hold on let's see if we get saxon all right guys i guess sax isn't i guess sax is blowing it off because he's too busy okay we'll start with that let's start start without sacks okay three two [Music] and it says [Music] hey everybody hey everybody welcome to the all in podcast with us today the queen of quinoa on fire in california
which is also happens to be on fire sadly uh and the dictator chamoth polyhapatia uh david sachs will not be joining us today he's too busy with his uh call it all in app oh i'm sorry it's actually calling he put a c in front of it nobody collected the arguments it's callan callan callan his calendar debuted this week
um but saks will be uh if you're a sax stan i think sax is uh no we've done one show without free break now we're doing one with outside yeah this will be the tax free episode it is a tax-free episode all right so we got a lot of time here i'm here all too eager to take credit for call in on twitter so don't pretend like you're
not part of it now yeah yeah i can't believe it this guy is complaining i'm leveraging the style licensing of the term all in to sacks and gotten paid like seven million dollars in equity for him using our name oh my god i gave you guys so many shout outs you know during the show i know he did because i listened to his
uh interview with uh emily chang and i listened to his thing with um axios with dan primack he's very david had a very good uh uh he was magnanimous presentation and then he was really magnanimous and kind so thanks sexy poop and i i gave so much credit to j-cal i said that if it wasn't for jacob i never would have done this whole podcasting
thing because it was too hard i never would have figured it out and then you gave me a shout out because like of organizing it so that we could all be friends on uh i like that i appreciate it very nice i have i actually haven't listened to it but give us a for those who don't know david sacks has created a
podcasting slash casual audio app it's called call in it's available for download for ios uh just coming out of private beta my understanding is uh you're at somewhere around ten thousand uh folks yeah i mean there's a lot of sign ups yesterday i haven't got all the latest numbers yet but um but yeah no it's it's you know it's taking off all the reviews
of it have been sort of rave reviews people are really excited about it fantastic but yeah look the concept is we're combining social audio with podcasting we call it social podcasting you've seen these apps where people create a room and they have these many to many conversations they tend to be ephemeral no one really records or
saves them and the quality of the conversation is it's a little bit chaotic but we've taken that concept and put it in the service of creators who can now essentially like record their pod in front of a live studio audience they can bring up the we call them callers they can bring up people from the audience one by one to
ask their questions it's much more organized and structured it's not a free-for-all to try and grab the mic and then once you record the episode you can then go into post-production and the app can edit the transcript in order to edit the episode and then you publish it and you can share it so is it like so it's basically like only fans but audio
it's only fans but for people who jump off at it's my birthday today god damn all right happy birthday chamath we're going around the horn here everybody's patting themselves on the back uh let's all take a moment to say what we like about your moth okay great let's get back to the episode that was quick what do you know i was thinking about uh
you know what birthday present do i get for chamoth and then i was like gee what do you get for the dictator who has everything i don't i don't know what does kim jungle in need exactly let's hey guys wait there's actually an answer to that question apparently madeleine albright once got kim jong-un a basketball signed
by michael jordan for his birthday so apparently that is yeah apparently that's what you get a dictator access you get them access to people they wouldn't normally have or a bone saw a very very very old uh french burgundy uh ideally white but the white doesn't hold up as well but you know if you go back it i mean i wonder if you could
drink like a yesterday i had the two the two fills deutsche and muth at my house and we had uh we drank 1996 salon no sorry 1997 salon clothes and then we drank a bottle of 1996 paul rogers or winston churchill champagne fabulous only champagne last night let's have us we could also get you some planonium uh
plunonium if you want to uh no guys guys i don't want to take out some enemies i would like you to come and play poker next thursday you [ __ ] and then i was just bring a bottle of uh bring a really nice bottle of wine or champagne we'll drink it that's fine oh my god i got cases of terrible wine i'm gonna bring
them no you [ __ ] did you hear what this [ __ ] did oh my god shows up this piece of [ __ ] showed up last week and he's like here are these fantastic bottles and i looked at this like 1985 caymus and i'm like that's not a good year right in the right of the garbage it gets better it gets better he has two bottles and so he gives him to joshua
and joshua looks at them and joshua doesn't know what to think and he looks like i'm like just like you know and so josh was like wow david thanks freedberg this is incredible i appreciate it and then freeburg does the [ __ ] most brutal thing open it open it josh was so appalled he opened it and poured it on cherry
i threw it out he took it right to the other garden no he said where did you uh find this he goes oh it was in my basement in the hot tempered humid [ __ ] san francisco weather for 10 years yeah i had no idea so i moved you know i moved like two weeks ago and i went to the basement to like get all my boxes and i'm like i've got like
hundreds of bottles of wine that i have not seen in years and i started getting not temperature controlled right next to the furnace they weren't lying flat i'm like these things are all like they're all corey they're all they're all cool and there's like stuff in the 80s from the 90s yeah so josh took them and poured them over the arugula salad he
didn't want to see any arugula no he didn't really remove the [ __ ] vegetables and herbs in the garden he basically cleaned him in the drain shield do not bring any more wine to my house oh my god i'm bringing wine for your dog if your dog's coming back with nat my dogs are coming back today yeah they're flying backwards all i have to
say about that game is thank god mr beast has a hundred million followers oh youtube wrestling r.i.p mr beast all right you know by the way i don't want to say give a shout out mr beast is [ __ ] incredible what a great deal what an incredible entrepreneur what a great human being yeah um i mean for 23 years old to be that
sufficient 23. 23. this guy i thought he was guy this guy's clearly on track to being an enormous figure in culture oh he's going to be a [ __ ] multi-multi-billionaire determined hard-working smart kind good clever ambitious great and his ideas he's creative and he's just a good human mystery was one of the most impressive people i've met
in a really really really long totally agree i mean he and i had been texting for a long time on twitter and then and then just on text but then to finally meet him and we had talked on the phone and we had zoomed before i'd never met him in prison but what an incredible oh why don't we have him as the bestie
gusty on the path he totally like he totally with the group too and he was great just funny you know what we should do is we should all round everybody up we should fly to uh to greenville where we should surprise him yeah yeah do a little game at his channel oh here's an idea what we could do is we could tweak phil hellmuth and just re
have a game and replace phil in the game with him as our new bestie oh my god that's awesome let's replace the music who replaced the kind of like a better bestie in many ways okay by the way are we skipping next week to record at the symposium on monday or are we going to do next week and then also do monday
no double down okay i double down yeah let's double down all right listen to cover good um good notification we're doing our first all together recording of the all in pod a week from monday at the tpb symposium no reason the production board the production board no reason to publicize it but i'm excited because it works it's a
closed event what is the purpose of the event i just get together a bunch of scientists investors entrepreneurs and ceos and um it's a day of science talks mostly and then some business talks on the next day but we're having a really fun event the night before with poker our friends are all coming to play poker and we're
going to record we're coming for the science day i'm there for the full year i'm staying for the science day too i want to learn so the poker night is going to have poker and we're gonna record the all in pod live or together in person for the first first time yeah that should be really cool um and for those of you wondering you know we're going to do
our own all in summit which will be probably like a hundred or two hundred iconoclastic people uh and we're going to probably do that in the first quarter or second quarter of next year uh postman we gotta choose a date you know my people are going crazy because you won't give them a date well right now i think we should do it
in uh here we go in rome okay so italy rome stocks wants miami i'm telling you guys they're hotels sickest hotel in the world and i'll tell you why the people you have never seen these people ever people are amazing amazing tremendous people they are great it attracts the hottest people i i mean it's [ __ ] right we're not doing
it based on aesthetics we're doing it on ideas chamomile it's not just aesthetics but people aren't going to go to rome you know miami the good thing about miami is we know it'll be open no matter what right you know we can't count yeah we can host our own super spreader event fantastic no i mean we're uh host the uh the code
conference kara swisher's conference is at the end of the month and sky and brook and i are hosting our poker again and i was like is there any way this conference is going to occur and if it does occur what happens if they're i mean obviously everybody's going to be vac everybody's going to be mac masked i don't know if they're going to do testimonials all right
you think everyone should be mass at the conference they're going to be unless well they're going to be because it's indoors and there's a breakout event amongst the vaccinated which can happen between delta and zetta too you're uh you're you're going to be forced what do you think sacks well i just think how do you effectively have a meeting with
people whenever indoors when everyone's wearing a mask i just think that's and i indoors not during the dinner and stuff look i mean i think for poker but we are testing everyone on entry all three days okay that that makes sense to me right we do a rapid test at the door and so but then once you've done the test and
someone's negative why would you need a mass once you go in i don't know about it every day the stupidest thing is they do stuff like make you wear the mask but then take it off for dinner like what you you can't get kovu when your mouth is full i mean how does that work it makes no sense that's the whole that
makes no sense put your mouth let's do risk assessment here and then take it off when you sit down three feet away it's it's security theater well let's do let's do risk assessment none of us would go to an indoor event if it wasn't fully vaxxed correct would anybody attend an indoor event of this nature hundreds of people if they
didn't have a vax requirement i would yes i don't you would i i well i mean what i would care about is i wouldn't attend it if people weren't all being tested on the entrance okay well i'm trying to do just on yeah to eliminate um transmission so for you to go to an event you would have to be vac and tested that day morning of rapid test yeah look i mean i
think in general everyone's kind of standard it's like makes your vac because it reduces the likelihood of transmission but still like it's not stopping transmission clearly i'd rather what i care more about is is point of um entry testing which is what we're doing at our symposium i just want everyone to get tested upon entry
what would you do let's talk about something important okay all right listen i think the most interesting thing going on in our industry this week is elizabeth holmes trial has begun um jury selection uh started this week and it's going to cover 12 counts of fraud and conspiracy to commit wire fraud over false claims
she made about the blood test results from theranos um they uh have now selected a jury of 12 northern california residents consisting of seven men and five women it took two days to question around 100 potential jurors about their answers to a 28-page questionnaire that included news outlets they read what news outlets are at if they knew
any witnesses and had any negative medical experiencing experiences and it was complicated um to get these because it is impossible to not know about it and now it seems the uh interesting thing is elizabeth holmes uh who worked on this company for two dec close to two decades and was involved in this fraud from
start to finish is now uh taking the position that she uh was under the control of her business partner sunny bowani uh and that he had been abusing her and controlling her what are your thoughts on and so he's being tried separately by the way they're gonna be tried in sequential order so whenever this trial ends then
he gets to um get tried what are your thoughts on uh if she will be convicted and her defense strategy i i think this is more this is like less about the specific um evidence against her as much as it's um and it's much more right now about the um whole silicon valley fake it before you make it um approach to entrepreneurship
and you know we all hear this from um you know all the entrepreneurial kind of advisors and you know experience stories of experience and stories of success that in order to kind of achieve success as an entrepreneur you really have to oversell and promise and create an incredible narrative about where your business is headed and in many cases
that gets ahead of you now the public the general public that doesn't operate within silicon valley with as much breadth as we do i think they hear the stories of the adam newmans and we work and the collapse and elizabeth holmes and this this trevor milton guy and nicola but um there's thousands of these other
sorts of smaller stories where a vc rolls his eyes where the first board meeting after raising money is like wait a second we're actually going to be half our forecast when we raise money or the numbers are going to be way below or the product doesn't actually work as we presented it sorry i don't think i've ever funded a company where that hasn't
been the case exactly and so i think that's the that's the the the big question right off is like does this trail does this trial kind of indict the way silicon valley operates and the storytelling models and the narrative models there are examples of these people getting a little too far ahead of their skis and maybe you can argue they
could perceive something to be non-fraudulent while other people can you know kind of perceive it to be fraudulent but don't we see this kind of broadly in silicon valley and doesn't this kind of bring up a question on like are all startups now and is the industry going to have a shift as a result of this trial in terms of behavior as
investors and as entrepreneurs and how you tell stories how you diligence etc etc this is this is only going to get meaningfully worse um i don't know if elizabeth holmes committed fraud or not i think that you know these folks will be able to figure that out in detail but here's something that i do know pretty precisely which is
the amount of money that's trying to get into silicon valley is going exponentially up yeah and as that happens you guys now see it every day where there are firms whose entire business now is just to literally write a check every day they're closing deals every single day they're doing zero diligence and so what that's going to create is an incentive
for founders particularly those whose backs are against the wall or who's doing something that's highly speculative and hard to diligence to stretch the truth to get the capital and it's impossible for guys like us to actually step in and do diligence on a lot of these companies even if you actually have time but then
if the competitive dynamic is such that you don't even have the time because somebody else beside you is going to rip in a check with by just meeting somebody um and you know quote unquote having done the work on their own which is impossible because they're not you don't have access to somebody's you know financial books this problem is only
going to get worse and so i think we as an industry just have to realize that there's going to be an incentive to lie there's going to be an incentive to stretch the truth and it's because of the amount of money that's available and yes the lack of diligence that's happening sax is this an example uh in the case of elizabeth holmes
of somebody being delusional as a strength or somebody committing fraud as a crime it's probably both now look i think you guys are giving a little bit too much credence to the media narrative that theranos is a quote-unquote silicon valley failure the truth of the matter is there was no major silicon valley vc firm in fact not
even a minor one that invested in theranos as far as i know there is no vc on the board of theranos we've talked about this before it was a bunch of kind of grand poobah types and there was no one who actually had the technical competence to do diligence and so elizabeth holmes isn't so much an example of silicon valley as somebody
who was selling silicon valley she was selling the promise of silicon valley she was selling the idea that this was going to be a deca corn or a centicorn to people who are too unwitting to know and i see you know tim draper a lot people are really hanging their hat on to the fact that tim draper wrote a seed investment
to elizabeth holmes i you know that that really is very different you know when you write a seed investment apparently elizabeth holmes was like a neighbor of his she their daughters were friends is my understanding and she clearly was an impressive person you know she came across impressively in person she obviously cast a pretty big reality distortion
field to a lot of you know smart people so you know she's the type of person who you would write potentially a sea check to just based on you know a talent bet the fact that she that later chose to engage in and fraud i don't think that's like tim draper's fault and it doesn't make this like a silicon valley fraud again um you
know show us the vc firm that was hoodwinked by this um but you are seeing david this trend of the the firms coming in and not doing diligence not having audit rights not having information rights not doing proper diligence and basically relying on the previous investors right how troubling is that and what are you
doing to protect crafts lps yeah so so look i think there's a big difference between going into uh a board meeting and finding out the projections were inflated because like frankly we all take projections with a grain of salt right but versus the founder lying about the past right so people are always going to put the rosiest picture
or they're going to puff up what the future is going to look like and it's up to you as the investor to determine if that's true or not but they cannot lie about the past they cannot lie about what their revenue was last year what contracts they signed before you invested that is fraud right and that is what that's where elizabeth holmes
crossed the line she wasn't just painting a rosy picture of you know what the technology would look like you know years from now she was lying about their capabilities at the time people were investing that is the line you cannot cross um look we conduct diligence we you know try to look at wheat financials we try to make sure
that the numbers are all true um you know frankly we're not investing in things that involve a tremendous amount of technical risk a lot of technology risks so we always use the product before we invest the idea that the product would be faked i think it would be hard to perpetrate that kind of fraud with the sas company but um so look i
mean that's interesting you bring that up i just dropped a link into the uh zoom chat co-founder and former ceo of palo alto based startup technology company headspin charged with securities fraud and wire fraud and uh this guy lachwani 45 from santa clara county basically was lying about their arr in assassin's company and this
is they raised a bunch of money so this is an example of something happen in every company yeah it can happen at yeah i think i don't think you're inoculated just because you invest in sas my point is if you have a person that's willing to rip in a check a hundred million dollars three hours after meeting you asking for
no diligence at some point david your back is gonna be against the wall because you're gonna have to justify to your lps why you aren't in some of these theoretically good deals right and some of them will become fraudulent they'll just turn out to be it's just the laws of distribution so it's a bit of a prisoner's dilemma you're saying
i mean if you don't do how do you you have to get deals done and you're up against people who won't do diligence no it actually comes down to something different which is then you have to differentiate with real brand meaning if somebody really wants you on the cap table they will absolutely slow everything down to get you correct so
for example like let's let's assume like it's mike moritz i'll use up there is nobody in the world i think who's not a complete buffoon [ __ ] who wouldn't slow his process or her process down to get mike to be on their board and so if you're willing to basically just scuttle an entire process um and just take the fastest money
i think it actually says something that there is more risk in backing somebody like you than somebody that wouldn't slow down so or right so then you know the problem is there's fewer there's fewer and fewer mike morrises in the world you know i think saks is one of those people i think peter thiel is another kind of
person you know bill gurley is another kind of person so there are these people in our industry where i think that you will um slow things down and i do think allow these folks to do diligence and i think there will be less fraud in general for that cohort but if your platform becomes one that's just about ripping money in and i think
the late stages are roughly this they're all it's all brand independent because the money's the same the valuations are the same freebird freebird doesn't it introduce the risk of the retail investor you know we're seeing more retail participation via syndicates um you know via um you know one-off investments online kind of marketplaces
and also specs where the retail investor relies on you know some of these kind of bigger institutional or perhaps some name that gets some carried interest in an investment doing the diligence and if the activity level is going up and the dollars are flowing in and the margin of error is increasing you know is there not some inevitable
kind of sec backlash and consideration around how are private companies ultimately raising money um and how much they are disclosing and we kind of face this i can uh yeah regularly yeah i can address this as a syndicate lead you know we only take accredited investor money at this time and so anything that happens is with obviously
sophisticated people the top four percent of americans investing in companies and in our diligence now we have seen a spike in what i'll call um uh massaging uh or painting the picture in a way that i'm not comfortable with and we have maybe tripled the amount of time we're putting into diligence now because i really care about my
reputation and maybe 20 30 percent of the companies we wind up after initially wanting to invest maybe giving them an offer getting an allocation um in recent history 20 30 percent were winding up backing out during the diligence process because uh their revenue was not software based there was a hundred thousand in consulting revenue for me it's like if
you're gonna you know make these kind of decisions early on in the company i think it's indicative of future fraud or future um moral ethical issues so we're sitting out in a lot of cases there are uh public platforms now republic and seed invest which i know are also increasing their um diligence process because there's so
many newcomers to the space and i think there's a level i'll be quite frank here of entitlement amongst founders that is being um let's say uh encouraged unintentionally by the lack of diligence that's going on people are not taking the process as seriously as they did 10 years ago or even five years ago well let me yeah look i i i agree i
think the the diligence you're doing is really good and um and here's where i agree with with chamoth um so we have seen this trend in our industry of the private equity money coming in in greater volumes and greater you know earlier and earlier and faster and faster right and it started with you know you have these um like frankly
like public company investors were looking at the uh i the value at ipo relative to the last private round and they saw wow there's like 2 3x mark up here for one year those are phenomenal returns let's arb that by getting into the last private round then they look at the second last private round they're like
wait there's a big return there so they keep moving earlier and earlier to r about that return but to jamaa's point it's just they're applying a financial model where they're not in the diligence business they're just um and and i think they just see like fraud is a cost of doing business right something they can that's exactly
model out with the portfolio but but the only reason they can model it out that way and have the fraud be an acceptable and predictable sort of cost of doing business is because you had these firms in our industry who actually did diligence at the seed at the series a right yes and now and now the private equity guys they're moving so early
they're actually even now doing the they're moving all the way to series a so no one's doing the diligence and so so so that is that is a risk i think because it might actually change things and this is where bringing back to elizabeth holmes i think it's important here that there's a conviction i think she should do time
this was clearly a major fraud big time fraud and even if she didn't directly perpetrated on silicon valley vcs i think the message to the industry would be absolutely horrible if she gets away with it and frankly i'm a little concerned she's going to get away with it um you know because she is incredibly charismatic john kerry was saying on a
cnbc hit that don't underestimate her charisma and ability to snow people and this bengali defense and she just had a baby which you know people don't want to discuss because it seems like it's sexist but she is a svengali herself who will manipulate people in the i like the way you say that she's a strange like uh i think you mean
sven golly but yeah right now what do you handicap her likelihood of conviction i i think it's probably like a 50 50. and i think so so here's here's the thing when she was running this company she wanted everyone to believe she was steve jobs she even did the media tour with the turtleneck she wanted everyone to know that she was a jobsee and
micromanager who made every decision was responsible for the success now that she's on trial she wants us to believe that she wasn't calling the shots she wasn't the person 9 voting power in the company yeah look yes you know this is sort of the the romy and michelle's high school reunion defense where she wants us to suddenly
believe that she was sort of like you know this sort of ingenue who didn't know anything and um you know but she might get off because she kind of looks like lisa kudrow you know um she's gonna go up there and pretend to be lisa kudrow or something you know like somebody says it's super offensive that she wants to
get up there and say that she was this abused woman i mean for women who actually are abused for her to get up there and say she's an abused woman and she perpetrated 20 years we don't know whether she was abused or not and if she was it may or may not have implicated in what she did which we don't know whether she did because again
thank god for the laws in america she is presumed innocent so let's let's all just like i think i think what david where i agree with you is the following which is we do need to know that uh you know investors we all sign up for expressing the fiduciary responsibilities on behalf of our lps or on behalf of our stakeholders okay
there needs to be some equivalent standard that founders are held to and there needs to be consequences for lying particularly about the past because in the future you say i'm just projecting but in the past you're right you have to be able to realize on what's given to you like look when we do diligence in a company we are given
everything that they have right we talk to their lawyers we talk to their lawyers lawyers in some cases in the public markets all of this has to be transparently published so that we can come to our own conclusion sometimes those conclusions are right sometimes they're wrong but we can at least know that they're not lying to us the minute
that it turns out that they were fudging the numbers that they gave us you're making you know the best decisions you can you're assuming that it's great data but if the data is fudged you're [ __ ] and so to the extent that she did that then she should be punished because we needs that standard she this is
this goes beyond money she was switching people's results she was saying that she was giving them a blood result on her incredible varanos machine and she was running it to the back and and running it on an average machine yes and she so she was taking investors putting their blood into her machine the theranose
machine then taking them for coffee running it to an abbott machine and giving their results i mean this was the definition of a premeditated deliberate and multi-year fraud i put her at eighty percent likelihood of guilty and i put the over under at 32.5 months served i don't know what the take down 32.5 well i i hope you're right because uh
yeah i mean i'm a little worried that uh she's gonna figure out a way to pull the rug over people what what are our kids gonna get in jail if we were chinese right now and they played video games basically i think you would you would do harder time uh so moving on the consequences is to the chinese internet companies
no what's the consequence to the kids if they're caught on video games no you're not you're oh companies have to turn it off right right right all right here we go china bans young people from playing video games this is for kids who are under the age of 18 they are now restricted from playing games on weekdays can only play for three hours most weekends
and these were set as a response to china's physical and mental health being affected by gaming according to reuters uh it limits um i think they're doing what all american parents would want our government to do for our kids i i don't disagree with that uh gamers are now penalized if they don't obey and the gaming companies will be as well
gaming companies will have to prove they have an identification system in place like requiring age range i am sweating who they're texting who they're talking to what game they're playing the new game they want to download [ __ ] that this is the only thing i've ever said that would make me want to move to china this is one rule
this is the most incredible thing i've ever heard and i and and they're so smart by the way what's so beautiful is they they send fentanyl and tick tock to us so that we get addicted to that [ __ ] totally i know what they're saying and they're like no you guys are going to learn stem so that you can you know take
over the world it's beautiful it's brilliant yeah i would say like everything about china is is a measured decision right the the the politburo the decision makers are not sitting there randomly shooting from the hip based on intuition and saying hey i think we should stop video games they seem bad for kids there is clearly evidence and
data and statistical models that are driving this decision and their objective function is improve the health the longevity and the economic prosperity of our society as a whole i'm sorry did you get this statement from china what are you doing continue comrade you got i'm pointing out these guys are these guys generally don't make decisions
based on someone's kind of like flippant intuition they make decisions based on what they believe to be in the better interest and i'm not saying it's right or wrong but in the better interests of economic prosperity and i think we all know it intuitively we can certainly read reports but in the united states we value individual
liberties above all else and so we don't find ourselves in the circumstance it seems foreign and scary and crazy but again it's another um in my opinion it's another tool we're going to get to something else this century yes that's true but let's let's be clear we we don't we don't value individual liberties that's not true
that's just what we tell people but that's not totally true and you know that's a i'm not gonna go there but yeah well i mean we are literally sitting here fighting there's a group of individuals who are fighting to wear masks uh or not have to wear a mask rather not have to take the vaccine and at the same time and i don't know if we
want to go there uh we are denying a woman's um david sacks are you in support of texas's abortion ban no we're let's no no i think it's a stupid law and i'll explain why in a second but just on the the china thing for a second um this is i'll be a dissenting voice here this is like if we had given tip or gore
dictatorial powers i mean this is insane they're gonna they're gonna determine how many hours a kid can play video games i mean look i i get the the potential benefit but this is incredibly intrusive into the lives of citizens and i'm not sure that video game playing is all together a negative thing you know i think it's mostly our kids go through a
phase where they play a lot of games and they grow out of it and you know you talk to developers computer programmers they all went through some phase where they were like hyper addicted to video games it you know builds hand-eye coordination it builds um sort of uh you know computer uh literacy so i'm not sure it's like that look
obviously if someone does nothing but computer games their whole life that's a problem but as a phase that a kid goes through i agree with you because i used to play three hours of [ __ ] zelda a day when i came home because i was like no because i was a latchkey kid because i was a latchkey kid and i didn't have anybody to take care of me
uh i don't think david though that that's what kids are getting when they're playing four hours of [ __ ] call of duty every night four hours these kids are playing ten hours by the way i think there's i think china has another motivation for for this ban which is they've got a lot of because of the one child policy right they've got a
radical uh misbalance of you know male to female ratio they've got a lot of young males without romantic prospects in that country basically they have an insult problem it's a giant insult problem i don't think we hear much about it um because they control the media but i wouldn't be surprised if there's a lot
of just random violence out there and the last thing they want to do is have these in-cells playing fortnite and call of duty shooting people five hours a night and then getting their brains wired that way that might be playing into this decision i don't know well again you're just validating the mental health aspect they've studied the mental
health implications of these video games and they said i'm not arguing for the ban i'm arguing for the fact that china has certainly done something to indicate they have some data that indicates why they should make this decision it may be you're right it may be about kind of you know growing getting people to be more
romantic and get out of the house and go get married and have kids and whatnot but there's certainly a and remember their objective function is always about longevity and economic prosperity so you know there's something that's making them say that we can increase economic prosperity increase longevity by doing this and that outweighs the whatever the
detrimental social and other effects might be um and you know i think there's something to read into it but no matter what every big decision they make has some degree of competitive advantage for them and you know those kids if they're not playing video games they're going to be do some doing something else like i don't know
programming computers doing biotechnology in a lab figuring stuff out on the internet writing the next cryptocurrency i don't know but there's going to be some advantage that's going to arise out of the the time and the and the productivity that's going to be generated by this and i think that's the calculus that they're undertaking here
i'm not saying no no we all agree they're thoughtful the question is what is this going to do for this generation if they don't play video games are they going to be more productive are they going to be you know they'll be they'll be good drones for the the collective you know you're right exactly and that's that's the downside here is
even if they get it right in this particular case how much freedom do you have to give up how much state surveillance is there in the enforcement and how many other insane policies will they forced on people with this mentality of you don't get to live your life individually you got to stay this is actually i think your best point sex
is that i think what could happen here is you can overplay a hand and by squeezing people too tightly you can't play video games uh you can't run your own companies you're gonna get replaced you can't practice your own religion you you can't say what you want be a journalist these things could add up and and they
could you know piss off a young group of people who do what happened in tiananmen square or in hong kong and they could be dealing with uh you know their own revolution and what if it's video games revolutions have started over similarly seemingly actually i think you know maybe it's a small chance five percent or ten percent
you know creating a lot of social unrest do you want to be all right should we go to texas you guys want to talk about that i mean i have social unrest i'm going to lose my mind here all right here we go sb-8 creates a private cause of action that enables texans to sue those who perform or aid and abet the performance of abortions after a fetal
heartbeat has been detected the ban comes two years after abortion restrictions were proposed in georgia mississippi kentucky and louisiana the previous propositions were spoken out publicly against by progressive tech companies companies with a female customer base and women led businesses that proposed bill never became law
uh sax you want to just uh frame for us the the legal sort of case here uh yeah let's go to well do you want to do you want to go back and actually frame uh roe v wade and and planned parenthood versus casey i think those are important to understand what the hell's going on here sure okay well so you know row obviously
gave women the the right to choose um you know the reproductive freedom over you know invalidated abortion laws very very in a very very sweeping way casey sort of modified roe it upheld it but modified it saying that the state could impose some restrictions as long as it didn't place an undue burden that was a key term undue burden on a woman's right to to
choose and i think what was at issue in that case was um i think it was pennsylvania the state of pennsylvania imposed a waiting period and some consultation with an advisor and so it delayed the abortion but it didn't restrict or it otherwise eliminate it right yeah so so so casey casey roe as modified by casey is really the
under is really the law of the land right now which is the undue burden then texas comes along and do you want to explain this law yeah so this law is regards to what you think about abortion it's a really um bizarre law because what it does is it doesn't just ban it it doesn't ban abortion outright what it does is create a private
right of action basically a right to sue uh in civil court anyone who aids and abets an abortion after about five or six weeks so six weeks basically after a fetal heartbeat can be detected so which is about six weeks into the pregnancy and the way the law works is that um okay so point one abortion providers are
prohibited from performing abortion if they can detect fetal heart tones um again that's six weeks there's no exception for rape and incest i think that's really explosive politically um and horrible do you think it's horrible as a human yeah i'm curious your personal position yeah we'll look let's get that let me just explain the law so
the the law puts the onus of enforcement on private citizens not government officials okay they do that to avoid to make it harder to legally challenge this under roe and casey okay so what that what the government has done here what texas has done is it gives private citizens the ability to sue abortion providers or anyone who aids in a bet
someone to to get an abortion so it could be an uber driver it could be a friend who simply drives someone to the abortion clinic it could be a person who provides financial assistance it could be a secretary who works at the abortion clinic they can all be sued now under aiding and abetting and here's
here's really the the the person who had the abortion cannot be sued but but anyone who ate it and about it can be that's how they're getting around the the right to choose and here's the craziest part is the citizens who choose to sue don't need to show any connection to the person they're suing and uh they don't even have to live in
the state right so there's no connection to them there's no personal injury to them but they're basically suing under a personal injury under a civil right of action and if they succeed the law states that they're entitled to at least ten thousand dollars in damages in addition to their legal costs so if they win their illegal guests got legal costs get
paid but if they lose they don't have to cover the defendant's legal fee so they just get a free shot here which is also i've never seen a loser pay a rule like this i mean there are loser pay rules but they're symmetric so we have an asymmetric loser pays rule but i don't think we've ever had a civil law like this where um
where somebody can sue where there's no injury to them there's no standing here this is the thing that's fundamentally i think at odds with our entire legal tradition and i think regardless of what you think about abortion this law will eventually be invalidated by the supreme court or a lower court on that ground that they're allowing people
to sue without standing um and and it's a horrible precedent because can you imagine if with what the what texas is basically doing is deputizing private citizens to enforce in civil courts a prohibition that they cannot or will not pass directly is this the best they could come up in your hold on let's let's just state a couple
more uh facts like this was an extremely well thought out law um i think that they the the pro-life faction in texas clearly had some very smart constitutional thinkers that were able to navigate around roe v wade and planned parenthood versus casey to get something written that could be passed in a way where you know samalito just
basically punted and said we're not going to give a stay and so this is going to have to meander through the course there is still a risk that it could just get kicked down to texas and it could remain a state issue which there is a big risk and if that's true then you know other states could basically take iran at
copying this this law what i what i wanted to talk about was if you bring it all together you know friedberg said something about like you know we really value personal freedom and this is where i was like cynically like actually that's not true this is an example in my in my opinion of where this is just like we are very hypocritical
where you know if we talk about a vaccine mandate you know there's just a an entire fiery you know up in arms of people usually typically in the same states that are very anti-abortion that are like you know you know tread on me lightly you can't touch my body you know i have the right to decide but when it comes to this topic
they abandon all of that and they go to the extreme opposite side which is the government mandates and to be able to say that to 50 of the population that just because you were born with reproductive organs that you're treated different specifically you know a uterus ovaries in a vagina you're treated differently than a man to me just seems absolutely
insane and just like fundamentally just erodes this idea of equality like at just a very principled level and the even worse thing is that then you know the corporations that actually used to be on the front lines of helping to drive social justice so far have been completely absent right you have to remember in 2019 when we had
these very repressive abortion laws i think he was in mississippi or alabama you had all of these companies come out and say hey no not here not under our watch then when you had all these voter suppression laws in georgia right you had all these companies come out and say hey absolutely not not on our watch we will leave the state if you
implement these things but so far what you've seen in this law is complete radio silence in texas and this is you know you have to remember texas is the ninth largest economy in the world right in the world so you have every single kind of company from technology to otherwise who have chosen to either start or relocate their
businesses in the state and i gotta think that you know these employees and these leaders of these businesses should be saying something and they haven't said a damn thing freeberg you have thoughts and then we'll go to esx um look i feel like um everyone has a limit to what they believe um defines individual liberty
um you know should everyone have complete freedom to the point that they can take a gun and go shoot anyone that they want the answer is no i think even the most die-hard libertarians would argue that there's some degree of what is it jon stewart mills sex um you know you should have the ability to do whatever you want within your sphere
of influence as long as it doesn't intersect with a sphere of influence of others and so the philosophical argument that i believe the pro-life movement made which is really a different point of view on values is that the sphere of influence of a fetus exists at some point in time and therefore shouldn't be invaded by the by
the by the mother now i'm not speaking obviously my point of view my point of view is extremely pro-choice um just to be very clear but the argument is um is i think one that we we all kind of blush over and assume that it's it's about taking away a woman's right without recognizing the voice on the other side which says that there is a
a right to to life by a fetus at a certain point in time and so to me there's almost like this principle debate that arises and it probably certainly falls more along religious lines than it does along on a religious spectrum than it does on a um a kind of a libertarian spectrum or a spectrum of liberties um that that kind
of defines that crossover point for people but clearly texas is a really interestingly confused state right there's this argument about individual freedom but now what comes across is a highly kind of conservative point of view with respect to the freedom of a pregnant woman um and so you know i don't know if there really is an easy answer it certainly
seems to me nowadays that the pro-choice movement is the majority the the pro-life movement is the minority and maybe i'm off on that side you probably know better um but you know i'm not sure this truly does set a precedent that becomes kind of a widespread recognition of a new way of addressing kind of the pro-life
movement or giving the pro-life movement some additional movement i still think that the pro-life movement remains a minority and um and over time that that will you know there'll be perturbations but there'll certainly be some resolution over time in favor where are all the politically correct people where are they where are
they right now where are all the politically i mean like i guess they are they were happy to get mike richards or whatever the guy's name was fired from jeopardy last week but where are they now when we really need them but are you really saying there's not enough outrage about this i mean i'm seeing a ton of outrage on social media yeah i
see everything i see nothing i see i see a lot of useless virtue signaling i don't see anything that's actually i think what we're talking about here is the leadership of companies and leaders in my big companies there's gonna be a million person march within 45 days okay well let me let me go back to chamas point about
whether you know he called this this um this bill smart in the sense that it was really thought through i agree that it's a deliberate attempt to circumvent roe v wade and heart make it harder to sustain a legal challenge against it but i don't think this is smart i think it's stupid philosophically politically and legally
for the even for the pro-life movement so philosophically i think the problem here is they're creating unlimited standing to sue across state boundaries by somebody who hasn't even experienced harm i mean this is so far from what conservative jurists and legal scholars have always professed to believe i mean i remember
20 years ago tort reform and ending frivolous lawsuits was the absolute bedrock plank on the you know of the republican party so they're just throwing that out the window here with unknown consequences for hold on a second for example why wouldn't this be used to circumvent people's second amendment rights why wouldn't you just create a private right
of action to sue anyone who couldn't you know ate and abetted um a gun crime you know so i i i think this is going to boomerang on conservatives second here's what i wait okay but let me get to the um political stupidity of it and then henry belcaster wanted this as one piece so he didn't have to do so much editing no look
finish no luck the wall street journal has a great editorial today okay this is the wall street journal editorial page is a great piece this is from uh and they basically say look they said sometimes we wonder if texas is a journey attorney general kent accident is a progressive plant that's the guy behind this his ill-conceived legal
attack against obamacare backfired republicans in last year's election and lost at the supreme court now he is leading with his chin on abortion how about thinking first so they're pretty clear this is going to get overturned and frankly then politically this is just handed this is you know democrats already having a field day
with this so biden said this law is so extreme it doesn't even allow for exceptions in the case of rape and incest i mean look he's right about that and gavin newsom the polling for him is now going through the roof because all he has to do for the next uh 10 days is talk about right to choose in this texas bill and he's going to cruise
towards defeating the recall because it's basically you're talking about something differently than i was what i what i'm saying is something very specific if you go back to roe v wade it was written by a man first of all which you know we can debate whether that makes any [ __ ] sense um but harry blackman went to the mayo clinic
and lived there for like six or eight weeks reading medical textbooks and came up with this trimester framework and again i'm just gonna go out on a limb and say i don't have a [ __ ] clue what's going on in a woman's body and i don't think harry blackman did even though he was much smarter than i and was on the supreme court okay
and then casey tried to clean this up by going to this fetal viability thing so we we have this law that was really kind of ill-conceived but was kind of going in the right direction but it was really a very first form of judicial activism we tried to clean it up in the early 90s but it's always been an issue where
eventually what's really been happening is we've been pushing this to the state's right issue and i think that the cleverness of this bill and it's dangerous but it was very well thought out this was not a random thing where two haphazard [ __ ] got together and wrote this bill david i think that this was methodically planned out for years
and they are [ __ ] though it's totally gonna backfire on them it's not going to it's going to let for example we now have an activist supreme court who may actually not opine on this on the validity of the issue but say this is a states right issue if this stays in texas and doesn't get outside of texas you will have this specific thing hold
and stand and i think that that's a very bad precedent to have set i think that these folks planned this out and i don't think they thought that it was an easy way to overturn it and i think that's why when everybody was waiting with baited breath for alito to basically stay this he didn't listen i think there there's a lot of
hysteria and hyperbole on social media right now saying that roe v wade's been overturned the supreme court is overturned i'm not saying that yeah i i guess who don't know anything yeah i i i i but but they're saying that because the supreme court ruled on very narrow procedural grounds that it wasn't ready to hear about the texas law because a
harm hasn't been committed yet but they haven't said they won't look at it in the future i believe they will i believe that this law will be found unconstitutional not necessarily do you think that companies not not necessarily because of abortion but just because no i don't think they're changing the legal
definition of standing in a way that flies against everything we know about how the court system works i just i i think ultimately this is too clever by half by the by the state attorney general i think it was i don't think i think he's a st he's a he's a tool all right do we want to move on and talk about uh apple allowing people to uh link to
their own websites the the apple thing is really big news because it kind of goes to show you that you had you had a pretty progressive legislative framework in south korea i don't think it's particularly a huge market for apple because the most of the most of the um app activity i think is android more than it is apple um but they basically
just seeded the market and by deciding to basically conform to this law then they started with these reader apps and allowing uh payments um it's the beginning of the beginning for you know the app stores to be deconstructed and opened this uh just so people understand um apple said it would uh allow media apps to create in-app
links to sign up pages on those companies websites allowing the likes of spotify netflix to bypass the iphone maker's cut of subscriptions now of course you can use spotify and netflix on your phone but you may have probably people haven't experienced this because they've already become members of it and did it on their site but you can't
actually pay through your phone and you can't sign up through the app they're not they were technically not allowed to link to it so this is a small small concession only to media folks so what do you think saks um well i think trumath has kind of said this is the beginning of the end um i think there's some truth to that um look
i think the the the root of this is the fact that apple has this 30 rake uh on any in-app purchases and like bill gurley said it's a rake too far right just because you can charge 30 percent doesn't mean you should charge 30 ultimately this is why the whole ecosystem has been up in arms they formed an industry coalition
to challenge apple that resulted in a lot of legal challenges lawsuits and a lot of these companies like spotify and tile they testified against apple uh in hearings um so i think this 30 rake has ultimately backfired on apple it's created a huge backlash and now they're paying the price they've already had to roll it back for these so-called
reader apps so you know if what you're doing is buying a subscription to say netflix netflix will now be able to redirect you to their website you can buy it there and then consume the content you know on your ios app without uh apple getting a sp you know part of the split but this now opens the door for uh this type
of thing to apply to uh to games as well where there's a lot more in-app purchases like like fortnight right so um i i just think this is a case where you know what's the old line that pigs get fat and hogs get slaughtered uh apple has been a hog and now it's getting slaughtered yeah by the way i want to point out like this
is a really interesting experience of the free market you know clearly consumers and the developers on the apps in the app store ecosystem were vocal and angry enough that that um that this behavioral change from apple the structural change kind of came to bear it didn't require regulatory intervention i just want to point out how
important and relevant that is that you're the market is functional the market is functional and having the government and regulators come in and you know people complaining to the senate about google and apple monopolizing them out of their businesses ultimately gets resolved when enough there's enough kind of collective mass
from the consumer slash partner that says to the the the big incumbent player we're not going to play by these games anymore by these rules anymore i gotta think lena khan being appointed did make apple think modest concession that yeah if you're a spotify or a netflix or audible we're going to let you buy through the ass i mean do you want a
little regulation and police and anti-trust don't you think this is a nice win for the free market yeah i do well look i i don't think monopolies are i i don't think letting monopolies do whatever they want is free market okay i mean a monopolies end competition they will squash innovation they will you know
they will basically uh get in the way of permissionless innovation so i you know i'm in favor of writing in these monopolies and the two big issues i think with apple and google well apple especially is number one side loading of apps so the idea that they have total control over what app what apps get loaded onto your ios device people want
the ability uh to create alternative app stores that already exists for android right so i think that is coming for apple apple claims is a security issue but it is i mean what they should do is if you click on lo side load apps it should just give you a warning you are no longer protected by us you know you're
you're subjecting yourself to phishing scams your information and buyer beware and then people can make their own decision i've always thought that would be the best decision for what i like about this is i think this gives apple the ability to now just compete against uh everybody in the app store uh without having to have this um you know well
we're partners with you they are not partners with people in the app store they watch the app store and when something great comes and emerges they will copy it they just do it slower than facebook so apple music studied spotify and they created their own apple product apple tv plus now with ted lasso is competing against netflix
they watch netflix and i signed up for apple arcade for my daughters because i didn't want them to be paying for um like you know in-app purchases i'd rather just have the games be stop upselling them and that's been wonderful for five or ten bucks a month to have that and i pay for the news product so now they can just compete
against everybody directly i think all of these media companies are going to be video games podcasts tv shows and music so i don't know if you said netflix is going to be doing podcasts about their shows and video games i think amazon will be video games content it's all going to be one thing and disney plus will have games built
into disney plus i bet in that subscription price so the consumer's going to win ultimately you know i i think monopolies are good because monopolies are just like lazy and it's easier to innovate and compete against a monopoly to be honest than it is to compete against cronyism when there's kind of embedded kind of government regulation that prevents
emerging competitors from competing effectively it's a lot harder to win than against some slow big uninnovative monopoly um and well yeah go ahead well here's here's the the counter argument so i agree with you that big slow lumbering monopolies can be great to compete against but here's the problem when they control access to
an ecosystem when they're gatekeepers that's the problem because now you have to go to them and they're going to be slow lumbering and stupid in terms of of allowing you to innovate and when they see you becoming a threat they'll squat you that's the problem if these guys didn't control platforms that would be
one thing but they control the most important platform there is which is the operating system so i i just think that you know this is microsoft and windows all over again except there's two of them right there's ios and android and in microsoft's example you could load whatever software you wanted they were just bundling they weren't saying you
couldn't load net uh netscape they're just saying we're gonna give you internet explorer with the operating system so this is even worse i mean right yeah microsoft was actually pretty open by comparison but but there is like a version of bundling here what spotify said is look when we have to pay 30 and apple music doesn't have to pay
anything we can't compete with that you know and they have a point there yeah it's it's a completely valid point uh california's on fire this is what the third or fourth year in a row uh this has gotten acute for the bay area people are now making plans as freiburg mentioned on the last spot i think that there's or two pods ago there's like two
or three weeks of the year maybe even a month where you just can't really be outside and do stuff northern california you can't you can't be outside have you ever this yeah three or three of our friends have been evacuated because you know they moved up there in the middle of the pandemic they had to come down they said
it was raining ash you know one of our friends homes is is literally threatened um it's it's it's just like and then the fire season is moving up earlier and earlier in the year you know my kids were in camp in tahoe this this july and they had to be evacuated and fortunately for us you know we had a really good friend of ours
a neighbor here whose kids were also they can't be able to drive up in the um but my god like that was um you know there's there's about what's going on there's about eight trillion dollars of real estate value um in california and you know if you assume a tenth of that is exposed in the middle of this kind of dense fire um uh these
dense fire regions let's say it's let's say it's a trillion dollars there's a trillion dollar the real estate value that you cannot insure anymore so i had an idea about this freeberg i i was looking two or three years ago when these fires started maybe it was four or five years ago now for a blanket that could go over a home could be installed
or dropped over a home with helicopters i know this sounds crazy but is there a material that's light enough that you could put it on a helicopter and drop it over one of these yeah well why doesn't the startup exist i mean this would be amazing imagine if these homes had on the roof some sort of a system that when fire or heat got
there it just deployed the blanket and protected the home like i don't know if you guys know this but right now in marin county in california it's nearly impossible to get fire insurance and um this is becoming kind of a predominant factor in california particularly in all the areas with lots of forest land there's 100 million acres
of forest land in california so if a trillion dollars of real estate is actually exposed to fires and you can't get fire insurance ask yourselves the question what's going to happen when hundreds of billions of dollars of real estate literally goes up in smoke or um or gets sold off who ultimately bears the cost where does
that cost have its economic flow and that's just the tip of the iceberg of the effect that may arise as these things start to take hold you know we had this huge upswing in real estate in tahoe as everyone moved out of california and went to tahoe during the pandemic now we're seeing tahoe real estate sell off like crazy this happened
in wine country in sonoma and napa county last year after the big fires they had there and so there are counties where you start to have these massive fires causing this massive real estate sell-off and or the real estate burns and it's uninsured and guess what happens fema steps in right the federal government steps in and ultimately the
federal government's going to have these like katrina events four or five times a year that we're going to be underwriting losses for people's real estate that's valued in a way that doesn't account for the effects of climate change you know i started a massive shift in economic value that we're gonna someone's gonna have to pay for
over the next decade and this is just the the beginning of it all of my is my strong belief i i tweeted this out about maybe six or seven months ago but with uh another with this fabulous entrepreneur named david soloff i co-founded an insurance company called ott risk and you know we've been trying to build models and price um
this kind of insurance climate insurance you know social media kinds of like disruptions civil unrest insurance things that are very typical uh atypical sorry and uh to your point freeburg it is really really hard to try to forecast what's going on in a way where you can actually ensure these things with the margin of safety and so just as
the as a person who would be the provider of this kind of insurance what i'm telling you know what i'm learning is man these and we're negotiating multi-hundred million dollar policies with these big corporates um and you know for example like you know they want uh pandemic insurance if there's the next delta variant or
whatever and i have to shut down my facility and here's my economic loss i want to you know you to ensure that and okay uh it's impossible and so i can only imagine what it's like then and the ground floor somebody to just buy some insurance that says if my house burns down yeah it's uh it's very hard so this kind of parametric insurance
doesn't exist which means that if you live in any of these areas like i basically i think what it means is that climate change is going to ravage um uh suburbs and it's going to ravage these sort of like far-flung communities because um nobody's going to want to step in there and ensure the parametric risk that allows people to live their
cities my last company right climate corp we were what we started out in 2006 we offered parametric weather insurance online and so it was all about our mission was to manage and adapt to climate change and so you could buy weather insurance online and you underwrite the risk and the way you underwrite risk like this
and and auto insurance and any kind of insurance you look at past data you build a statistical model that's represented by the past data and the frequency of certain things happening and that's how you price the insurance the problem now is the past data has absolutely no bearing on what's going on and so you have to basically create more
fundamental deterministic models of fires which is something no one's really good at no one has any ability to do because we've never seen this kind of environment before we've never seen hot year after hot year dry year after drier and so there's no historical data to draw from to build the model so all the
insurers throw their hands in the air and they say we can't take on that risk we don't know how to price it and when they don't do that i'm telling you the government's gonna end up having to step in and pay people money for the lost home or the government's gonna have to say the reality here is that we can't afford
to do this and you can't build homes there and what's talk about functioning markets i think what we're realizing is the market now is so convinced that global warming is real and you can't deny it that we just can't insure for it therefore we're going to have to make serious societal changes and that's part of this process insurance being denied for
hurricane zones and insurance being denied for fire zones is part of the process of people accepting the reality that we're not doing enough yeah jacob the problem is not that it's going to be denied it's that you're not going to be able to get it and if you are you're not going to be able to afford it um and so
so it's not even that people are really open to writing the kind of cover that allows you to go and safely live in lake tahoe 10 or 15 years from now and that that's the shame of it so we have these beautiful places that i think are just going to be under duress and under pressure and it's going to force everybody to live more and more in the
major metropolitan areas which is you know i'm not sure that that's what everybody wants it's going to change building i mean we saw now in florida and other places you know louisiana other places that are flood zones nobody builds on the ground floor anymore everybody builds you know on stilts and they put a a car garage
underneath it because it's getting flooded i have friends in new york this week and i'm here and i had to change my flight to come to new york for the wedding that i'm going to i had to change my flight because last night we're going to be flying into this craziness here they got three inches of rain in one hour uh 15 people my understanding has died
in basement apartments because they couldn't or they didn't get out in time it's kind of hard to understand but i guess people stayed in their apartments while they were filling up with water and then did you see the did you see the video of like the the flood waters ripping into the new york subway yeah it's crazy oh my god
new york is not built for this so now new york's gonna just basically have to say you know what all the basement apartments all the basements that exist they're not livable you can't live in a basement anymore and when we build new structures the first floor is going to be built like they build them in miami which is for water to flow straight
through them and the garages underneath are designed to accept massive flood waters i've been spending a lot of time on water recently and the the thing that i learned this week which i not the thing that i learned but a great way to summarize this for folks listening if they don't understand climate change changes
the areas that are hotter get hotter the areas that are drier get drier and the areas that get wetter get much more wet and so when you have a period of dryness or heat it's going to be extreme and when it rains it's going to be so extreme and we're just going to get buffeted back and forth between these two extremes and this is only going to
escalate over the next 20 years or 30 years because we have so much embedded pollution that we have to work our way through forget all the new stuff but all this embedded pollution has a cost and we're just starting to begin processing that pollution well welcome to the all in depressed episode i mean [ __ ] depressive wait this is my
goddamn birthday guys what the [ __ ] happy birthday yeah really happy birthday women's rights are being uh taken away the planet is on fire new york is underwater uh covet is not ending nobody can sure insure anything and uh yeah i don't know man the market's ripping there's lots of money coming into climate change investors and
entrepreneurs are more optimistic than they've ever been you know there's a backdrop of challenge but with challenges opportunity and i think people are pursuing it like nuts right now and it's pretty exciting i like the way you say entrepreneurs because i say it entrepreneurs but you say it entrepreneurs you've got an e and a you tomorrow i
mean entrepreneur yeah but very it's a very literal pronunciation of it yeah look i i think sharon you're a real shren galley of the word uh gully are you gonna monetize something now sucks monetize your new app monetize colin yeah leverage the uh yeah that's that's the good news here colin is doing really well
who's on fire the great the jewel of california i'm calling that ten thousand downloads i um look i think i think that uh in terms of processing all the the bad news i i do think we have a tendency to underestimate how much political partisans sort of whip things up in any event should we should we end with this rogan
thing i actually think it's a pretty good issue to talk about joe rogan got coveted um he was i think they mis-framed what he said i actually saw the original quote where he said should a young person uh take the vaccine this was in the very early days of the vaccine or should they wait a little bit and see if it's safe
i think was his position not one i agree with but i don't think what he said was absolutely crazy his quote was if someone has an ideological physiological reason for not getting vaccinated i don't want to force him to get vaccinated so and then he got it and he had to cancel some shows i think there's something kind of funny here but
also kind of serious here about the way the media covers news like this first of all the media is positively gleeful whenever they can report that somebody who expressed any vaccine has sincere skepticism gets covered right it's almost ghoulish i think um look i i'm vaccinated i'm really happy i got the vaccine i think it gave me it helped me
have a much much milder case of cover than either was would have had so i'm pro-vaxxed or whatever but but here here's what the media does and the craziest headline i saw about rogan was that rogan is taking a horse dewormer referring to ivermectin right now look i i don't know whether ivormectin is a helpful treatment or not
i think you got to do a double-blind study to figure that out but i also think that it's very dishonest to be describing ivormectin is a horsty worm i mean the the person who invented ivermectin intended as a treatment for humans humans do take it as a treatment against certain parasites it also happens to have a benefit in deworming horses but
this is one of its applications so to describe this drug as a horse dewormer as if it was the only thing it does the purpose of that is to make anyone who thinks that ivermectin is a possible treatment to make them look ridiculous right and you know so why why is the press doing that well the agenda is the press decided that
vaccines are good okay i agree with them about that but they but this is where it goes off the rails they decide that anybody in in pursuing that agenda they have to make any alternative vaccine which would be any therapeutic treatment and anyone who would take that therapeutic treatment look ridiculous and this is where i think the media has crossed over
into total dishonesty they're doing the same thing with monoclonal antibodies which actually i think are treatment that works but anyone who is expressing support for this all goes back to the polarization with trump right he what was the um drug that he was so was a big proponent of that didn't actually work
hydroxychloroquine so i think it's back to that uh what do you think friedberg um are you have any opinion on joe rogan getting dunked on another anecdotal story it's interesting to observe how much we've kind of as as with a lot of things when i say we i mean like society each of us reading social media the internet media itself
uh kind of orient things along a spectrum right and wrong black and white left and right uh i feel like vaccination and vaccines have similarly become you're either vaccinated and you're good or you're not vaccinated or you're bad or the opposite is true and it's pretty clear there's tons of evidence that vaccination
while it may reduce kind of the um the severity of covid you know there seems to be a much less protective effect with respect to transmission particularly with this delta variant now and that's just a fact you know you can say oh my gosh i'm vaccinated therefore i'm safe it's like no you're also exposed to delta as someone who's unvaccinated in terms
of catching it and transmitting it to other people there may be less severity and there will be less transmission one interesting fact by the way is that there's much much much less time when you're vaccinated um you get affected with delta when you're actually infectious yeah incredibly um incredibly reduced amount of time
from like 10 days to like one to two days um but still that is a very infectious kind of variant and so it's spreading but it's almost like we're blaming people that aren't vaccinated for delta spreading delta's spreading because it's a really effective virus at spreading it's like a story and uh this orientation around like
you're you're the reason that delta is spreading is completely false and everyone tries to then fit the story into that narrative you know the joke yeah right don't you think there's like such a strong agenda the guy got infected it sucks like it has nothing to do with it was he vaccinated or not he was vaccinated i don't know who cares like
the point is it's not about i mean he didn't do anything wrong in the sense and he's not to blame this delta variant is infecting people saks got infected with delta he's he's back no i mean i i think you're i think the point people are trying to make here friedberg is that he's been kind of people believe that with his platform he
should be more pro-vax because vaccines there's no downside but but j cal look don't you agree there's such a media agenda here like once they decide what the agenda is going to be in this case it's provacs and i'm not saying that's wrong okay i'm just saying that the way the media works is first they decide what the agenda is going to
be then they distort everything to fit what their agenda is so for example ivermectin's called a horse dewormer and and the logic here is completely tortured they just don't want there to be any therapeutic alternative to vaccinations they don't want to give a process they don't want to give credit to potentially and the same thing's true
now look i'm not saying ivermectin is an effective treatment i have no idea but there's no need to distort and demonize it before we even know what the truth is by the way i wouldn't i wouldn't um use the term agenda i know that that's a commonly used term that the media has an agenda i would argue that the media has
a narrative and i would secondly argue that that narrative isn't necessarily defined by the media or by some set of people in control but that that narrative is in effect defined by the consumers that consume the media and then whatever they click on they vote with their views and so the more views the more clicks the more
dollars you spend on certain media outlets and certain writers the more those writers get more stories to write and the more the consumption happens and so my point of view is that the consumer ends up ultimately being the writer of the narrative and the definer of the narrative and the storyline starts to
fit that narrative versus feeling like we maybe felt years ago that oh my gosh there's a few people this cabal that's in control of the media and they're running everything and they're telling us what to believe and see i think we vote i think consumers vote with their dollars they vote with their views and as a result that that is the narrative
that gets written yeah they were not supposed to be tribal they were supposed to be objective that was the concept of reporting is to just report the facts and let the not when it became a consumer product well now it's well it's always been a consumer product but now it's just become so hard to run those businesses right yeah the more you sell
the more the more money you make and it's got you know what it was supposed to be subscriptions were supposed to inoculate the reader the writers from this that oh we're getting paid for subscribers therefore we don't have to worry about clicks anymore now because you will lose your paid subscribers if you don't give them what
they want yeah i'm going to predict right now our down votes on youtube are going to be in the six to ten percent rate has happened so we've covered we have covered you're not paying coven like this is going to be our worst rated evidence but it was a good discussion between the the four of us all right everybody for the rain man david sacks
please download the all in app uh just put a c in front of all in and you'll find it in the app store congratulations to the uh folks who got into the syndicate and thank you to saks for allowing uh thanks all in syndicate to uh participate and lead the series b we're going to be leading the series b sachs gave us
uh the ability to lead the series b 45 [ __ ] turned 45 45 never felt 45 you look good by the way we have a show called all in after party on call-in where we you know we've done a couple episodes including we introduced our wack pack um you know so sort of in between so like actually what we should do is all the fans of the
show if you like all in and you want a little more bestie go to the after show go to the go and sign up for all in after party we have 400 subscribers already after one day on the app that's pretty good yeah that's good i mean be great for those especially if the wack pack gets in there i i talked to our guy who does the uh merch the bestie
merch guy he said he's made like five or six grand on merch in the last quarter he's paying his way through school on it that's so great yeah i'm happy for him all right uh freeburg we'll see you at the uh production board closed event nobody can get in sorry if you want a ticket it's not available chamoth happy birthday
happy birthday steve thanks guys all right we'll see you david wait saks this is where you say happy birthday you [ __ ] yeah happy birthday i love you besties uh an emoji i don't think sax has ever used an emoji i mean i i i have i have 10 years of text messages with this [ __ ] he's never used a single emoji once no that's
all right and congratulations to producer nick who is getting married yeah a great [ __ ] decision see on the other side you [ __ ] dumb ass congratulations nick and rachel and rachel congratulations guys rachel you're going to get half of the call in stock that nick has yeah congratulations you got half of his advisor shares to to call in all right
we'll see you all next time bye bye we'll let your winners ride rain [Music] and they've just gone crazy [Music] we should all just get a room and just have one big huge orgy because they're all just just like this like sexual tension but they just need to release [Music] your feet [Music] waiting to get murky [Music]