wrong

about that, too. So why are you giving this guy a free pass? I

don’t get it.

Hey, sex in a cloud of uncertainty in a time of war. Do

you think that leaders need to show strong intent and clear

signals? Or do you think that they should be wishy washy

because they don’t know enough?

I think they should just be right.

And if they’re trying the best with what they have with the

information they have at the time.

Okay, well, yeah, you there’s some forgiveness for for making

mistakes. But when you’re constantly wrong, maybe it’s

time to get somebody else in there. That’s true. And Fauci,

by the way, Fauci app with respect to code, we talked about

it before 100% participated in a suppression of the investigation

into the origins of COVID. There was an active attempt to

suppress that. Come on. You know that the the foliage email show

it.

It’s a good science segment.

I do want to give a shout out to the researchers who actually did

this with this woman in New York. It’s pretty freaking

incredible. What’s incredible is that they did it with HIV

patients who had blood cancer. And it was a really kind of like

thoughtfully designed experiment. Incredibly

thoughtful. Yeah, it’s been four years. So I mean, this has been

baking for a long time. By the way, as I zoom out and hear you

guys talk about what HIV was like, you know, back in the day

and the fear around it, I do think that 3040 years from now,

given the tools we have with induced stem cells and cell

based therapies, and there are hundreds of cell based therapies

coming to market over the next few years, they’re all in late

stage clinical trials, as well as gene editing, I think

hopefully, and I’m optimistic that one day, we will look back

at cancer and aging in the same way that we’re talking about HIV

today, and that both of those diseases can and will be

resolved with the tools that we’re developing through

science. And you know, there’s, there’s, there’s going to be

bumps along the road. But man, I, you know, it’s so clear that

he’s go, go.

Look, I think I think what Freeberg just said, actually is

really important and inspiring. And I think it’s great. And I

was kind of joking around with the Fauci thing. I didn’t

expect it to become a tangent. So I don’t need to keep going on

and on.

When you see him, when you see him in editing, try to change

his position.

Keep that whole segment.

Can you use of kind of a voice?

If you had to become so argumentative, we wouldn’t have

spent five minutes on it.

If I’m correct, you’re incorrect position that

on ramp, please, because I got to fly to Europe. Go.

Okay, here we go. David Sachs and Paul Graham have gotten into

it. It’s a battle for the ages and the stakes are so low. The

stakes are so high. And the animosity is so high because the

stakes are so low. Here we go.

Wait, but get it before this. Does Phil Helmuth qualified this

as a billionaire battle or a

literally, he revealed the billionaire if you follow Phil

Helmuth account, it’s being da greatest, being the greatest on

Twitter, being da greatest to get that phil. No, Phil Helmuth

outed he on his Twitter. His new billionaire bestie is his which

he stole bestie from me. I used to call everybody bestie and he

just co opted it. Like he co opted me calling him off the

dictator, but I’ll tell the dictator origin story later. Is

Stanley from DoorDash. Stanley tank, co founder, chief product

officer of DoorDash. Great guy. Really great.

Helmuth’s latest truffle.

Exactly. Because he found it. Okay, here we go. So some to

Paul Graham.

Go ahead, sex. All right, here’s the issue to pick what’s your

beef? Here we go. Actually, I did not seek out this be sex

vendetta section of the

panel. Listen, PG waded into my tweets. He came after me waited

on waiting. I love it. Please any billionaires out there who

want to like debate like come waiting into my tweets. Mark

Cuban didn’t make a big ass of himself. I don’t want to deter

these guys from from waiting in because it’s great. Here’s what

basically happened is I tweeted a video of all these

multimillionaire celebrity hypocrites partying massless at

the Super Bowl. And then meanwhile, the next day, my

three kids have to go to school in California wearing their

masks. That is ridiculous. Okay. It makes no sense. We all know

that. Okay. Any sane person knows that. That’s what I

tweeted about. I don’t know why of all issues that was

triggering in a PG, but he had to come in and say, Well, they

were all partying outdoors. It’s like, really? Looks to me like

they’re in a skybox. And if it has three walls in the ceiling,

I call that a room. But in any event, that wasn’t he was he was

misinformed. Because the rule of the Super Bowl was that if you

were not eating and drinking anyone under over the age of two

have to be wearing a mask. So you know, my point stands, I

just want to air. So here’s where things kind of went south

is, is so that I tweeted, blink twice, you know, Paul. And and

here’s the thing, I wasn’t totally trying to be snarky with

that comment. Here’s why I said that is because explain what

that means. I didn’t understand that. What does that mean?

Blink twice? Well, it means like, are you are a captor,

you’re being held kidnapped by these concepts that you have to

wear? No, you’re being held hostage by somebody. And the

reason why I said that is because is is look, if PG had

just been some crazy dumb person ever would have said that the

fact is that PG is smart. He writes extremely well published

a lot of interesting things. He’s an independent thinker. So

it almost seemed to me like somebody is holding him hostage

here. Because how can this really smart person be making

this case? Anyway, it kind of went south from there. So I have

no desire to continue that.

Meanwhile, Kendall Jenner wore North Face shoes to Justin

Bieber’s. Yeah, can you

she knows that he has a North Face? How did he do that?

Gossip, gossip, gossip.

All right. So this has been saxes, then corner for the week

and for a regular segment. But

the segment saxes,

I want to stay on the main issue here, which is Oh, please, let’s

do it every week. But

am I wrong about this mass hypocrisy that’s going on? How

in the world

picture of sacks in the mess? No, no, no sacks in the bag.

Jake, I’ll stop. I want to air 100% support for sacks on this

statement. I totally agree with you on the mask hypocrisy, as

well as the mask mandates in schools. I think it’s

ridiculous. We think that we’ve pivoted so far away from first

principle thinking on this stuff. It’s nuts. I totally

agree with you completely. And on this point, on you wasting

your time fighting with people on Twitter, my personal advice

to you as a friend is just cut it out. But buddy, but totally

agree. Oh, it’s entertainment.

All right, everybody for the dictator himself chamath

poly hoppitya. Rain Man. Yeah, David Sachs. And the Sultan of

science. If you see him out and about as for a selfie, Sultan of

science love selfies. He does. Love you boys. Bye. See you all

next time on the all in pod. Bye. Bye.

Rain Man, David.

sack.

We open source it to the fans and they’ve just gone crazy with

it. I love you.

Besties are gone.

We should all just get a room and just have one big huge orgy

like this like sexual tension, but they just need to release

that.