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

Episode Date: December 4, 2020

Follow the crew: https://twitter.com/chamath https://linktr.ee/calacanis https://twitter.com/DavidSacks https://twitter.com/friedberg Follow the pod: https://twitter.com/theallinpod https://linktr.ee/allinpodcast Invest with the Best... ies!: https://www.thesyndicate.com/allin Referenced in the show: NYT - The Rich Kids Who Want to Tear Down Capitalism https://www.nytimes.com/2020/11/27/style/trust-fund-activism-resouce-generation.html Coinbase - An upcoming story about Coinbase https://blog.coinbase.com/upcoming-story-about-coinbase-2012afc25d27 NYT - ‘Tokenized’: Inside Black Workers’ Struggles at the King of Crypto Start-Ups https://www.nytimes.com/2020/11/27/technology/coinbase-cryptocurrency-black-employees.html Show Notes: 0:00 Besties intro, fashion talk & the All-In Syndicate 3:47 Insights on Slack being acquired by Salesforce for $27.7B - why did they sell, are there any nitpicks, was this a home run for Salesforce? 19:14 Sacks on going up against Marc Benioff and Salesforce Chatter while at Yammer, importance of holding onto winners as long as possible 27:26 Why is DeepMind's AlphaFold a major breakthrough? When will it begin impacting drug discovery? Dangers of AI at scale 47:07 Republican party misfires, Georgia runoff implications, can Trump pre-pardon his family, Biden's effective strategy so far 59:21 Trump's Section 230 gambit, will Trumpism fade away? 1:05:23 Trust Fund socialists 1:26:14 Coinbase vs. NYT round 2, https://www.thesyndicate.com/allin  

Okay, besties are back besties are back going around the horn rainman david sacks calling in from an undisclosed location Suffering through two code thirteens in one lifetime and david freedberg is here the queen of kinhwa Spacking everything in sight living the life calling in from a Non-descript rich callton room. It's appears to be calling in from a non-descript Ritzkaltin room. It appears to be. And of course, the dictator himself, Jamoth Polyhapatia, cackling, like a fool. Welcome back everybody.

This is what you pay for with your subscription to the All-In podcast, brought to you by Slack. If you didn't own Slackshare's, raise your hand. It's been an incredible week on a number of levels. We're going to talk this week about Salesforce buying Slack, Trump and Section 230, the Coinbase, the ongoing Coinbase saga,

Freeberg found some interesting science that could save humanity. And of course, the trust fund socialists in the New York Times who hate their parents for giving the money, let's start off. Let's start with off the most important thing. What is that shirt under shirt combo you're wearing? I mean, look, it's just, you have buttons on buttons. Is that, did I break the layering rule? You can't, you can't.

If you're gonna layer properly, you can have only one layer of buttons, but to have two layers of buttons. It's not how it works. No, Jake, Jake, Jake, Jake, Jake, Jake, Jake, Jake, Jake, Jake, Jake, Jake, Jake, Jake, Jake, Jake, Jake, Jake, Jake, Jake, Jake, Jake, Jake, Jake, Jake, Jake, Jake, Jake, Jake, Jake, Jake, Jake, Jake, Jake, Jake, Jake, Jake, Jake, Jake, Jake, Jake, Jake, Jake, Jake, Jake, Jake, Jake, Jake, Jake, Jake, Jake, Jake, Jake, Jake, Jake, Jake, Jake, Jake, Jake, Jake, Jake, Jake, Jake, Jake, Jake, Jake, Jake, Jake, Jake, Jake, Jake, Jake, Jake, Jake, Jake, Jake, Jake, Jake, Jake, Jake, Jake, Jake, Jake, Jake, Jake, Jake, Jake, Jake, Jake, Jake, Jake, Jake, Jake, Jake, Jake, Jake, Jake, Jake, Jake, Jake, Jake, Jake, Jake, Jake, Jake, Jake, Jake, Jake, Jake, Jake, Jake, Jake, Jake, Jake, Jake, Jake, Jake, Jake, Jake, Jake, Jake, Jake, Jake, Jake, Jake, Jake, Jake, Jake, Jake, Jake, Jake, Jake, Jake, Jake, Jake, Jake, Jake, Jake, Jake, Jake, Jake, Jake, Jake, Jake, Jake, Jake, Jake, Jake, Jake, Jake, Jake, Jake, Jake, Jake, Jake, Jake, Jake, Jake, Jake, Jake, Jake, Jake, Jake, Jake, Jake, Jake, Jake, Jake, Jake, Jake, Jake, Jake, Jake, Jake, Jake, Jake, Jake So he's like an almond milk cappuccino and he's like, I like how that barista dress is and I'm gonna wear that from now on. Wait a second. Can I ask a technical question? Can I have buttons? I can't have buttons on buttons, but can I have buttons and then a zipper up like with the... No, you can't do that either. Jamath has had a weird aversion to buttons ever since he spent the time in Italy.

Did you see button-shamed in Italy. I'm in Italy. Did you, was he botan-shamed in Italy? I was, I was a little botan-shamed, but I'm looking at Saks as buttons on his collars, which just makes no sense. Saks is wearing the same Brooks Brothers shirt that he graduated high school in. At Brooks, he owns 17% of Brooks Brothers at this point from the number of blazers he's bought there. All right, let's get off to it.

We've insulted each other. I don't think Freeberg's taken the brunt of anything yet. Anybody have any chopped busting they want to do with freeberg? No, I just sort of built in. No, freeberg took the tablecloth that I used for a picnic in the summertime. And I didn't do a shirt. You know, you have to be frugal at this time. And also freeberg cares about the environment. He's not going to just let a picnic. Why? It was a pancake.

It was a hemp-based tablecloth. So I knew it was going to get taken and stolen. I love how I choose to spend my time with you guys. It just pays off. Here we go. All right. Can we kick this off? All right. Let's kick it off with our advertisement for nobody because to not let me make any money off of this podcast. And thanks again for the suggestion that we want to syndicate with no carry. Now a bunch of dipshits on Twitter are like, Hey, when is the only in syndicate starting? I'm like, never. I need to make a living. I need to get my beacwad in this week. I'm sorry, but I think an all-in syndicate would be super, super disruptive and cool.

I'm totally fine with running it. As long as we can have the 20% carry and I'll manage the whole thing. We got four people on the call, four, five, we each get five% carry, but we gotta make a living here. Not everybody's made a chamaaf, not everybody's got SPACS A through Z

or had all of their slack shares bought, I think we'll kick it off with that. Chimath, we saw this week, in fact, just two days ago, sales force in a record transaction for a SaaS company. I think it's the highest ever paid for a SaaS company, $27 billion, $27 billion, $47 billion, four slack, which has only been public for just over a year. I think you were, I think, did the series be in Slack right after they did the pivot at social capital?

I don't know if that was in part one or two, but Phil, how many of the kids are talking about it? It was a series B in tiny spec, but it was the series A in Slack. And there's a really important story, which is that myself and Ray Co., whose my partner in social capital, we've worked together now for my gosh, I think it's probably 15 years, wrote a really great memo justifying the investment in Slack. And it had to do with one thing and one thing only. We ignored the revenue and ARR.

I mean, it was fine and nice and good. But the single biggest thing that we were attracted to was something that we looked at and which was called Intercompany Edges. And even back in 2015 or 16 when we did this original investment, there was this dynamic where people across companies were communicating via Slack channels. And I was completely stunned by this idea because that was effectively a substitution

for email. Because the only way you communicate across companies today is by email, you know, David is at craftventures.com and emails me at socialcapital.com and I email Jason at inside.com. That's how we communicate across businesses, except now all of a sudden you could be messaging and having a much more real-time interface. That to me was incredibly disruptive and it justified the entirety of the real forward-looking investment thesis. Now fast-forward five years later and these guys have more usage on a daily basis than Facebook, which is stunning, because these guys have 10 million DAUs in Facebook has two billion.

So it just goes to show you the quantity of traffic and the volume of information and theoretically, productivity that's happening on Slack. And so I'm not sure what Salesforce bought. I actually think that you can make a case why it's a shame that it got bought a very strong one in fact, but what they did get, whether they know it or not, is an intercompany edge effect, which is the most disruptive thing to email.

And in the hands of Salesforce and that sales team, I think it has the ability to really be a very disruptive force for good in enterprise software. All right, so SACS, this is a natural passing of the ball to you in the baton because you did Yammer sold it to Microsoft for a billion dollars. And obviously SACS was the mobile successor to the desktop version of Yammer and, and you got a lot of your fingerprints all over this. But the fact is, you did a tweet storm about it. Slack is an unbelievable success. Stuart is a great founder. It sold the first company flicker for 30 million. This one for almost 30 billion. So that's pretty nice. But there was one failure, and you pointed out in your tweet storm, explain what the one failure,

if you could pick out of the hundreds of things, thousands of things they did right. There was one thing they did wrong that to Chimots Point would have resulted in them remaining an independent company that could have become worth more than 27 billion. Yeah, it was a slowness to embrace the idea of enterprise sales. By the way, let's put this in context. I mean, Stewart and the Slack team did a phenomenal job, $30 billion exit, seven years of just about flawless execution. So I don't want to, and also, you know, I was an investor in the company, so thank you to Stuart Phillamy and Vest.

I'm definitely don't want to like an in grade or a critic. I mean, they did a phenomenal job, but if you were to nitpick just one little thing that I think they could have done faster, it would have been embracing enterprise sales. The big learning from Yammer, we learned this at Yammer from 2008, 2012, is that enterprises don't self-serve, right?

They don't self-close. Bottom-up SaaS products are phenomenal for generating top-of-funnel-based, generating leads, but you have to have salespeople close the deals. Enterprises don't just pull out a credit card and self-serve you, they need a salesperson. I think there was something in the DNA of Slack that actually I see really very commonly in the DNA of sort of product-y SaaS companies, product-y SaaS founders, which is they kind of have a reflexive dislike or distaste for sales and they resist the idea of sales, and they want to believe that they can just be entirely product driven. What I see across the board is they all come to the same realization that we had a Yammer,

which is we have to have a sales team. I do remember back in 2014, the whole Yammer sales team was basically rolling off because of Microsoft acquired the company in 2012 and that was an integration period. And by 2013, 2014, they were all looking for jobs. And I remember, you know, my former CRO, I think was interviewing at Slack and it would have been such a perfect thing for them because he had just learned all the lessons of how you layer on kind of an enterprise sale on top of a bottom-up product. And they just weren't ready to make that a higher yet. And so look, if you're going to nitpick, look, $30 billion outcome, no one's criticizing,

but if you're going to nitpick, you know, it's an A plus regardless, but you know, this would be the one thing you could say. Well, congratulations all around to everybody involved, especially Phil Helmuth, who was an LP in one of Jamont's funds. So, if you need insights on Slack or anything of that information, you can just follow Phil Helmuth on Twitter at being the greatest, or I am the greatest, or I'll always be the greatest. One of those Twitter handles is his.

Jason, I mean, you basically came up the same conclusion in your emergency pod, right? I mean, I did. I hadn't seen your, I think it tweaked him after the emergency pod, but yeah, it just seemed to me this company, unlike Zoom, should have been able to grow quicker. And if you look at their numbers,

they had 87 companies that had, that were spending over a million dollars. You put a rabid sales team on that product, and they go in like Benny Off does with his sales team. I mean, he was just hyper aggressive. It just putting huge numbers out there and saying you have to pay us this much money. So much so that I don't know if you remember Elon getting into a public spat with him

where he's like Salesforce is horrible software, get it out of the organization, and he basically banned it because they came to him with the bottom up people using of Salesforce and said, hey, you owe us this amount of money. And Elon was like, FU banned forever from inside of our organization, we'll build our own software, we don't need it.

And they didn't have somebody, and Stuart didn't have that DNA, I think, to say aggressively, we need to charge what this product is worth. And you saw that in, I think, one of their strengths and weaknesses, which was, they only build you for people who were actively using the product. Now, that's a beautiful, awesome feature. I'm making sure I'm not scared to use it. But on the enterprise level, I mean, that seemed to be like maybe

one of those non-cutthroat things that maybe we're holding them back. David, do you have any insights on this or should we go on to AlphaFull? It's really important to remember the mechanics and the game theory around M&A, especially big game hunting when you're doing $30 billion acquisitions. It's also kind of true at billion dollar levels, but less so. But the big of the acquisition gets, you have to remember that there's an asymmetry of information between buyers and sellers. And the question is, who does the asymmetry favor?

Because you could look at this acquisition and say, wow, Salesforce is crazy for spending $30 billion. And somebody else may say, wow, Slack was really stupid for selling it for $30 billion. The reality is that I think that there was asymmetries on both sides. I think that what Slack probably saw, and I don't know because I've been off the board now for more than a year, but I think what they saw was, as David said, just a level of sophistication and scale and ability to cross sell an upsell that was needed for enterprise scale.

Either you overcome it with precision and speed, or you overcome it by going the same pace as somebody like Microsoft, but with an equivalent product portfolio. So that's sort of one realization that Slack had. But in the case of Salesforce, what they probably had was a realization that they couldn't go wall to wall inside of a customer because they didn't really have a product that was useful or usable to every single individual inside of an enterprise. And so both of those two things create a Symmetry. There's a level of fear inside of Slack and there's a level of fear inside of an enterprise. And so both of those two things create a symmetries. There's a level of fear inside of slack

and there's a level of fear inside of serials force. Both of them are about the fear of disruption. And then the question is, who gets the better of the other person in the middle of the acquisition, right? So the deal could have probably gotten done at $22 billion. It probably could have also gotten done at $45 billion. And that's again, to a combination of how well you play poker in that moment, right? Who blinks first and the quality of the bankers?

This is like two people having top pair on a very textured board. It's like, yeah, it's a, and they're just raising versus each other. Yeah, it's who up plays them. Because like, it's similar also to like how Microsoft bought LinkedIn, right? Because if you think about what happened in LinkedIn, if you remember one that happened, it was almost to a T very much like Slack. LinkedIn had a one-bat quarter. They got decapitated by, you know, and I owned it at the time in our public fund. It got decapitated by like 50, 60, 70 percent. I mean, something insane for missing numbers by like a few pennies, okay? And all of a sudden, it took a lot of the wind

out of their sales internally. It didn't change the user momentum at all because the users that were signing up for LinkedIn didn't care what the stock price was yesterday, today and tomorrow. But it all of a sudden created a fear. And I think Microsoft was able to exploit that fear. And within a year, this company was bought

for $25 billion. And not dissimilar, youilar, Slack had a hiccup and they got re-rated, the stock bounce back. But I think that if Salesforce was smart, they probably created a white knight kind of bid that said, listen, you need enterprise scale and the ability to cross sell an upsell, I can give it to you. And Slack probably said, listen, you need to go wall-to-wall, so I understand why you need me. And the price is what the ability to cross sell an upsell I can give it to you. Slack probably said, listen, you need to go wall to wall so I understand why you need me.

The price is what the price is. Good, freeberg. If you look at the pricing, normally the way these big, public company M&A deals get done is the board has to approve the price. They have to say this was the right deal for us relative to other options. One of the ways you assess that is you look at where the share price has been historically. And if you're getting a premium to where the share price has been historically, let's say 30, 40% higher than it's ever been, then the board says, great, that's a good deal we should take it because we've got a long way to grow into that value. In this case, the deal was done not

at a very high premium to where Slack traded just in the summer. Is that right? Chimatsu, it looked like it peaked. It's basically if you took at the full-recent premium, right? 10% premium, yeah. 10% premium. 10% premium, yeah. We opened the direct listing at 40 or 41 and this was at 45.

Right. And so there clearly was a sense of weakness from the board, which is, I think, why the Salesforce stock traded down afterwards, because if they were willing to sell at that small of a premium, the forecast internally is probably feeling not that strong. And then people translate that into, hey, Salesforce bought something that's not that strong. There's something a little bit amiss. But obviously, to your point, they're missing a lot of the cross-selling and the synergy that will work.

I think it's a huge slam dunk acquisition, and I go back to this idea of intercompany network effects. I think they exist, and I think they're real. And I think that the Slack product team's ability to innovate around that was not as fast as it could have been, but it was still very unique. And I think it was a true moat. And the tragedy is we won't see what the terminal value is if they were left alone to execute.

And in this weird way, like I've always struggled with why Microsoft was so overly obsessed with Slack because if you looked at the team's product, it was much more directly competitive with Zoom. And to this day still remains much more directly competitive with Zoom than Slack. But you know, there we have it. And if you look at the revenue, Slack was doing 800 million run rates. I know we rounded up to a billion. And yet Salesforce at 20 billion.

So 5% revving you to revenue and then they got 10% of the company. So in that way, if you look at our percentage basis, which is how you might look at the Facebook Instagram and what's up is what percentage of the existing entity did they get? So I was drawing about 60% year and sales force is growing about 22% something like that. The other thing is the president of sales force is Brett Taylor, who was our CTO at Facebook where I work with.

And so I think Brett also understands network effects really well. And you know, by the way, in this interesting twist of fate, Ben Yacht was the underbitter, I think, for LinkedIn. And so, we've seen Mark around the hoop on these social network, network effect, business tool acquisitions before and finally. Also Twitter. He was running a false return on the basket with Twitter, and then they also brought his name up for TikTok,

which made no sense. So I think Benioff is just looking at this, like, if Google and Microsoft and Apple are too scared to buy things because of antitrust, well, I'm under the radar of the antitrust trillion dollars. So I'm the only thing. Well, he's under the radar because he doesn't have a play in this sort of communication or collaboration space.

And so therefore, there are no antitrust issues. If Microsoft were to do it, it would definitely be scrutinized because you could argue that they're adding to their existing dominant market share and collaboration. But Benioff's dream has always been, at least since he, you know, launched chatter to compete with us when we were doing Yammer. This is back in 2010, 2011. His dream has always been to have

a product that could get him onto every seat in the enterprise. His current product set is departmental. You've got the CRM product for sales and they've got the support cloud for customer support and they've got the marketing cloud for marketing. So he's gone department by department but he's never really had a sort of pan, like sort of cross company. Yeah, something that the entire company would use. Like a central login system, right? And Slack is that central login system. But when you, when he came up against you, it was very, you know, Benioff, you're friendly with Benioff. Benioff came at you so hard. He threw three or four hundred engineers at chatter. He took out full page Wall Street Journal ads. He tried to poach your people. He tried to make the product free.

He made it personal against you after you would not sell to him true or false David Sacks. I don't I don't think he made it personal, but it was definitely a real personal. Did he have your eyes? No it was definitely a big personal. Did you feel personal? Did he? Did he? No. Oh, no, no, no. He did. That's what he was trying to do. That's your way of saying that.

No, I mean, if we had sold to Salesforce, like we ended up, so what I would say is, yeah, we got in like a very, it was a very competitive situation. He didn't beat us. You know, what's that? He he fell does that product even exist? Yeah It's sort of like a feed inside of the the serum product It didn't really succeed as a standalone collaboration product and so we won that battle

But it definitely I would say it scared us enough to sell to Microsoft Because you know the what it we were about to we were about to enter a new stage of competition. So here's what happened is he launched his product to kind of be a clone of Yammer inside of Salesforce, but he was initially charging $15 per seat. We were charging like five. And so they massively overpriced it. And then they were on this slippery slope where they kept lowering the price to compete better with us. And then finally, they realized that they should where they kept lowering the price to compete better with us.

And then finally, they realized that they should just give the thing way for free as a strategic move. And that was when we decided to sell to Microsoft as we didn't know. We knew we had a better product than chatter, but we didn't know how it would go if we were up against a free chatter. Tell us honestly how much did you offer? What was the meeting like we you made you the offer? We, yeah, so. Take us to the top.

Yeah, so here's, I'll tell you the backstory. I mean, this hasn't been publicly revealed, but. Oh, here we go. Oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh And service of the all in podcast. Go ahead, David. Got some rings. Yeah, it's a trying. And service is trying to get us from number three to number one on the charts. No, you know, it's funny. We launched a Yammer at the TechCrunch 40 conference that Jason, as you know, you were the co-founder of.

And Benny off was like a judge. He was a panelist and he was raving about it. And you could just, you know, from the moment we launched, he was raving about it. You could see the light bulb go off with him. And he realized that like social was gonna be, it was, you know, at the time obviously social was big with consumer social networks, but he saw the potential social collaboration

inside the enterprise. And so yeah, I mean, like, I think a year later or something, they were interested in buying the company for around $250 million. The big issue for them, though, was that Benioff had a bunch of engineers who wanted to build it in a house. And so they actually, I don't know what would have happened if they didn't want to build it themselves, but basically they vetoed doing a deal. So they ended up building chatter and they threw the 300 engineers at it and they basically

spun their wheels for a few years. Anyway, it turned out to be much better for us because we ended up selling the company for five times as much to Microsoft. If we had sold to Salesforce in like 2010, it would have been a much smaller deal. But yeah, I mean, he was very interested in it from the get go. All right, folks, so you have a breaking news

in the background on what actually happened. Congratulations to Stuart and the team. I wanna ask a question, Chimoff and Sacks, did you guys keep all of the shares you originally invested in to the exit here? Just to set the context for folks, you invest in a company, it's a small startup. It's excellent for 30 billion. Yeah, for every share that I owned, half of it were half...

No. half of it were half no yeah for of of of of a hundred shares that I owned per every hundred that I owned. Ten of them I sold at 38 right at the direct listing. I want to say 40 of them I sold in the mid 20s and the rest of it just got taken out of this price so you dollar cost average to the you know Whatever high 30 is maybe forward here I don't know my exact I mean I I sold some and I still own some so You know, I definitely got my my be quit from this acquisition But no, but look I think I probably sold you know more than half of them, you know from this acquisition. Oh, ho, ho, ho, ho, ho, ho, ho, ho, ho, ho, ho, ho, ho, ho, ho, ho, ho, ho, ho, ho, ho, ho, ho, ho, ho, ho, ho, ho, ho, ho, ho, ho, ho, ho, ho, ho, ho, ho, ho, ho, ho, ho, ho, ho, ho, ho, ho, ho, ho, ho, ho, ho, ho, ho, ho, ho, ho, ho, ho, ho, ho, ho, ho, ho, ho, ho, ho, ho, ho, ho, ho, ho, ho, ho, ho, ho, ho, ho, ho, ho, ho, ho, ho, ho, ho, ho, ho, ho, ho, ho, ho, ho, ho, ho, ho, ho, ho, ho, ho, ho, ho, ho, ho, ho, ho, ho, ho, ho, ho, ho, ho, ho, ho, ho, ho, ho, ho, ho, ho, ho, ho, ho, ho, ho, ho, ho, ho, ho, ho, ho, ho, ho, ho, ho, ho, ho, ho, ho, ho, ho, ho, ho, ho, ho, ho, ho, ho, ho, ho, ho, ho, ho, ho, ho, ho, ho, ho, ho, ho, ho, ho, ho, ho, ho, ho, ho, ho, ho, ho, ho, ho, ho, ho, ho, ho, ho, ho, ho, ho, ho, ho, ho, ho, ho, ho, ho, ho, ho, ho, ho, ho, ho, ho, ho, ho, ho, ho, ho, ho, ho, ho, ho, ho, ho, ho, ho, ho, ho, ho, ho, ho, ho, ho, ho, ho, that was Uber as well, David. And I sold some Uber before, but I kept a lot of my Uber, maybe most of it, or half of it, I think.

Anyway, Uber, Facebook, I mean, Facebook, you know, when the IPO, it was worth 50 billion. We all thought that was like unbelievable. I mean, because it was over a 50X return, but what's the lesson for the sex? Does never sell anything if you can help it. But what's the lesson for this X? Does never sell anything if you can help it. I, I sold all my Facebook in 2014 and but Amazon and Tesla. I think that you have to be able to sell for two reasons, liquidity and moral obligation. Hmm.

Yeah, I mean, that's an exaggeration. I mean, you can never, it's, it's, it's, people need to be able to sell, but to the you can hold on. Just don't sell everything. You know, always you keep... Yeah, keep... Think about the people who were at Apple in the 80s or Microsoft in the 80s or Amazon in the 90s. A lot of those people got frustrated holding the shares for so long and I think keeping

at least 20% of your shares forever, you know, could be amazing. There was somebody told me, had never sold a single share of, I don't know if that's a true story or not. I told you that, you can't be this. Okay, from face. Okay, anyway, I didn't know I was a leak. Boop, boop, boop, boop.

Okay. More breaking news. Let's move down, okay. Let's move down, let's all the crap. Let's credit all in podcast. Oh my god. The same thing.

The same thing. The same thing. The same thing. The same thing. The same thing. The same thing. The same thing. The same thing.

The same thing. The same thing. The same thing. The same thing. The same thing. The same thing. The same thing. The same thing. The same thing. The same thing. The same thing. The same thing. I just told the sheriff of and then we just let everybody react to it. And this way nobody knows who we're talking about. I do know that has not sold a single share

and it has only sold shares of the fund capital calls, which is an incredible statement to fortitude and vision. Incredible, lower and credible. And by the way, it's not always worked out because you did the same with and those didn't go as well. Yeah, I mean, look, you have to diversify

when you've got all your eggs in one basket and one company, obviously you have to sell some shares. But, you know, one of the things I've just learned over the last 20 years is this probably, you know, if you last me, what's your biggest regret or learning or whatever, it's just selling to early is like one of the biggest mistakes you can make. Look at PayPal.

PayPal is now a $250 billion company. We sold it in 2002 for 1.5 billion. We thought that was a great deal at the time and we sold it for less than 1% of what is worth today and the product is basically the same. So that was just compounding. So that was the lesson. Never sell. If it's a winner, ride it, you can pair a girl down. Hold on. Hold on. I'm going to put a final nail disc off and then we're going to go to Alpha Fold. There's a great quote ride it, you can pair. I'm gonna put a final nail disc off and then we're gonna go to Alpha Fold. There's a great quote by Warren Buffett, which is if you know what you're doing, the best thing you can do is be as concentrated as possible.

Nobody ever got rich in their seventh best idea. And I think that that basically sums it up, but you have to be in a position to have the ability to have that kind of portfolio allocation. I think that's hard. Free birds, explain alpha fold, please. Okay. Let's explain.

Give me two minutes on, I'll explain proteins and then the importance of proteins in an alpha fold. So, the numbers to remember are four, three and twenty. There are four nucleic acids that make up your DNA. We all learned this in high school biology. Sets of three, AC, T and G combinations, define an amino acid. There are 20 amino acids. And a protein is a string of amino acids. So in your body and every cell, there are these organelles. They make proteins by reading the DNA, taking

a copy of it and turning it into amino acid chains, and that's what we call proteins. But what's interesting is when you make a chain of amino acids, so there's 20 of them that you could put in each point in the chain, it doesn't come out as a long chain. What happens is those amino acids, the whole thing collapses. And it turns into a very specific shape. And the shape of that protein is what defines its function. So pretty much every biological function across all life is undertaken by proteins doing something. Some proteins like hemoglobin in our red blood cells

will has a very specific little pocket where oxygen molecules stick into the pocket and then it moves the oxygen from your lungs to your cells. It's a pretty amazing protein to exist and it specifically is shaped to do that exact function. There are other proteins that can, for example, rip apart other molecules, break a molecular bond. There are other proteins, for example,

that can take nitrogen out of the atmosphere and put it into plants cells that the plants can then use to grow. There's an incredible set of potential on the nanoscale of what you can do with proteins and we see that in life and we're just shocked and awed and amazed by it every day. But in order to figure out how to create proteins that do specific things, you have to know how those amino acids turn into the shape that the protein ultimately takes. And that's what's called protein folding.

And so the hard thing is, and why is this important? It's important because we can easily read DNA. And therefore, we can figure out what amino acid sequence is being made to define that protein. But what we don't know really well is what is the shape of that protein, and therefore how does it undertake the function that we see it taking in biology. And if you think about the reverse of this, the reverse of this, if you have a function you want to undertake in biology,

you can design a protein to do that function for you. For example, bind to a specific point on a cancer cell, or take carbon out of the atmosphere or pretty much anything else your mind can kind of imagine on the nanoscale proteins can be designed to do. The challenge is how do you write the code, which is the DNA, to make the protein that does that thing? Well, we don't know how the code turns into the shape. And that's what folding the folding problem is. So the folding problem, there's a data set, and the data set is, what's the three-dimensional shape of a protein,

and then what's the DNA code that defines the amino acid sequence that makes that protein? And how do you figure out how to predict the shape of the protein from the amino acid sequence? It has been an impossibility. And again, if you think about this chain of amino acids, they each have little electrical stacers, and the way that they bind to each other, it's very complicated. You can't just deterministically define it.

We don't have that level of understanding on a quantum scale. So what alpha-fold has done is they have now been able to predict from a sequence of amino acids what the protein shape will ultimately become by learning from a database of hundreds of thousands of structural protein shapes that have been defined through really, really, really difficult, you know, scanning microscopes and other techniques to really try and scan a protein on a microscopic scale and then looking at the DNA sequence and figuring out, okay, what's the relationship? And the accuracy of their predictive model now is within the range of error of the microscopes

that are being used to actually scan and measure those proteins. So that's incredible because now theoretically you could come up with a design for a protein and you could actually build that protein by writing the amino acid sequence and that protein can do any number of things you want to do. And this has been a difficult problem that's been intractable by humanity and we've been challenged by it for decades. For this machine learning breakthrough to kind of be realized in literally less than three years. I mean, these guys were at a score of 40 last year and this year they're at like nearly 90, which is incredible. And so now, you know, we can now predict what the shape will be from the DNA sequence.

And this is going to unlock this ability. Everyone's now going to take their model, if they license it or whatever they do with it, or people are going to go learn using the same techniques that DeepMind used, but it just means that it's possible. And then scientists will go away and they'll say, you know what, I wanna do this particular thing on a microscopic scale. Let me design in three-dimensional space a protein to do that thing.

Okay, now let me go figure out how to make that protein by writing the DNA code, which is really easy if you can use this algorithm to solve that for you. And it is literally dollars and pennies to make proteins. We can write DNA on a computer. We can get printed DNA sent to us in 48 hours in a FedEx envelope for a DNA printing facility. We can put it in a microbe and we can get that microbe to make the protein for us in a day. The lab cost any high school biology class can do this now.

So by being able to actually figure out what DNA to write based on the objective function of what we want the protein to do, it's going to unlock this universe of things we can do in medicine, in environmental science. We can do things like break apart PET plastics. We can do things like fixing nitrogen from the atmosphere and getting rid of fertilizer plants. We can create all sorts of new food solutions, health solutions, environmental solutions. Any chance you can make a pizza that doesn't have carbohydrates because that's what I'm thinking about here. Is there a way you can make a healthy pasta or pizza or something like that, but in all seriousness, what do you think the early winds will be out of this technology?

Is this a theoretical wind that will benefit from in 20 years? Or is this a serious breakthrough that we're going to benefit from in the near term? No, I think both are true. This is an incredibly important advancement in machine learning. But the reality is that Google will still have to spend a deep mind. We'll have to spend a lot of time refining it. And then they have some really big ethical challenges ahead of it. How do you expose this technology to whom and under what conditions?

And it's the same situation that OpenAI has with GPT-3, although a lot of people, I think, the scale of the computer science challenge maybe was a bigger win in GPT-3 because it was a much more open space. And I think this is a much more specific sort of almost expert system in a way. But the downstream commercial implications of this

are just enormous. And so just think about this. This is where you've got to love companies like Google, the fact that they exist. Because from PageRank in 1999 to CPC ads in 2003 and 2004, we have alpha fold in 2020. And that, to me, is just, that's just an extra. This is an argument against breaking up tech

because only a tech company with this amount of resource knowledge can then go spend a billion dollars on deep mind. I mean, alpha bets burning four to five billion dollars a year on their quote unquote other bets line. And people give them a lot of shit for it But I mean you hit any one of these things and it's a hundred billion dollar payday. I mean look at YouTube YouTube's easily a hundred billion dollar payday on a billion dollar bet billion six. Oh, no, that's it That's a 250 to 500 billion dollar

I'll find some antics a lot of people miss this but applied semantics was a hundred million dollar bet And that's the entirety of that sense initially Android Android but applied semantics was a hundred million dollar bet. And that's the entirety of that sense initially. Android, Android, you know, and yeah. Is this the first commercial application of deep mind? Because until now, you know, they've had Alpha Zero. So there was a period of time. A lot of people, I don't know, let me just think about this for a second.

All right, because Alpha Zero, Alpha Zero was really good. I wanna be careful about this, but I do think that- I do think that- I do think that- I do think it was disclosed that they've used DeepMind to improve ads quality and improve YouTube viewing. And as a result of that, you get the number of hours per day of the average user on YouTube

to double or triple ad revenue goes by 3x. And I think in one quarter, Google was able to generate something like an incremental 15 billion annualized revenue from deep minds. And you know what that deep mind actually did on YouTube? It sent everybody to the alt-ride and info wars and benches appear out. Congratulations. Be careful when you send people's minds with artificial intelligence. Maybe you're just arguing to break them up.

Yeah. artificial intelligence. Maybe you just argued to break them up. Yeah, but I understand, SACs, that it's being used broadly across the products at Google. And now in a much more careful way is my understanding. Look, I'm a big ally of Alpha Man, I'm a big fan and I love it. You know, they were, and I used to work there and I'm very close to people there. So, I don't like to be on the board and was the major backer of that company, DeepMind. Founder's Fund. Founder's fund. Elon Musk too. And he begged them to not sell to Google because I mean, $400 million, $400 million exit was a steal for Google. 40 or 50 scientists, I think. Yeah, absolute steal.

No, Elon, I mean, Elon has publicly said that he thinks deep mind is like the greatest threat. Well, you think AI is a greatest threat to humanity and of the people working on AI, deep mind is the furthest along and therefore most dangerous. He tried to stop, I mean, he came straight up when he's been very public about this since, that he said, I'll give you an unlimited amount of money to not sell to Google.

He's friends with Larry Page too, but he said, don't sell. I want you to be independent, I want you to keep working on this. But he said that when he saw the AI, they would become aware that it was an AI, that that was when he was like, wait a second. No, wait, deep, deep mind is not,

the alpha, alpha, alpha zero is not self-aware. That's it. He felt it was becoming self-aware that, knew what it was. I don't know if that was just Elon, you know, just sort of, no, it's not, it's not self-aware.

So I mean mean I'm watching Yeah, I mean the amazing things that DeepMine has released prior to this were games, right they had this This chest AI called Alpha zero which rapidly became not just the best chest It only beat every human in the world. It also beat every chess engine because computers became more, you know,

better at chess than humans long time ago because of their sheer computational power. But Alpha Zero plays like a human, but with kind of that same computational power. And so that created a whole revolution in chess engines. And then they also did that with a game called Go, the credit Alpha Go. And basically every single game that you can think of, deep minds created, you know, an

Alpha, whatever Alpha version that destroys both humans and computers. But this is the first thing they've publicly announced that seems like it will be available to others eventually that could have tremendous social impact. Imagine the government trying to understand this. Can you imagine them being brought before? Well, these are the new weapons of mass destruction. Let's be honest, if somebody else had alpha-fold and probably somebody doesn't just hasn't said, Google actually values transparency, so that's the only reason why we know. Imagine what they could do as Friedberg said.

It's like, you know, the opposite of this is basically to design a specific protein that basically you know destroys organs or... There are proteins called prions, which are the scariest thing known in biology. In my opinion, a prion is a protein that it actually finds similar proteins and based on its shape, it gets those proteins to change and it becomes like a virus. And prions actually are, there's an extremely sad series of diseases that are related to prions where your body expresses a protein in the wrong way. And then that protein itself gets other proteins to change and creates copies of itself.

And it spreads. It is a fascinatingly scary biological phenomenon. But there are extremely scary things you can do with the designer protein capability in the wrong way. So basically you could make a bio weapon that would be similar to what the aliens and Prometheus and aliens were doing, the much worse. This is why I think they're going to spend years before. So this is why back to that earlier question. It'll be years before this sees the light of day because they are they're smart

enough to know what they've uncovered. And I think they did they did the right thing by talking about it because I think there's a lot of really amazing R&D. But the reality is that Google for the next 20 or 30 years will have layers and layers of oversight because it's not like you're gonna allow a company to enrich uranium in Mountain View without oversight. And this is the equivalent. It's just that we're buying time until governments realize that they have to do it.

But let's also remember, the protein data set they trained on is publicly available. Anyone can access this and with a catch-out in machine learning capability to deep-mind infrastructure-wise, theoretically, someone could... I think it's an inevitability that in the next 24 months, someone else will write this. Right now, I think what DeepMind has done is showed that specific techniques of learning can overcome limitations in compute. But to your point, David, like we're accelerating silicon at a fast enough speed where, you know, if like if you can throw 5, 10, 50, 100, 500 pet ops

at a problem, you're, you know, you can run, you know, some really, really old version of TensorFlow and probably get to the same answer. Yeah, I actually think they published. I'm going to find it while you guys are chatting, but they published what the compute needs were on running this. I'll find it in a second. I'll tell you. Because we make ones for a slightly discerning point on the whole WMD thing.

I mean, like obviously, the, you know, who has access to this technology needs to be controlled. We do have to make sure it doesn't get to the hands of bad actors. But the reality is there's plenty of existing WMDs out there that have been around for a long time that bad actors could get their hands on. They could already make, you know make extremely dangerous viruses in a lab. They could take something that's as contagious as smallpox and make it as deadly as a bull or something like that. And it's these new technologies that provide a way for us to combat those WMDs, because technology has its tendency to become democratized. Was. 75 years ago, the US was the only country that had an atomic weapon.

Now, what, like close to 10, have nuclear atomic weapons. And so these sort of nefarious technologies get democratized anyway, and we really need some of these new technologies and new abilities as a way to combat them. It's like last week we were talking about the ability now to basically print a vaccine using this mRNA technique within two days. You can imagine if someone tried to use a bioweapon and create a new virus, we could print a vaccine the next day. Those are the kinds of capabilities we're going to need to fight. I think you're right. I think you're right.

It's just that you then have a law of large numbers problem, meaning, you know, the previous problem before is you had 180, 190, 200 state sponsored actors. So if you had a 1%, you know, rate of people who are just bad, you're talking about two states. Now, when you talk about 5 billion people getting access to code that's basically running in AWS or GCP instance someplace and you have a 1% bad guy rate, all of a sudden that 1% really matters. And that I think that's the problem.

It's just the law of large numbers, David, applied to very, very small rates of immorality. But, I mean, you can already do very scary things with, you know, recombinant DNA, taking DNA from one organism, putting it in another and sending that organism out. And, you know, theoretically, you could have designed a virus that would spread throughout humanity and cause a lot of death, right? I mean, there's a lot of this capability. Except that people would have found that out because, like, you can't run these labs and you're not going to get you know Monkey models or mouse models

It's like there's there's a trail of breadcrubs there that is easier to track Wouldn't you agree then just running an instance and a simulation on GCP sending it someplace to then have a protein printed that comes in a FedEx envelope to you and You have to hire people as we saw in Iran with you know their chief scientist being whacked by whoever Accidentally whacked by whoever accidentally whacked him with 60 people. Like, you need to have the brain power to do this. When you have the brain power to do it, you can track that brain power.

And we had, for the last, I think it's like, since we even tested nuclear bombs, we've had these special planes flying around the globe looking for the signature of nuclear detonations or any kind of nuclear fallout. And we've been flying those forever. I think bio defense is going to become probably one of the biggest industries on planet or starting in the latter half of this century because you're going to get to a point where digital biology is like a tool just like software was in the 80s where suddenly everyone could access it, everyone could use it

Everyone could do stuff with it. You have this ubiquity of scary shit happening hackers everywhere Hold on freeberg didn't we have that as well in those same claims about nuclear power and we were been able to For a hundred years with nuclear close to 100 years nuclear in particular It was nuclear in particular. There is a material problem You have to source and refine material to do something scary. With biology, you don't. You can do this anywhere. You can do it on your desktop at home. And it's getting easier, cheaper, faster, and you can use software and a printer and a cheap sequencer and do stuff. Do we believe that China has this rebirth?

Yes. China, for sure. Yeah, I mean, look at this. Yeah, I think they had a deep mind or behind it. 100% 100% So here's the stats that deep mind put out it took them the equivalent of 100 to 200 GPUs run over a few weeks To build this model that is I don't care how advanced deep mind is at this point That's so you know if that's the the model then someone else can replicate that You know someone that's what that's what happened to Alpha Zero, the D-Mine chest engine. After they proved it, now there's a whole bunch of chest AIs. I think we're

within one year, J-Cow, of a lot of startups replicating this alpha-fold technique. And then using that to go to drug discovery and you'll see 50 startups getting funded 12 to 18 months from now based on some novel protein idea. And I think that this we're going to get our beach wet on this on the ISS. Everybody go to this is getting ridiculous. Everybody go to the CIT.com slash all in. But I but I believe I'm a protein. We should create a we should create a protein folding syndicate.

Yeah, absolutely. Here it is. Everybody go to the syndicate.com slash all in. If we do this, I'm collecting the emails now. I will, I will, I will make my first series of bets less on the application and more on the the protection. I think by the defense 30 years from now is going to be so important. If you want to invest with the best ease, can there, is there going to be a protein that prevents

Rudy Giuliani from farting? I mean, what is going on, Saks? Let's throw to you as our resident right wing, Choke it, I'm joking, Saks. Don't take it so personal. We know you didn't go to Trump. We know you did a right in vote for Tucker Carlson. Let me ask you, have you or have you not had dinner or Tucker Carlson. Let me ask you have you or have you not had dinner with Tucker Carlson?

That's a big buzz. I call. Colin. I've actually, yeah, I, um, no, I don't think I've had dinner with Tucker, but you get into a party with Tucker Carlson at the hotel house. No, but let me, let me get, uh, here's what's happening is, well, I feel my dream of gridlock in Washington for the next four years is slipping away. You know, the, you know, I described this as sort of like it was kind of a dream scenario that you'd have a divided Congress and the Republicans, you know, they won 50, they want fifty seats in the senate in november and then you know because of the stupid rule in georgia that you have to

you can't just win you have to win by having over fifty percent uh... their public is would have had uh... fifty one but now these there's a runoff for these two open seats and the republicans were ahead in the polls at the time they were the more and i think mostly it's based on the candidates being more popular than the Democratic candidates, but now because of all these antics around the election, the Democrats have both Democratic candidates have pulled ahead. And so, yeah, they are now both Democratic in the last couple of the last week or so.

Awesome is ahead of Purdue by about two points, which is a stunner, because Purdue has already beaten him before he beat him in the November election. He's, I think it better candidate. Let's margin of error though, right? And the margin of error has always worn off. It's worn to the Republican. Right, but Warlock is seven points ahead of Laughler. So that one is outside the margin of error. He's clearly beating her, and now it looks like produce and danger too. The Republicans just need to win one of those in order for us to have divided government in Washington, which I think tends to produce

better results than giving one party all the levers of power. But this is the crazy thing. And so I think even from Trump's point of view, I think this is a branding exercise to prove that he didn't lose. The problem is, how's that going? Well, it's not working. And it looks like it's in a cost of Republicans the Senate, which is something that I think he won't come back from. So if I was advising the president, I would tell him to drop these legal challenges. They fired Sydney Powell from the legal team, which I think was a good decision because of her crazy wild allegations. But now Rudy's out there doing the same stuff. Rudy Giuliani.

Rudy Giuliani. The answer that I gave you is they didn't bother to interview a single witness. Judy, Julie, he was suggesting he wasn't waking up the genie. He was, he was tucking his pants in, laying down in the bedroom, having a drink with a Russian underage. I mean, Rudy, it's just, I mean, fresh off his guest starring appearance

in the Borat movies. I mean, it's like he's reenacting my cousin Vinnie or something in these hearings. How many things have my whole Republicans in the Senate? I think they're so amazing. The Democrats basically have now have a stone cold free roll because there is a very good chance that these guys are going to win these two Senate seats, which would just be absolutely incredible. Absolutely.

Yeah. So Republicans are definitely figuring this out. Rich Lowry had a great column. He's an editor of National Review. He's on the right, but I think provides very good objective political analysis. His last column sounded the alarm bells about what was happening in Georgia.

And look, if the issue in the Georgia runoffs are these antics, if it's Rudy and Sydney, pal, the public is going to lose the seat. The both seats, if the question of the election is whether Democrats should have a free hand to ramp through whatever legislation they want, then I think the Republicans win. So the question is, what is that election going to be about? And the longer that Rudy stays on the stage, making these crazy wild allegations, the worse it gets for Republicans. When is the Georgia runoff election? This January 5th or 10th is one of those two. January 5th, I think. My gosh. Would anybody here? If they had gray hair, and I know we have three gentlemen on the call who have gray hair,

Friedberg somehow you're, you might be, maybe I've answered this question already. Just not on this side. Just not on this side. Would any of you dye your hair if you were a 79, 87 year old Rudy Giuliani? No, my hair is white and getting white, it's like it is what it is. It's a passage of time I would just move on. David, would you consider just taking that gray ride out of your hair?

Because you have the Europe, so Vafox as it stands. Would you ever consider it? You can see the decision I've made, but look, that's not, I mean, it's, yeah, I mean, that was just like a meltdown. I mean, a literal meltdown. A literal meltdown. And it was so like representative of the moment.

The congressional Republicans want to use a hook to get Rudy off the stage. I mean, they cannot wait to get him off the stage. And, but if they don't do it, I don't just stand up and just tell Trump to shut this down. I think it's coming. It's coming. Yeah. Oh, wow.

So the Republicans are stand up to Trump with four weeks left in office. Wow. What a profile encourage. Freeberg, are you dying your hair? Do you have gray hair on you actually dying? Or have you not hit the gray? Yeah. This is how it's right now.

It's an emergency pod. No. It's the truth. Dude, are you dying your hair yesterday now? This is it. Oh, that's a hell, baby. There's so many ways. Does anybody have an opinion on whether Trump

is allowed to pre-parten himself and his kids? It's exactly where I was going. Yes, that's. Well, I saw a right wing car park. You could definitely pardon his kids. I don't know that there's an open legal question whether he can pardon himself. Can you pre pardon? What does it mean pre pardon in this definition?

You mean, you can't? You can only pardon for a committed crime, right? I mean, that's traditionally part of the story. You can be pardoned. Well, you can pardon for things that happened in the past. I don't think you can pardon for things that happened in the future. And you can already put, you can put a blanket pardon

in the fine. No, I don't think you have to define it. I think you could just do a blanket part in. Yes. The, I would advise Trump not to do it if I were one of his advisers. And the reason is that he can only part in for federal. And the big problem the Trump family has right now, or the, you know, the, the Southern District of New York, these Mad Dog prosecutors who are Democrats, this is, you know, I don't approve of it.

Yeah, I'm not. This is, to me, this is the, to me, this is the criminalization of political differences. I don't, I think it'd be great if he could pardon, because I do think that those guys are, again, they're trying to criminalize political differences. But, but pardoning doesn't solve the problem with the Southern District of New York. And Biden has already said that he doesn't believe in having a federal investigation of Trump. And so I don't think Trump has anything to worry about federally. I think the problem is, um, is New York. Can I just say Biden is just so fucking decent in classy?

Like, isn't it refreshing? It's actually boring, but isn't it just, wait, were we talking about Biden is just so decent? Who's Biden? Like, I haven't seen that guy. Is he working for us? He's been great. No, I mean, he's disappeared.

No, he doesn't disappear. He's just not crazy. He's Biden, Biden has done a really, has done a few really smart things. I mean, in his his acceptance speech he did what Churchill advises you to do in victory Which is be magnanimous? He's made the right sort of sounds towards Reconciliation I think saying that he didn't believe in going after Trump criminally. I mean look I I don't think that would have been a good political move anyway because it would have created a backlash

But it was a smart thing to say. And so, and then I think the other smart thing he's done is, which is very bite in any way, which is he's gone establishment all the way for his cabinet. He hasn't named any totally crazy progressives to his cabinet yet that Republicans could latch on to for the Georgia runoffs. And so Biden's doing a very good job right now of appearing non-threatening and doing nothing to blow up his honeymoon.

He and his visors have run a perfect, perfect flawless. It's been flawless. I mean, David, you just nailed it. Like all of all the things he could have done to potentially put the Senate at risk or to potentially give Republicans sort of something to hang their hats on, he has given zero space, right? Like he has not created a single opening. So you would have thought that coming into this election cycle, the way that Trump tried to paint Biden was like this, you know, gaffaholic. And instead he has just been picture-pitch-perfect. Well, I think he's a gaff machine when he speaks

spontaneously which he has not done. I mean every time I've seen him speak since the elections be reading off a teleprompter But I think that his campaign has run a really good they have run a good strategy And now look it helps that the press doesn't really challenge It's like it's like weekend at Bernie's except it's like presidency of the press doesn't really challenge it's like like weekend at bernie's except it's like presidency of bernie's you know it's like for him to get in the basement you know the reels of roctor hold him up put him in the

on the stage but yeah that's a question to the press let him get away with it i mean no no other candidate could have gotten away with the basement strategy but the press was so determined to go after trump that they really gave him a free pass on what biden believed in what he was going to do. But look, Biden has run a very good campaign and a very good transition. And really, I think the biggest mistake he made during the campaign was not declaring definitively that he would not try to pack this report.

That was his big mistake. And what happened? The voters split the ticket to give the Senate to the Republicans so that Biden wouldn't be able to pack the court. And so he wouldn't be able to do it anyway. And I think maybe his administration has learned from that mistake, which is don't do anything or say anything that's going to give Republicans something to latch on to to say that Biden is really erratic. We got to stop him. And anyway, so to now Georgia's in play and Biden could win the Senate.

That's a perfect insight, Zach, because what you haven't seen as well as you haven't seen Kamala Harris out there all that much because that's something Republicans could glaw them on to. And you haven't seen AOC Bernie Sanders or Elizabeth Warren. They are persona no grata. They are not involved in this. Wow, they're MIA. They are.

MIA. And the Democrats won't bring them up. And you have Bernie Sanders, like, wasn't he supposed to be a challenger? Like Elon Omar wants to cancel Renton mortgages. I mean, they're throwing each other. That was classic. And they're throwing everything out there just to see if anything sticks right now. Yeah.

Biden has really given Bernie Sanders and that wing of the party, the high hat in the in these cabinet choices. In fact, he just named a woman to be the head of the of OMB, the, you know, the budget director, who has a huge Twitter feud with Bernie Sanders and the Bernie, the Bernie folks are up in arms about it. I don't think she's going to get through. But, But yeah, I mean, Biden has really stiff-armed a lot of the progressives. Isn't want to be associated with the hysterical left? I mean, it's like, why would you want to? I just want to also think it's hysterically, I think it's a appeal to the right. He is appealing to the right to some extent, right? I mean, like by not putting those people in place, I think all the others are right. He's never going to be able to appeal to the Trump base, but what he's going to be able to do

is prevent their public from sort of labeling him as a radical and therefore, and therefore, you know, win over those independent settings needs. And by the way, back to, back to Trump for one second, I apologize, because I wanted to ask you, David. I mean, the other thing that could tip Georgia is this whole craziness where Trump is like, I'm going to veto the defense bill unless we repealed section 230. And if you're, you know, a military person in Georgia, you're like, wait a second. You're going to leave my brothers and sisters in arms, basically lolly gagging without any financial support because

you don't like Twitter's tweet policy, it's going to seem kind of crazy. Yeah, it was one of these classic Trump moves where you feel like I think he does have a good point with respect to the social media companies. I do think they've been engaging in censorship, they've overstepped their bounds, they do deserve some sort of come up in sort of control. I personally don't think that repealing to, to it was a 280, is the section 230 is the way to go.

It, for a bunch of reasons that we could get into if you want, but yeah, it was one of these like reflexive Trump Trump, you know tweets and you heard Republicans in the Senate were very very quick to shoot it down And you know there was an article in Politico where Republicans were quoted well anonymously saying they're pretty sick of this shit That was the quote and so yeah, I mean I think that Republicans on Capitol Hill are kind of ready for for those types of antics to be over. Okay. Should he or will he pardon himself and the kids?

Like, I mean, guess that's what it comes down to. And then I think we should. I don't, I don't, I don't think so. And I don't think it'll matter because I think Biden will leave him alone. And it will not help his biggest risk. And this is by the way why they tried to get Jake Clayton to resign from the SEC and move over to the southern district of New York because they thought maybe he could run some kind of interference. But I mean, I think the state AGs will want to pound a flesh here. And if I were advising, yeah, just if I were advising Trump and advising him on how to maximize his legacy, it would be,

pardon people in the administration have been treated unfairly. There's no need to pardon yourself. I don't think he has federal exposure. And I would tell him that, you know, if Republicans lose these Georgia Senate seats, that he will be blamed for among the base for a long time. And that, I think, will be hard for him to get passed in four years.

And so it's very important, I think, for him to make sure that at least Purdue wins his election. Yeah. Okay. If you can ask another question, that at least Purdue wins his election. Yeah. OK. Can I ask another question? What do you think is going to happen with? So Trump is trying to make his case. But no one's listening.

Twitter keeps putting up his fraudulent, you know. This is disputed claims thing. And he's been pushing news, Max, and OA-NM. Do you think those become viable in real media businesses now? And are they actually going to steal an audience away from Fox News? 100%. It's already happened. It's just the increasing fragmentation of media, right? The cable networks don't pick them up, do they? The cable companies?

I've seen Newsmax as a people channel. My very is this entire twisted like crazy right, alt right, mania just fades into oblivion and the party reinvents itself. No, no. Because they can't win. They can't win, David. They can't win with this brand of crazy. They did win.

They did and they will not in the future because they just lost. There are publicans one like 10 or twelve seats in the house they've almost got the majority back in the house they almost certainly will win back the house and retire Nancy Pelosi in two years during the midterm election i'll put money on that right now they held the senate local elections they held the senate presidency again with this strategy. You think you win with the demographic shift with Trump in 2024 really? Yeah, because you think people want to go back to that level of crazy If you're not I mean people don't people don't want the they don't want the crazy, but this idea that the issue set That Trump ran on and went on is dead. I don't I don't agree with that

Yeah, I was issues are still there. You'll have a better branded face and a standard bearer for those issues. And if you say it in a less crazy way, and you're generally less crazy, I think that it will resonate with a lot more people than have already proven that it resonates with. It already resonates with 70 million. Could it resonate with 75 and could they overtake the White House? It's not inconceivable. So I think we can't all of a sudden say this is sign sealed and delivered.

It's a fec the complete and all of a sudden it's just Democrats the rest of the way. David's right, the down ballot results for the Democrats were not good. And it's a sign that moderate centristism is the only winning strategy. If you really have a strategy where it's like, I really want to win. And not just me, but my party and generations of people after me, you have to run a centrist campaign. Which is why they're retiring the AOC, Elizabeth Warren, Bernie, bro, contingent, right? So if there's a house member, there's a group of crazy. Right. There was a Democratic House member, I think Elizabeth Spanberger,

who almost lost her seat. I think in a kind of a swing Virginia district, there was a big call of the Democratic House caucus. She was laying into Pelosi and the leadership there because she was basically saying, don't ever mention defund the police again. If you want me to win my swing district next time, do not mention this ever again. And she was just, this was all in the

Washington Post, you know, they, the call was leaked by about a dozen different press outlets, which tells you there was a lot of unhappiness among the house members who almost lost their seat because of these like radical ideas. The other thing is, and you is, unless all of a sudden, the folks that are in their 20s and 30s are radically different than many, many generations before them, the reality is that they will, as they get older and wealthier, generally speaking, get more conservative.

And we are about to go through over the next 20 years, 30 trillion dollars of wealth transfer. And so, you know go through over the next 20 years, 30 trillion dollars of wealth transfer. And so, you know, I mean, you can wear buttons on flannel, but at the end of the day when your mom and dad pass away and all of a sudden, you have four, five, six, seven, eight million bucks and you have to think about your children and your children's children, I tend to think people generally do very predictably, get more conservative. And so again, another reason why you can't count on a stayed interpretation of progressivism. There will be progressivism. I think it just will be a different form of policy and it'll just be more moderate and centrist and

it'll be normal. Right. Which is a perfect segue to the New York Times story that came out on the Friday after Thanksgiving, November 27th, the rich kids who want to tear down capitalism, socialist minded millennials, millennial heirs are trying to live their values by getting rid of their money. Lately, Sam Jacobs, and I'll read just a little bit of it, has been having a lot of conversations with his family's lawyers

He's trying to gain access to his trust Of 30 his 30 million dollar trust fund at 25. He's hit the age where many errors can blow their money on hair-brained businesses or A stable of sports cards. He doesn't want to do that But by wealth management standards his plans are just as bad. He wants to give it all away I want to build a world where someone like me a young person who controls tens of millions dollars is possible. A socialistist college, Mr. Jacob sees his family as extreme, polluteocratic wealth as both a moral and economic failure. His parents will be very proud of him. First of all, Sam Jacobs sounds like an idiot and he shouldn't have anybody. So hopefully he gets his wish. Why did his parents give him 30 million dollars?

This trust fund should be like given to somebody who deserves it. Yeah, but what Sam Jacobs wants doesn't mean that Sam Jacobs gets the decide for everybody else. And just because that he wants to live in a communist country, he can go and find one. And the reality is like, we just talked about alpha fold. Well, guess what? There's four of us on this podcast today that over the next 20 or 30 years

are more than likely going to invest hundreds of millions of dollars in protein design. And I don't do that with any sense of shame. And I'm glad that Stuart Butterfield made me a lot of money because it's gonna go back into the world in positive ways. And maybe if my children are taught properly, they'll be able to take a small piece of that and they'll decide that there's something else that's important to them. But the reality is that everybody should be allowed to make their own decisions.

And I don't want somebody like him, especially a 25-year-old dipshit telling me or my kids who even though they're under the age of 15 are probably smarter than him what to do David when you read this article If you did read it. What were your thoughts? Especially in regards to parenting and thinking about our own kids because that's what I started thinking about is like Oh my god, what if one of my daughters wants to take her trust fund and just throw it into the wind I really don't want the part wait hold on I just want I just want to say one thing. The part that's completely reasonable and that I respect is this this 25 year old seems to have come to a decision.

What I find completely unreasonable and you know just completely lathered with insecurity is his need to then project it and say it has to be true for everybody else as well. to then project it and say it has to be true for everybody else as well. And the grand arcing statements of how it should never be just completely betrays, you know, what we've learned in how society functionally works. Like if you want democracy, the only sort of economic philosophy that's been partnered with democracy to work well as capitalism. And so if you want to change one, you're going to have to change the other. And just the fact that, you know, with all of his education, the hundreds of millions of

dollars, you know, didn't get a course in civics to understand that is kind of sad. I just before you go, David, I have to read one comment because it's so deranged that it almost seems like it was part of a script to like some billions or a secession. Errors whose wealth have come from specific sources sometimes use that history to guide their giving. That's a New York Times saying that. Pierce still a hunt, a 32 year old socialist anarchist, Marxist communist, or all of the above,

has a trust fund that was financed by their former stepfathers Outlet Mall Empire. has a trust fund that was financed by their former stepfathers outlet mall empire. When I and this is Mr. Mr. I'm sorry, MX. I've never seen that before. Dilla Hunt. How do you pronounce Max Hunt?

How do you pronounce MX? MX Dilla Hunt takes non-gentred pronouns. Has anybody seen MX? I've never seen that. That was the first time, yeah. That's the first for me. So I guess it's, you don't have to say Mr. or Miss or Miss. Got it.

It's like Latinx where you just can group a bunch of people into one thing. I got it. This is what MX Dilla Hunt says. I'm just trying to figure out how it's pronounced. Maxis hunt Dilla Hunt says I'm just trying to figure out how it's pronounced Maxis hunt Dilla Hunt Take a shot Jason you're you're not showing respect for his pronouns. I don't want to get canceled

Just this kind of heart pronounce M. X. I don't mean to laugh. I need somebody tell me how to pronounce M. X.com I need somebody to tell me how to pronounce after I'm next back home. Um. When this is the quote that is so insane, when I think about outlet malls, and I think this is what we all think about when we think about outlet malls. When I think about outlet malls,

I think about intersectional oppression. What's the first thing that comes to mind for you, but when you think of an outlet mall? Oh my god, certainly it's intersectional oppression or a subway Can I just point out like the the New York Times has become a little bit Succeed list like you know if you were to ask Statistically what percentage of people that are inheriting wealth are gonna be stupid like this The answer would probably be pretty low

But they find the one or two characters like this. The answer would probably be pretty low, but they find the one or two characters like this, and they build the story around them, and then people extrapolate that as if that is the persona of the entire population of people that are gonna inherit some degree of wealth. And that becomes the story. And I'm just so sick of it,

like I don't read the New York Times anymore, and look, I love the New York Times, I would read it every single day, I still have it on my phone, I still pay for my subscription, but I'm so sick of the narrative being written by the New York Times, I would read it every single day, I still have it on my phone, I still pay for my subscription, but I'm so sick of the narrative being written by the author's objectives, and then they go and find one or two facts

that meet that narrative. And rather than speaking about it statistically and saying we surveyed 100 people that were wealthy, this is how many, and if it was 60% of them saying, I'm gonna go get away on my wealth and do creation. Great, like that's the story. But picking an individual and building the narrative around that individual as if that is the whole kind of, but David and that's the point. Like what they do is they don't even talk about

people who want to give their money away. What they do is they create these caricatures around this like judge judgment. It's all about this like judgment. It's like, virtually, it's like, I am, it's like, I am whole year than everybody else because of these decisions that I made. And I just find it so offensive. Now here's can I just tell you I had my physical last week and I have a doctor in LA who's superb and he's in many ways sort of a philosophy to me, he's been incredibly important in my life and you know, I talked to his name is Christian Renna at lifespan medicine, but anyways. And here's what you're and I talked to Chris about raising kids and Chris has seen, you know, thousands of people over the course of his, you know, journey as a primary care physician. And he's seen the kids of these folks and et cetera.

You know, he boiled it down to me. It's like, you know, your job as a parent is to make sure that your children have incredible tools, married with incredible habits. And so some of these things are very simple like food and, you know, how to eat and self-care and exercise. But some of these things are really important, which is a world view, empathy, and he uses this word, which is called awareness. And awareness is this idea that you understand the world around you. And that's an incredibly difficult thing for parents to be able to teach their kids. But it seems like if you could give them that, that's independent of anything other than time and care, right? It doesn't matter whether

you're rich or you're poor, it doesn't really matter whether you're black or you're white. You can really teach the concept of awareness and empathy and then the other thing that he taught me was you know There's a really big difference between folks like you meet meeting guys like me who grew up poor and who are focused on the generation of money, right meaning making money and Some of you make it some of you don't but you're living in this existential threat that you feel is hanging over you. And so you go out and you make it. And a lot of it is driven by this insecurity you've had since you were young. But make no mistake, your children's lives is harder than yours. And it's about the utilization of money. And whether they want to give it away or whether

they want to use it, you have they want to use it You have a responsibility to teach them whether you're giving them a dollar a million dollars or a billion dollars And this is where I think somewhere along the way these kids as parents You know may or may not have done the best maybe they did the best they could but somewhere along the way these gaps are Obvious at least in the telling of the article and this is where I I go back to, if you're really going to talk to about something like this, which actually is quite important. Because again, we're going to go through the most enormous wealth transfer in the history of the world in the next 20 years, 30 trillion dollars. That could, so talk about that. If enough people took their inheritance and decided to eradicate student debt, it would be 3% of what's going to be inherited over the next 20 years. Think about it.

So obviously you can do some incredible things, but it's not framed in the right way, it doesn't promote the right kind of discussion and all it is a salacious reporting that makes these kids look like caricatures. And by the way, remember that money today is invested somewhere. So to pull that 3% out would have a kind of crippling and kind of probably deleterious effect on. Yeah, these are not. Yeah, no, no, no, no, forget about that. It's a factory's family.

But this is my point also is I think that there's a responsibility to these stewards of capital, right? They may be, you can call them wealthy all you want, but they really are the people that pull the strings that are where money's moving. And there's a, I think, you know, tier point, kind of a degree of responsibility that inevitably has to kind of sit with this, this group. But here, here, here's the problem with it is, if they just want to give their money away to a charity that they thought was worthy and that been, they were willing to live like, you know, monks or something and not need money. That'd be fine, you know, we could respect that. But the reason why they're in such a hurry to get rid of this wealth is because they feel like

money itself is ill-gotten. That wealth itself is by definition ill-gotten. It must have come from at the expense of somebody else, right? You only could have gotten that wealth by ripping people off. And that is the thing that that's the idea that's really pernicious about this sort of like socialism movement is they don't really understand that the way capitalism works, you only get rich by selling something to somebody that they want that makes their life better. Right? I mean, all of us are engaged in the creation of new technologies and new products, and that makes the world better, and people are willing to pay for that, and that's what creates value,

and that's what creates wealth. And it's really just kind of sad that people, you know, it goes beyond this article on these trust fund kids, but this whole condemnation of capitalism and this attack on billionaires or whatever, the problem with it is it doesn't recognize the way that value is created for everybody. Can I give you a quote from Walter Williams, who just passed away, who's a very famous economist. Prior to capitalism, the way people amassed great wealth was by looting, plundering, and enslaving their fellow men. Capitalism made it possible to become wealthy by serving your fellow men.

And that's really true. And some are along the way. Exactly. Folks have lost the script and have all of a sudden gone back to prehistoric capitalist times. And I think that we don't have enough good examples of constructive capitalism that prove that this is not a bad word.

Yeah, and to give it, yeah, exactly. Yeah, the all over the Walter Williams quote, just to give another example, Jeff Bezos, just gave $10 billion to climate change. 10 billion dollars. And you know what, the kid, Teddy, what's the kid's name, Teddy Schaefer? Or something like that, the journalist

has been riding him on Twitter I Think he works for Vox or something like they have basically been attacking basso since he made the announcement that he hasn't done enough and it's like $10 billion is the largest contribution ever made To a single cause. I mean obviously Bill Gates and how did he do that? And how did he do that? Because he created Amazon, which has created a enormous value for all of us.

Imagine if one of these kids in the article, instead of just giving their money away, by the way, it looks like there's a bunch of organizations that have sprung up to scam these kids out of their trust fund. It's sort of a fool in their money already. There was a fool in their money, or soon parted. There's a whole bunch of scam artists who are trying to scam these kids, but yeah,

I mean, they're definitely getting scammed. But imagine if it's said if this gang scammed out of their money, they were to use it to create a business that created a new product or technology that served people, then maybe they could turn that 30 million into 10 billion like Bezos did. And if they lost it, they would have done it in the pursuit of something really grand. And so nobody would actually instead of virtue signaling instead of virtue signaling on the New York Times. Yeah, like these guys were so glad to be in the New York Times to dunk on capitalist and

dunk and literally dunk on their own parents. Think about that. You hate your parents so much. You have to go to the New York Times and tell them how much you hate them. I mean, I don't know how this changes. Well, by the way, speaking of virtue signaling in the New York Times, can we talk about the New York Times writing that hit piece on Coinbase?

All right, I mean, if you want to go there, I mean, this is the first style of the podcast, but we've been talking about Brian Armstrong just to set the table here. Brian Armstrong wrote a memo. He said, oh, politics, by the way, by the way,

J. Cal, I just posted an image for Nick to put up here. Just to, don't tell me it's a code 13 at San Francisco. This is not a code 13. It's a reinforce your point about the, you know, the virtue of capitalism, you know, this kind of dates back to these are three, three images, three charts from the year 1500 to today. And energy use has grown 115 times. Well, so this is basically a measure of population

consumption and production, right? And so the capitalist incentive has driven the ability while population has grown 14X over the last 500 years, it's driven a nearly 10X increment in what is available for humans to consume per capita during that period of time. I mean think about that That was driven entirely by industry and so industry has enabled and production has increased by 240x We have a surplus of goods on planet earth and a surplus of Access to goods because of the capital it's incentive over the last 500 years and who's right is it to say that that was wrong? And all of the people that are employed by it and live within that mechanism, and who are no longer living in poverty, who are no longer slow.

All of a sudden, 50,000 people convert you signal because they're sitting in their warm homes in America telling everybody else to fuck off. I mean, I find it kind of a joke. I mean, I would like you to go and live, you know, where I was supposed to live before I immigrated. Right. Sri Lanka. No heater, no roof, no food, etc.

Go to North Korea. Go to Sri Lanka. I can show you. You go to an outhouse. Okay. You sit there. You squat to go to the bathroom. Okay. There's no fucking three ply, you know, bamboo, you know, pet press-free toilet floor. You literally what, you know, you clean you know, press-free toilet board. You can't do it. You know, you literally, you know, you clean yourself with your hand, you brush your teeth with coal. I remember we used to brush our teeth with fucking coal. Okay, we have a well for water. And so you have all these people in these situations

where all we wanted was to just give a chance to run the race. And the people that were born with a silver spoon in their mouth who had a chance to run the race and the people that were born with a silver spoon in their mouth Who had the chance to run the race turns around and tells guys like me know you can't and a fucking infuriates me Yeah, I want to blow up the racetrack by the way I want to just get rid of the entire I mean I see fuck you It's a serious fuck you to these to these like they were they profited and they benefited from democracy and capitalism. And now they want to revert back to a system where everybody who's in that system, they don't

understand, they don't understand what feudalism is because they are so many layers removed through their fucking filtered lenses and, you know, country clubs and bullshit vacations and all this crap that they have no idea what it's like. And I'm telling you, I am first generation of having escaped that shit and I don't want anything to do with it. But the point is capitalism has allowed not just the US but many other countries to change their course in life. Stephen Pigners for all of the controversy he creates his books on what humans have really achieved during this great era of capitalism and industrialism and how we've changed our course on planet earth, improved human health, improved longevity,

improved calorie access to calories, improved access to shelter to medicine. It's all because of an incentive, a market-based incentive system, and it is very, very powerful. It is the most powerful force we know as a species. And it's allowed this incredible acceleration, exponential acceleration of possibility for our species. Also from the article, a great quote, Elizabeth Baldwin, a 34-year-old Democratic socialist from Cambridge, Massachusetts, she plans to keep enough of her inheritance to buy an apartment and raise a family, enjoying the sort of pleasant middle class existence denied to many people of

color in the United States. What does that mean? That's just, I don't know, I just, I don't see, let's just move off the side. Let's talk about Brian. It's so dumb. They see the world in a zero some way where anything they have means that somebody else must, it must have been taken away from somebody else. They don't really understand the way that value is created by an exchange and by people creating new things.

And that's what technology is all about. It's creating new things. I mean, there was a time when everybody didn't have access to clean water. Now we take that for granted. It's a time when everybody never access to affordable food and time and electricity. And by the way, looking at how we started, all of this is driven by capitalism.

And looking at how we started the conversation today, alpha fold, I think is the realization of one of the greatest capitalists enterprises in history. It's not the greatest alphabet. And they're still getting started. And the output of that is gonna be an incredible new tool for drug discovery that is gonna extend human lifespan in an incredible way.

There was a window of time where folks who are really, really good at bitching and complaining had a window of opportunity to bitch and complain. And what happened was they were not able to seize power. And then just in the last few months, literally, I think we are nailing that coffin shut. Because as you said, David, you're gonna have to all of a sudden like look at companies like Google

and look at things like Alpha Fold and reject them. And I don't know how people do because everyone will need something that that company will create now and that Alpha Fold will be responsible for. We are all going to need a vaccine. These are all coming from for profit companies that thrived on top of R&D.

All of it was funded by past drug profits from other things. And so we're going to have to really look at ourselves in the mirror and say, did we not want that? Did we want to just die on the street to prove a point? And I don't think anybody actually wants that. I mean, what is your, what is the ultimate criticism of Amazon? They made, you know, iPhone charger is $5.

Well, the point is you can't have your cake in e2, you can't actually, you know, complain about Amazon on the one hand, complain about no action on climate change on the other, complain about this, complain about that, complain about the other thing, then you're just a fucking whiner. And nobody wants a whiner around because they're not additive, they're not useful. You don't learn anything from a whiner.

All right. So looking at the New York Times versus Coinbase, the Fowl New York Times fake news, sorry, I'm just trying to win Trump. Okay, fell New York Times thick. Well, talk about whining. This is more virtue signaling whining by the New York Times. And actually, look, this was clearly a hit piece because they don't like Brian Armstrong's decision to make Coinbase and A political workplace. If any workplace has chosen to be political, it's the New York Times.

There's a lot of examples of that. The fact that they- I ran Murray Wyser out of there. They ran Murray Wys, it's the New York Times. There's a lot of examples of that. The fact that they- I ran Murray Wysat out of there. They ran Murray Wysat out of the newsroom. I mean, these are the most heterogeneous out. That's right, I mean, they ran James Bennett out of there for publishing an op-ed by Tom Cotton. Remember that?

He got kicked out, he got forced to resign because he published one op-ed by our public and Senator. This is the most closed-minded group, the most closed-minded political workplace. And here they are lecturing a Silicon Valley company that in their view isn't tolerant enough. I mean, it's ridiculous. But the, and it was obvious that it was hit piece. The stories, the examples in the article were years old. They weren't even reported to HR as violations at the time. So there's people cooking up things that weren't reported as problems at the time. But the really interesting thing about the story,

I think, is the way Coinbase reacted to it by preemptively announcing that it was coming, which really made the New York Times reporters really irate. They called it extremely unfair. And the reporters were upset and they threatened that they would no longer, the journalist said, if you guys are gonna front run our stories, we are not gonna call you when we have a story. And I responded to that and I was like, are you serious? Like, you're literally going to lose what little integrity

you have left. Crazy. About fact checking because there's an amazing road up preemptive blog post about. I'll say this about. I'll say this about Brian Armstrong. I have a lot of respect for him for making a stand. I think every CEO has that right? And I'm glad that at the end of the day, the employees at Coinbase were given a Humane way of making a decision to be on the same page with him or not I will also say that I thought that essay was not bullwritten and that Given the chance I could have rewritten that for him in a much better way. I maintain this the whole time

But I think he's in the right here Rapid Well, okay, that's tell us what you think. Well, that's interesting that that Tremoth is essentially here, here, your support for Brian. So we've talked about, this has become a recurring topic on the pod. But anyway, I think, you know,

the important thing is the way that I think the tech community fought back against this hit piece and it was that, like you said, Jason the front running of the story, somebody, a wagon on Twitter had a great comment saying, you know, basically said, you know, I try to walk up, I agree with the New York Times on this, I try to walk up to somebody and kick him in the nuts

and they covered their groin, you know, how dare they, you know, that, how I'm, how dare they, you know, how unprofessional that was. It was a slow motion kick in the nuts. Yeah, exactly. And so it's coming Sunday. It's right, but it was a day, but on Sunday, we're kicking you on the nuts. So yeah, the New York Times, the coin base just covered his groin so the New York Times can

cover, kick him in the nuts. And of course, the reporters all went hysterical about that, but it was a brilliant PR tactic by Coinbase because what it did is it almost like released a spike protein by pre-announcing New York Times story. It created this spike protein that trained the immune system of Silicon Valley to be ready for this pathogenic New York Times story. And the story just really fell flat and didn't go anywhere.

Yeah, it was, and they did the same thing with the way CEO, she was too hard on people in slacks. All of these stories to go full circle involve some leak from a slack room. So if you're a CEO or you're managing anybody, don't have any difficult or legal issues discussed on slack. To go for a walk with somebody, talk to them face to face,

because you're gonna get destroyed. All right, listen everybody, this has been another amazing episode. We had 10 more stories, we wanted to get to, that we weren't able to get to. But while we were doing this, I asked my crack team, sorry, at the syndicate. Whoa, what was that?

To set up the syndicate.com slash all in. So I'm not saying we're doing a syndicate. Yes, we are. We're going to figure out how to do something. We're going to do something to let the people who listen, invest the long side of us. We're going to figure it out in 2021 at some point. But you have to write a review on iTunes. No, you just got to sign up.

Just got to sign up at the syndicate.com slash all in. If we do a folding protein company or a unicorn in the ISA space, maybe everybody who listens to the all in podcasts gets to wet their beak for the rain. What the peak? What your peak peak? The beak. What your beak. What your beak. What your beak.

What your beak. What's the view? What did you get merch? What my, I can't wet my beak. He's like the merch. The T-shirt, the T-shirt. The T-shirt. The T-shirt guy that listens to us, we love you.

There's a coat that's the worst. There's a T-shirt. But wet your beak or wet the beak. We have to figure out which one's better. I think we have a new, I think we have a new tagline for the pod. Wet your beak. Wet the beak we have to figure out which one's better. I think we have a new I think we have a new tagline for the pod What you're big what your beak and code 13. These are great merch opportunities for anybody who wants to go do merch You can go do merch on your own. We don't care. We're not in the merch business put it up on your own website Love you besties

Love you besties. So for bestie Raynman, the dictator, Tremont, Polly Haapatia, and the queen of Kinwa himself, Metro, mile, founder, spacker, piper, laying pipe and spacks everywhere. I'm Jason Caliganas for the Besties. We'll see you next time, which could be in a week or a month, unos on the all in podcast. Love you, Bestie. All in, podcast.

Love you, Bessie.