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

Episode Date: September 4, 2021

Show Notes: 00:00 Besties recap, it's Chamath's Birthday, Callin app 08:58 What should protocol be for conferences & live events? 12:58 Fake it before you make it, the Elizabeth Holmes Theranos trial & implications for fraud in VC 31:28 China's video game ban, is it a good move? 39:34 Texas Senate Bill 8, allowing suing for aiding an abetting abortion 55:09 Apple alters their payment policies 1:03:06 Fires continue in CA, $1T of homes can't be insured & the impacts on real estate values 1:12:48 Joe Rogan & the narratives woven by the media & consumers Download Callin: https://www.callin.com Follow the besties: 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 Intro Music Credit: https://rb.gy/tppkzl https://twitter.com/yung_spielburg Intro Video Credit: https://twitter.com/TheZachEffect Referenced in the show: Elizabeth Holmes Trial https://www.nytimes.com/2021/09/02/technology/elizabeth-holmes-trial-jury.html China Bans Video Games https://www.reuters.com/world/china/oh-thats-an-idea-us-parents-respond-china-screen-time-ban-2021-08-31/ Texas SB8 https://fortune.com/2021/09/02/texas-abortion-law-business-backlash-match-group-bumble-sb8/ Apple Modifies App Store Developer Payment Policy https://www.wsj.com/articles/apple-to-allow-spotify-other-media-apps-to-link-to-websites-for-payment-options-11630544101 Joe Rogan Covid https://www.nytimes.com/2021/09/01/business/joe-rogan-covid-19.html #allin #tech #news

Hold on, let's see if we get saxophone. Alright guys, I guess sax isn't blowing it off because he's too busy with his sax. Okay sax, no fucks, we'll just start with that sax. Let's start with that sax. Okay. Three, two, We're like your winners, right? Rainman, David, sax. I'm going home.

And it said we open-source it to the oil and podcast with us today, the queen of Kenwa on fire in California, which is also happening to me on fire sadly, and the dictator, Jamal, Polly, Hapatia, David Sacks will not be joining us today. He's too busy with his call it all in app. Oh, I'm sorry, it's actually calling. He put a C in front of it. No, no, no, I did the all in box.

It's Callin, Callin. Callin is Callin app, which is a debut this week. But Sacks will be, if you're a Sacks Stan, I think sacks is No, we've done one show without freeberg now we're doing one without Yeah, this will be the sacks free episode. It is what it is free episode. All right, so we got a lot of Yeah, I'm here. I'm here. I'm here Too eager to take credit for calling on Twitter, so don't pretend like you're not to take credit for call in on Twitter. So don't pretend like you're not part of this now.

The only way to call it now though. The only way to talk about this guy. I hope Callin is worth a trillion dollars. Yeah, I can't believe it. This guy's complaining that I'm leveraging the past. I'm still licensing of the term all in to SACs and gotten paid like $7 million in equity for him using our name or my God.

I gave you guys so many shout outs, you know, during the whole No, he did because I listened to his interview with Emily Chang and I listened to his thing with Axios with Dan Premac and he's very David had a very good. He was magnanimous presentation and then he was really magnanimous and kind. So thanks, Axie. Oh, and then he was really a magnanimous in kind. So thanks, Axi Poo. And I gave so much credit to Jay Cal. I said that if it wasn't for Jay Cal, I'd never would have done this whole podcasting thing

because it was too hard. I'd never would have figured it out. And then you gave me a shout out because of organizing it so that we could all be friends on. I like that. I appreciate you. I'm very nice. I actually haven't listened to it.

But for those who don't know, David Sacks has created a podcast, think slash casual audio app. It's called call in. It's available for download for iOS just coming out of private beta. My understanding is you're at somewhere around 10,000 folks. Yeah, I mean, there's a lot of signups yesterday. I haven't got the all the latest numbers yet, but yeah, no, it's taking off. The all their reviews of it have been sort of very reviews. People are really excited about it. But yeah, look, the concept is we're combining

social audio with podcasting. We call it social podcasting. You've seen these apps where people create a room and they have these many to many conversations. They tend to be a femoral. No one really records or saves them and the quality of the conversation is a little bit chaotic, but we've taken that concept and put it in the service

of creators who can now essentially like record their pot in front of a life studio audience. They can bring up the we call them callers. They can bring up people from the audience one by one to ask their questions. It's much more organized and structured. It's not a free for all to try and grab the mic. And then once you record the episode, you can then go into post-production in the app, you can edit the transcript in order to edit the episode, and then you publish it and you can share it.

So. So it's basically like only fans, but audio. Yeah. It's only fans, but for people who don't look at the end or family show. Family show. Come on. I do.

I do want this to come as a unicorn. No, no. No, please. I'm getting quite cut. No, not to leave. It's my birthday today. God. All right.

Happy birthday, Jamoth. We're going on the horn here. Everybody's patting themselves on the back. Let's all take a moment to say what we like about Chimath. Okay. Great. Let's get back to the episode. That was quick. What do you know, I was thinking about, you know, what birthday present do I give for Chimath? And then I was like, gee, what do you get for the dictator who has everything? I don't, I don't know. What is Kim Juggle in me? It's a.

That's it. Hey, guys, we wait a second. Just what if they get MBS for his birthday? Hmm. Hey, we don't actually, I'll tell you. Do you think I'm not like very rare? I'm very rare. Why?

No, actually, there's actually an answer to that question. Apparently, Madeline Albright once got Kim Jong-un a basketball sign by Michael Jordan for his birthday. So apparently that's what you get a dictator. Access. You get them access to people they would normally have or a bone saw. Very, very, very old French burgundy or a really white, but the white doesn't hold up as well.

But if you go back, I mean, I wonder if you could drink like a yesterday I had the two, the two fills, Deutsch and Mewth at my house. And we had, we drank 1996 Salon, Bodimeznel, no sorry 1997 Salon, Bodimeznel. And then we drank a bottle of 1996 Paul Roje, Sir Winston Churchill, champagne fabulous, only champagne. We could also get you some Plynonium plenonium if you want to take guys guys I don't know take out some enemies. I would like you to come and play poker next Thursday you fuckers and then I was just bring a bottle of bring a really nice bottle of wine or champagne will drink it. Oh my god I got cases of terrible wine. I'm gonna bring you. No you asshole. Did you hear what this fucker? Oh my God, this piece of shit showed up last week.

And he's like, Tcha'mat, here are these fantastic bottles. And I looked at this and I'm like, 1985 came as, and I'm like, that's not a good year. I've never heard it in the right of the garbage. I'm like, it's right in the garbage.

It gets better, it gets better. He has two bottles. And so he gives them to Joshua. And Joshua looks at them and Joshua doesn't know what to think. And he looks at me and I like to love it. And I like to psych, you know, uh, and so Joshua's like, wow, David, thanks, freeberg. This is incredible. I appreciate it. And then freeberg does the fucking most brutal thing. Open it. Open it. Let's just forget. Josh was so appalled. He opened it and poured it onto my shirt. He took it right to the ear of guard.

No, he said, where did you find this? He goes, oh, it was in my basement in the hot, temperate, humid, fucking, San Francisco weather for 10 years. Yeah. I had no like, I moved, you know, I moved like two weeks ago and I went to the basement, like, get all my boxes. And I'm like, I've got like hundreds of bottles of wine that I have not seen in years. And I start going through these.

Not temperature controlled. Not temperature. They weren't lying flat. I'm like, these are all like they're all core all they're all core and there's like stuff. And the 80s from the 90s. Yeah. So may a Josh took them and poured them over the Arugula salad. He didn't want to run the Arugula. No, he didn't really. I would rule the fucking vegetables and herbs in the garden. basically clean the brain I'm going to be part of my trip off windshield to not bring any more why to my house Oh my god I'm bringing one for your dog if your dog's coming back with net my dogs are coming back today yeah they're flying back

all I have to say about that game is thank god Mr. Beast has a hundred million followers on YouTube whoo RIP Mr. Beast All right Mr. Beast. All right, this is first of all, by the way, I want to say Mr. Beast is fucking incredible. I mean, what a great, incredible entrepreneur. What a great human being.

Yeah, I am, I mean, for 23 years old to be that sophisticated. 23, 23. This guy, I thought he was guy, this guy is clearly on track to being an enormous figure in culture. Oh, he's going to be a fucking multi-multibillion. He is determined, hard-working, smart, kind, good-to-peach-us. A ambitious, amazing. And his ideas, he's creative, and he's just a good human. Mr. Bill East was one of the most impressive people I've met

in a really, really, really long time. Totally. I mean, he and I had been texting for a long time on Twitter, and then just on text. but then to finally meet him and we had talked on the phone and we had zoomed before, I'd never met him in prison, but what an incredible way. We should, oh, why don't we have him as the best he guessed it on the phone. He totally, like, he totally figured out

what the group to, he was great, just fun. You know, we should do is we should all round every beat up, we should fly to greens over. We should surprise him, you know. Yeah. Do a little game at his room. No, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, we could do is we could tweak Phil home youth and just have a game and replace Phil in the game with him as our new bestie. Oh, my God, that's a place that's replaced the new. Replace the

new with Mr. Beast, Mr. Beast, kind of like a better bestie in many ways. Okay, listen, are we skipping next week to record at the symposium on Monday, or are we gonna do next week and then also do Monday? No, stop it down. Okay, I got a double down. Yeah, let's get it, let's stop it down. All right, listen, bye.

We have a lot of shit to cover. We have a lot of shit to cover. Good notification. We're doing our first all together recording of the All in Pod a week from Monday. At the TPP symposium, no reason to- A production board? The production board, no reason to publicize it,

but I'm excited because it will all get to be- It's a closed event. What is the purpose of the event? I just get together a bunch of scientists, investors, entrepreneurs, and CEOs, and it's a day of science talks, mostly and then some business talks on the next day. But we're having a really fun event the night before

with poker, our friends are all coming to play poker and we're gonna record. I'm coming for the science day. I'm there for the full-sale. You're gonna want to say it for the science day too. I wanna learn. But the poker night's gonna have poker and we're gonna record the all-in-pod lives

or together in person for the first time. That should be really cool. And for those of you wondering, we're going to do our own all-in summit, which will be probably like a hundred or 200 iconoclastic people. And we're gonna probably do that in the first quarter or second quarter

of next year post-painment. We gotta choose a date. My people are increasing because you won't give them a date. Well, you guys, we should do it in Rome. Here we go. In Rome. Okay, so. It's your mom, it in here we go in Rome. Okay. So

So your what's Italy Rome? So what's Miami? I'm telling you guys there it's my amc. So it's sickest hotel in the world and I'll tell you why the people you have never seen these people ever it's amazing amazing tremendous in the room. They are. Great.

It attracts the hottest people. I mean, it's fucking nice. We're not doing it based on aesthetics. We're doing it on ideas, Chama. It's not just aesthetics. People are going to go to a room. Miami, the good thing about Miami is we know it will be open no matter what. We can't count on people.

Yeah, we can host our own super spreader event. Fantastic. No, I mean, we can host our own super spreader event. Fantastic. No, I mean, we're hosting the code conference, Cara Swisher's conference is at the end of the month and Sky and Brook and I are hosting our poker again. And I was like, is there any way this conference is going to occur? And if it does occur, what happens if there,

I mean, obviously everybody's gonna be vacked, everybody's gonna be masked, masked, I don't know if they're gonna do testing. All right. You think everyone should be masked at the conference? They're going to be unless it's outside. Well, they're going to be masked, masked. I don't know if they're going to do testing. You think everyone should be masked at the conference? They're going to be on less than that side. They're going to be because it's indoors, and there's a breakout event amongst the vaccinated,

which can happen between Delta and Zeta, too. You're going to be forced to. What do you think, Saks? Well, I just think, how do you effectively have a meeting with people when everyone indoors, when everyone's wearing a mask? I just think that's, and I mean, there's so much of GPV symptoms.

Really? When you're at the door, a mask indoors, not during the dinner and stuff. Look, I mean, I think for poker, but we are testing everyone on entry all three days. Okay, that makes sense to me, right? We do a rapid test at the door, and so, but then once you've done the test

and it's someone's negative, why would you need a mask once you go in? I don't know, but the stupidest thing is, they do stuff like make you wear the mask but then take it off for dinner. Like what, you can't get COVID when your mouth is full. I mean, how does that work? It makes no sense.

That's the whole thing. It makes no sense. Put your mask on. Well, let's do risk assessment here. And then take it off when you sit down, briefly to what? It's security theater. Well, Let's do risk assessment here. And then take it off when you sit down and breathe you to wet. It's security theater. Well, let's do risk assessment.

None of us would go to an indoor event if it wasn't fully vax, correct? Would anybody attend an indoor event of this nature? Hundreds of people, if they didn't have the vax requirement? I would. I don't. You would. Well, I mean, what I would care about

is I wouldn't attend it if people weren't all being tested on entrants. Okay, well, I'm trying to do. Could you start the wouldn't attend it if people weren't all being tested on entrance. Okay, well, I'm trying to do. Could you start the vaccine first? The Vax doesn't seem to eliminate transmission. So for you to go to an event, you would have to be vaxed and tested that day, morning of rapid test. Yeah, look, I mean, I think in general, everyone's kind of standard. It's like, make sure Vax does it reduces the likelihood of transmission, but still like it's not stopping transmission clearly. I'd rather what I care more about is is point of

Entry testing, which is what we're doing at our symposium. I just want everyone to get tested upon entry. Chimaz, what would you do? Let's talk about something important. Okay. All right, listen, I think the most interesting thing going on in our industry this week is Elizabeth Holmes's trial has begun going on in our industry this week is Elizabeth Holmes's trial has begun jury selection started this week and it's going to cover 12 counts of fraud and conspiracy to commit wire fraud over false claims she made about the blood test results from Theranos. They have now selected a jury of 12 Northern California residents consisting of seven men and five women took two days to question around 100 potential jurors about their answers to a 28-page questionnaire.

That included news outlets they read, what news outlets they read, if they knew any witnesses and if they had any negative medical experiencing experiences. And it was complicated to get these because it is impossible to not know about it. And now it seems the interesting thing is Elizabeth Holmes, who worked on this company for close to two decades and was involved in this fraud from start to finish, is now taking the position that she was under the control of her business partner, Sonny Balwani, and that he had been abusing her and controlling her, what are your thoughts on?

And so he's being tried separately, by the way, they're gonna be tried in sequential orders. Whenever this trial ends, then he gets to get tried. What are your thoughts on if she will be convicted and her defense strategy? I think this is, this is like less about the specific evidence against her as much as it's, and it's much more right now about the whole Silicon Valley fake it before you make it approach to entrepreneurship. And we all hear this from all the entrepreneurial kind

of advisors and stories of experience and stories of success that in order to achieve success as an entrepreneur, you really have to oversell and promise and create an incredible narrative about where your business is headed, and in many cases, that gets ahead of you. Now, the public, the general public that doesn't operate within Silicon Valley with as much breadth as we do, I think they hear the stories of the Adam Numans and we work in the collapse in Elizabeth Holmes and this Trevor Milton guy and Nicola, but there's thousands of these other sorts of smaller stories where VC rolls his

eyes where the first board meeting after raising money is like, wait a second, we're actually going to be half our forecast when we raise money, or the numbers are going to be way below, or the product doesn't actually work as we presented it to you guys. Sorry, I don't think I've ever funded a company where that hasn't been the case. Exactly. And so I think that's the big question, right? Chemaft is like, does this trial kind of indict the way Silicon Valley operates in the storytelling models and the narrative models? There are examples of these people getting a little too far ahead of their skis, and maybe you can argue they could perceive something to be non-frogil and while other people can

kind of perceive it to be fraudulent. But don't we see this kind of broadly in Silicon Valley and doesn't this kind of bring up a question on like, are all startups now and is the industry gonna have a shift as a result of this trial in terms of behavior as investors and as entrepreneurs and how you tell stories, how you diligence, et cetera, et cetera? This is only gonna get meaningfully worse.

I don't know if Elizabeth Holmes committed fraud or not. I think that these folks will be able to figure that out in detail. But here's something that I do know pretty precisely, which is the amount of money that's trying to get into Silicon Valley is going exponentially up. And as that happens, you guys now see it every day where there are firms whose entire business now is just to literally write a check every day. They're closing deals every single day.

They're doing zero diligence. And so what that's going to create is an incentive for founders, particularly those whose backs are against the wall, or who's doing something that's highly speculative and hard to diligence to stretch the truth to get the capital. And it's impossible for guys like us to actually step in and do diligence on a lot of these companies, even if you actually have time. But then if the competitive dynamic is such that you don't even have the time because somebody else beside you is going to rip in a check

with by just meeting somebody. And you know, quote unquote, having done the work on their own, which is impossible because they're not you don't have access to somebody's, you know, quote unquote, having done the work on their own, which is impossible because they're not, you don't have access to somebody's, you know, financial books. This problem is only going to get worse. And so I think we as an industry just have to realize that there's going to be an incentive to lie. There's going to be an incentive to stretch the truth. And it's because of the amount of money that's available. And the lack of diligence that's happening. SACs, is this an example in the case of Elizabeth Holmes,

of somebody being delusional as a strength or somebody committing fraud as a crime? It's probably both. Now, look, I think you guys are giving a little bit too much credence to the media narrative that Theranos is a quote-unquote Silicon Valley failure. The truth of the matter is there was no major Silicon Valley VC firm. In fact, not even a minor one that invested in Theranos as far as I know.

There was no VC on the board of Theranos. We've talked about this before. It was a bunch of kind of grand pu-bought types. And there was no one who actually had the technical competence to do diligence. And so Elizabeth Holmes isn't so much an example of Silicon Valley as somebody who was selling Silicon Valley. She was selling the promises Silicon Valley. She was selling the idea that this was going to be a deck of corner, a center corner, to people who are too unwitting to know. And I see, you know, Tim Draper, a lot, people who are really hanging their hat on the fact that Tim Draper wrote a seed investment to Elizabeth Holmes.

You know, that really is very different. You know, when you write a seed investment, apparently, Elizabeth Holmes was like a neighbor of his. She clearly... Yeah, their daughters were friends as my understanding. Yeah. And she clearly was an impressive person, you know, she came across impressively in person.

She obviously cast a pretty big reality distortion field to a lot of, you know, smart people. So, you know, she's the type of person who you would write potentially a C-check to just based on, you know, a talent bet, the fact that she later chose to engage in fraud, I don't think that's like Tim Graper's fault, and it doesn't make this like a Silicon Valley fraud. Again, show us the VC firm that was hoodwinked by this. But you are seeing David,

this trend of the firms coming in and not doing diligence, not having audit rights, not having information rights, not doing proper diligence, and basically relying on the previous investors. How troubling is that and what are you doing to protect craft cell peas? Yeah, so look, I think there's a big difference between going into a board meeting and finding out the projections were inflated because, like frankly, we all take projections with a grain of salt, right?

But versus the founder lying about the past, right? So people are always going to put the rosiest picture. Or they're going to puff up what the future is going to look like. And it's up to you as the investor to determine if that's true or not. But they cannot lie about the past. They cannot lie about what their revenue was last year, what contracts they signed before you invested. That is fraud, right?

And that is what, that's where Elizabeth Holmes crossed the line. She wasn't just painting a rosy picture of, you know, what the technology would look like, you know, years from now, she was lying about their capabilities at the time people were investing. That is the one you cannot cross. Look, we conduct diligence. We, you know, try to look at financials. We try to make sure that the numbers are all true.

Frankly, we're not investing in things that involve a tremendous amount of technical risk, a little off technology risk. We always use the product before we invest. The idea that the product would be faked, I think it would be hard to perpetrate that kind of fraud with the SaaS company. So look, I mean, that's what we look at.

Well, it's interesting you bring that up. I just dropped a link into the Zoom chat. Co-founder and former CEO of Palo Alto based startup technology company, headspin, charged with securities fraud and wire fraud. And this guy, Lockwani, 45 from Santa Clara County basically was lying about their ARR in a SaaS company. And this is the way it's going to my job. This is an example of somebody in every company. It can happen at a SaaS.

I don't think you're inoculated just because you invest in SaaS. My point is, if you have a person that's willing to rip in a check, $100 million, three hours after meeting you, asking for no diligence. At some point, David, your back is going to be against the wall because you're going to have to justify your LPs why you aren't in some of these theoretically good deals, right? And some of them will become fraudulent. They'll just turn out to be just the laws of distribution. So it's a bit of a prisoner's dilemma. You're saying, you're saying, you're not. I mean, you don't do, how do you, you have to get deals that you're looking

to rob against people who won't do diligence. No, it actually comes down to something different, which is then you have to differentiate with real brand, meaning if somebody really wants you on the cap table, they will absolutely slow everything down to get you. Right. So for example, like, let's assume like it's Mike Moritz. I'll use up.

There is nobody in the world, I think, who's not a complete buffoon moron who wouldn't slow his process or her process down to get Mike to be on their board. And so if you're willing to basically just scuttle an entire process and just take the fastest money, I think it actually says something that there is more risk in backing somebody like you than somebody that wouldn't slow down. Or, right? So then, you know, the problem is, there's fewer and fewer mic moroses in the world, you know?

I think Saks is one of those people. I think Peter Teal is another kind of person. You know, Bill Gurley is another kind of person. So there are these people in our industry where I think that you will slow things down and I do think allow these folks to do diligence and I think there will be less fraud in general for that cohort. But if your platform becomes one that's just about ripping money in and I think the late stages are roughly this. They're all it's all brand independent because the money is the same. The value of the same. That that doesn't have a good sense of freeberg.

Freeberg. Yeah, freeberg. Doesn't it introduce the risk of the retail investor? We're seeing more retail participation via syndicates, via one-off investments online, kind of marketplaces, and also SPACs, where the retail investor relies on, you know, Jamal, some of these kind of bigger institutional or perhaps some name that gets some carried interest in an investment, doing the diligence. And if the activity level is going up and the dollars are flowing in,

and the margin of error is increasing, you know, is there not some inevitable kind of SEC backlash and consideration around how our private company companies ultimately raising money and how much the agress closing and we kind of face this. I can regularly. Yeah, I again, addresses as a syndicate lead, you know, we only take a credit and investor money at this time. And so anything that happens is with obviously sophisticated people to top 4% of Americans

investing in companies. And in our diligence now, we have seen a spike in what I'll call massaging or painting the picture in a way that I'm not comfortable with. And we have maybe tripled the amount of time we're putting into diligence now, because I really care about my reputation. And maybe 20, 30% of the companies we wind up after initially wanting to invest, maybe giving them an offer or getting an allocation. In recent history, 20, 30% were winding up, backing out during the diligence process

because their revenue was not software based. There was a 100,000 in consulting revenue. For me, it's like, if you're gonna make these kind of decisions early on in the company, I think it's indicative of future fraud or future moral ethical issues. So we're sitting out in a lot of cases. There are public platforms now, Republic and seed invest, which I know are also increasing

their diligence process because there's so many newcomers to the space. And I think there's a level I'll be quite frank here of entitlement among founders that is being, let's say, encouraged unintentionally by the lack of diligence that's going on. People are not taking the process as seriously as they did 10 years ago or even five years ago. Well, let me, yeah, look, I agree. I think the diligence you're doing is really good and Here's what I agree with with Chimoff

So we have seen this trend in our industry of the private equity money coming in in greater volumes in greater You know earlier and earlier and faster and faster right and it started with you know, you have these Like frankly like public company investors. we're looking at the value at IPO relative to the last private round, and they saw, wow, there's like two, three X market here for one year, those are phenomenal returns. Let's arb that by getting into the last private round. Then they look at the second or last private round,

they're like, well, wait, there's a big return there. So they keep moving earlier and earlier to arb out that return, but to Chemos Point, it's just they're applying a financial model where they're not in the diligence business. They're just, and I think they just see like fraud is a cost-of-doing business, right? So I mean, they can model out with a portfolio, but,

but the only reason they can model it out that way and have the fraud be an acceptable and predictable sort of cost-of-doing business is because you had these firms in our industry who actually did diligence at the seed, at the Series A, right? Yes. And now, and now the private equity guys, they're moving so early, they're actually even now doing the, they're moving all the way to Series A. So no one's doing the diligence.

And so, so that is, that is a risk, I think, because it might actually change things. And this is where bringing it back to Elizabeth Holmes. I think it's important here that there's a conviction. I think she should do time. This was clearly a major fraud, big time fraud. And even if she didn't directly perpetrate it on Silicon Valley VCs, I think the message to the industry would be absolutely horrible if she gets away with it. And frankly, I'm a little concerned. absolutely horrible if she gets away with it.

Frankly, I'm a little concerned. She's going to get away with it. She is incredibly charismatic. John Kerry was saying on a CNBC hit that don't underestimate her charisma and ability to snow people. This Schvengalley defense, and she just had a baby, which people don't want to discuss because it seems like it's sexist, but she is a Schvengali herself who will manipulate people in the way you say that.

She's a Schvengali. I think he's a Schvengali, but you're a dog. She's a burglar right now. Sex, what do you handicap her likely had a conviction at? I think it's probably like a 50-50. And I think so, so here's a a thing when she was running this company she wanted everyone to believe she was to jobs even did

the media toward the turtle neck she wanted everyone to know that she was a job see a micromanager who made every decision was responsible for the success now that she's on trial she wants us to believe that she wasn't calling the shots she wasn't the percent voting power in the company yeah i love this. Yes. This is sort of the the Romey and Michelle's high school reunion defense where she wants

us to suddenly believe that she was sort of like, you know, the sort of Anjane who didn't know anything. And, you know, but she might gets. This is a white seat in the middle of her. You know, I got a big video. What? That is the number of bulls there. Based on the number of bulls. She doesn't know exactly how old you are. We're only in Michelle's wedding Lisa. No, she's going to go up there and pretend to be Lisa

Cudra or something, you know, like some of the usual. It's, it's super offensive that she wants to get up there and say that she was this abused woman. I mean, for women who actually are abused, for her to get up there and say that she was this abused woman. I mean, for women who actually are abused, for her to get up there and say she's an abused woman and she perpetrated this 20 year. Hold on, hold on, hold on. I'm sorry. We don't know whether she was abused or not. And if she was, it may or may not have implicated in what she did, which we don't know whether she did, because again, thank God for the laws in America. She is presumed innocent.

So let's all just like, I think what David where I agree with you is the following, which is we do need to know that, investors, we all sign up for expressing the fiduciary responsibilities on behalf of our LPs or on behalf of our stakeholders, okay? There needs to be some equivalent standard that founders are held to. And there needs to be consequences for lying, particularly about the past.

Because in the future, you say, I'm just projecting. But in the past, you're right. You have to be able to rely on what's given to you. Like, look, when we do diligence in a company, we are given everything that they have, right? We talk to their lawyers. We talk to their lawyers lawyers in some cases. In the public markets, all of this has to be transparently published so that we can come to our own conclusion.

Sometimes those conclusions are right. Sometimes they're wrong. But we can at least know that they're not lying to us. The minute that it turns out that they were fudging the numbers that they gave us, you're making, you know, the best decisions you can, you're assuming that it's great data, but if the data is fudged, you're fucked. And so to the extent that she did that, then she should be punished because we need that standard.

This goes beyond money. She was switching people's results. She was saying that she was giving them a blood result on her incredible Verinoose machine and she was running it to the back and running it on an app. Is that right? Is that right? Yes. So she was taking investors putting their blood into her machine, the Verinose machine, then taking them for coffee, running it to an app, a machine, and giving their results. I mean, this was the definition of a premeditated, deliberate, and multi-year fraud.

Ooh. I put her at 80% likelihood of guilty, and I put the over under at 32.5 months served. Talk to him. Talk to him. Talk to him. Talk to him. Talk to him. Talk to him.

Talk to him. Talk to him. Talk to him. Talk to him. Talk to him. Talk to him. Talk to him. Talk to him. Talk to him. Talk to him. I'll take the under what do you got? Well, I hope you're right because yeah, I mean, I'm a little worried that she's gonna figure out a way to pull the rug over people. What are kids gonna get in jail if we were Chinese right now

and they played video games? How many rounds are they gonna get? Basically, I think you would do harder time. So moving on to the next story. The consequences is to the Chinese internet companies. No, it's the consequence to the kids if they're caught on video games. No, you're not here. Oh, I don't know. Companies have to turn it off. Right, right. Right.

All right, here we go. China bands, young people from playing video games. This is for kids who are under the age of 18. They are now restricted from playing games on weekdays can only play for three hours. Most weekends. And these were set as a response to China's physical and mental health being affected by gaming according to Reuters. It limits, I think they're doing what all American parents would want our government to do for our kids. I don't disagree with that. Gamers are now penalized if they don't obey, and the gaming

companies will be as well. Gaming companies will have to prove they have an identification system in place like to very moderate to use their real name. I'm fucking hard it is. I have I have three kids in that age age range. I am sweating who they're texting, who they're talking to, what game they're playing, the new game they want to download. Fuck that. This is the only thing I've ever said that would make me want to move to China.

This is the one rule. This is the most incredible thing I've ever heard and they're so smart. By the way, what's so beautiful is they send fentanyl and tick-tock to us so that we get addicted to that. And they're like, no, you guys are going to learn STEM so that you can take over the world. It's brilliant. It's brilliant. Yeah, I would say like everything about China is a measured decision, right? The the the the the polypuro, the decision makers are not sitting there randomly shooting from the hip based on intuition and saying, Hey, I think we should stop video games. They seem bad for kids. There is clearly evidence and data and statistical models that are driving

this decision and their objective function is improve the health, the longevity, and the economic prosperity of our society as a whole. I'm sorry. Did you get this statement from China? What are you doing? I'm continuing. I'm continuing.

I'm continuing. You got to be right. I'm continuing. I'm pointing out, these guys generally don't make decisions based on someone's kind of like slip-in intuition. They make decisions based on what they believe to be in the better interests. And I'm not saying it's right or wrong, but in the better interests of economic prosperity. I got a hundred years ahead of me. Let's be honest. So they want to win. They certainly analyze this.

And I think we all know it intuitively. We can certainly read reports. But in the United States, we value individual liberties above all else. And so we don't find ourselves in the circumstance. It seems foreign and scary and crazy. But again, it's another in my opinion, it's another tool that can get to something else. They have to compete this century. Yes, that's true. But let's let's be clear. We don't we don't value huge individual liberties. That's not true. That's just what we tell people, but that's not true. And you know, that's a kind of co there. But yes, well, I mean, we are literally sitting here fighting,

there is a group of individuals who are fighting to wear masks or not have to wear masks rather, not have to take the vaccine. And at the same time, and I don't know if we wanna go there, we are denying a woman's right to be cute. Can I, can, are you in support of Texas' abortion ban? No, no, we're just here on China. No, no, I think it's a stupid law and I'll explain why in a second, but just on the China thing for a second,

this is like, I'll be a dissenting voice here. This is like if we had given Tipper Gorg dictatorial powers. I mean, this is insane. They're going to determine how many hours a kid can play video games. I mean, look, I get the potential benefit, but this is incredibly inclusive into the lives of citizens.

And I'm not sure that video game playing is altogether a negative thing. You know, I think it's mostly our kids go through a phase where they play a lot of games and they grow out of it. You talk to developers, computer programmers, they all went through some phase where they were hyper-addicted to video games. Builds, hand-eye coordination, it builds computer literacy. So I'm not sure it's like, look obviously if someone does nothing but computer games or whole life that's a problem. But as a phase that a kid goes through, I agree with you. I agree

with you because I used to play three hours of fucking Zelda a day when I came home because I was a no because that was a latchkey kid. No, because I was a latchkey kid and I didn't have anybody to take care of me. I don't think David though that that's what kids are getting when they're playing four hours of fucking call of duty every night. Four hours. These kids are playing 10 hours a day. By the way, I think China has another motivation for this band, which is they've got a lot because of the one child policy, right?

They've got a radical misbalance of, you know, male to female ratio. They've got a lot of young males without romantic prospects in that country. Basically, they have an in-sell problem. In-sell, they have a done in-sell. It's a giant in-sell problem. And I don't think we hear much about it because they control the media.

But I wouldn't be surprised if there's a lot of just random violence out there. And the last thing they wanna do is have these in-sells playing Fortnite and Call of Duty shooting people five hours a night and then getting their brains wired that way. That might be playing into this decision. I don't know. Well, again, you're just validating the mental health aspect. They've studied the mental health implications of these video games. And I'm not arguing for the ban. I'm arguing for the fact

that China has certainly done something to indicate, they have some data that indicates why they should make this decision. It may be, you're right, it may be about kind of, you know, growing, getting people to be more romantic and get out of the house and go get married and have kids and whatnot. But there's certainly a, and remember, their objective function is always about longevity and economic prosperity. So, you know, there's something that's making them say that we can increase economic prosperity, increase longevity by doing this, and that outweighs that whatever the detrimental social and other effects might be. And, you know, I think there's something to read into it, but no matter what, every big decision they make has some degree of competitive advantage for them. And, you know,

those kids, if they're not playing video games, they're going to be doing something else, like, I don't know, programming computers, doing biotechnology in a lab, figuring stuff out on the internet, writing the next cryptocurrency. I don't know, but there's going to be some advantage that's going to arise out of the time and the productivity that's going to be generated by this. And I think that's the calculus that they're undertaking here. I'm not saying it's not a real- No, we all agree that our thought for the question is, what is this going to do for this generation if they don't play video games? Are they going to be more productive? Are they going to be, you know, they'll be there'll be good drones for the collective,

you know? And that's the downside here is even if they get it right in this particular case, how much freedom do you have to give up, how much state surveillance is there in the enforcement, and how many other insane policies will they foist on people with this mentality of you don't get to live your life individually, you've got to serve as a collective. This is actually, I think, your best point, sex, is that I think what could happen here is you can overplay a hand. And by squeezing people too tightly, you can't play video games, you can't run your own companies, you're gonna get replaced,

you can't practice your own religion, you can't say what you want, be a journalist. These things could add up and they could, you know, piss off a young group of people who do what happened in Tiananmen Square or in Hong Kong and they could be dealing with their own revolution. And what if it's video games? Revolutions have started over similarly seemingly simple acts by an authoritarian government, taking away people's rights to sell fruit on the street, famously started the spring awakening in the Middle East. So you could see this actually, I think,

you know, maybe it's a small chance, 5% or 10%, you know, creating a lot of social unrest. Do you want to... All right, should we go to Texas? You guys want to talk about that? Speaking of social unrest. I'm going to lose my mind here. All right, here we go.

SB8 creates a private cause of action that enables Texans to sue those who perform or aid and Abate the performance of abortions after a fetal heartbeat has been detected. Bank comes two years after abortion restrictions were proposed in Georgia, Mississippi, Kentucky and Louisiana, the previous propositions. We're spoken out publicly against by progressive tech companies, companies with female customer base and women led businesses that proposed bill never became law Sachs you want to just frame for us the legal sort of case here Yeah, let's go to do you want to do you want to go back and actually frame Rovey Wade and and plan pair to adverses Casey. I think those are important to understand what the hell's going on here

Sure, okay, well, so you, Ro obviously gave women the right to choose, you know, the reproductive freedom over invalidated abortion laws very, very, very sweeping way. Casey sort of modified Ro. It upheld it, but modified it, saying that the state could impose some restrictions as long as it didn't place an undue burden. That was a key term undue burden on a woman's right to choose. And I think what was at issue in that case was, I think it was Pennsylvania, the state of Pennsylvania imposed a waiting period and some consultation with an advisor. And so it delayed the abortion, but it didn't restrict or didn't otherwise limit. That was limited.

Let me add. Yeah. So Casey, Ro as modified by Casey is really the, is really the law of the land right now, which is the undue burden. Then Texas comes along, and do you want to explain this law? Yeah. So this law is, regardless of what you think about abortion, it's a really bizarre law, because what it does is, it doesn't just ban, it doesn't ban abortion outright.

What it does is create a private right of action, basically a right to sue in civil court, anyone who aids and abets an abortion after about five or six weeks so six weeks six weeks basically after a fetal heartbeat can be detected so which is about six weeks into the pregnancy and the way the the law works is that uh...

okay so point one abortion providers are prohibited from performing abortion if they can take fetal heart tones uh... again at six weeks there's no exception for rape and incest. I think that's really explosive politically. And horrible. Do you think it's horrible as a human? Yeah, I think it's a personal position. Yeah, well, let's get that me to explain the law. So the law puts the onus of enforcement on private citizens, not government officials. Okay, they do that to avoid to make it harder to legally challenge this under row and Casey.

Okay, so what the government has done here, what Texas has done is it gives private citizens the ability to sue abortion providers or anyone who aids and abets someone to get an abortion. So it could be an Uber driver. It could be a friend who simply drives someone to the abortion clinic. It could be a person who provides financial assistance.

It could be a secretary who works at the abortion clinic. It could be a person who provides financial assistance. It could be a secretary who works at the abortion clinic. They can all be sued now under aiding and abetting. And here's really the person who had the abortion cannot be sued, but anyone who aided and abetted can be. That's how they're getting around the right to choose. And here's the craziest part is the citizens who choose to sue don't need to show any connection to the person who's suing and they don't even have to live in the state right so there's no connection

to them there's no personal injury to them but they're basically suing under a personal injury under a civil right of action and if they succeed the law states that they're entitled to at least $10,000 in damages. In addition to their legal costs, so if they win, their legal costs get paid, but if they lose, they don't have to cover the defendants legal fees. So they just get a free shot here, which is also, I've never seen a loser pay rule like this. I mean, there are loser pay rules, but there's symmetric.

So we have an asymmetric loser pays rule, but I don't think we've ever had a civil law like this where where somebody can sue where there's no injury to them. There's no standing here. This is the thing that's fundamentally, I think, at odds with our entire legal tradition. And I think regardless of what you think about abortion, this law will eventually be invalidated by this record or a lower record on that ground that they're allowing people to sue without standing. And it's a horrible precedent

because can you imagine if what the, what Texas is basically doing is deputizing private citizens to enforce and civil courts a prohibition that they cannot or will not pass directly. Is this the best they could come out? In your hold on, let's just say a couple more facts. Like this was an extremely well thought out law.

I think that the pro-life faction in Texas clearly had some very smart constitutional thinkers that were able to navigate around Roe v. Wade and plan parent-adverses Casey to get something written that could be passed in a way where, you know, Samolito is basically punted and said, we're not going to give a stay. And so this is going to have to meander through the course. There is still a risk that it could just get kicked down to Texas and it could remain a state issue, which there is a big risk.

And if that's true, then other states could basically take Iran at copying this law. What I wanted to talk about was if you bring it all together, Friedberg said something about we really value personal freedom. This is where I was cynically like, actually, that's not true. This is an example in my opinion of where this is just like we are very hypocritical, where if we talk about a vaccine mandate, there's just an entire fiery up and arms of people usually typically in the same states that are very anti-abortion that are like, you know, tread on me lightly, you can't touch my body, you know, I have the right to decide.

But when it comes to this topic, they abandon all of that and they go to the extreme opposite side, which is the government mandates. And to be able to say that to 50% of the population, that just because you are born with reproductive organs, that you're treated different, specifically, you know, a uterus ovaries in a vagina, you're treated differently than a man, to me, it just seems absolutely insane and just like fundamentally just erodes this idea of equality, like at just a very principled level. And the even worse thing is that then, you know, the corporations that actually used to be on the front lines of helping to drive social justice so far have been completely absent, Right? You have to remember,

in 2019, when we had these very repressive abortion laws, I think it was in Mississippi or Alabama, you had all of these companies come out and say, hey, no, not here, not under our watch. Then when you had all these voter suppression laws in Georgia, right? You had all these companies come out and say, hey, absolutely not, not on our watch. We will leave the state if you implement these things. But so far, what you've seen in this law is complete radio silence in Texas. And this is, you know, you have to remember, Texas is the ninth largest economy in the world, right? In the world. So you have every single kind of company from technology to otherwise who have chosen to either start or relocate their businesses in this state. And I got to think that these employees and these leaders of

these businesses should be saying something and they haven't said a damn thing. Freeberg, you have that? And then we'll go to you, Sex. Look, I feel like everyone has a limit to what they believe defines individual liberty. Should everyone have complete freedom to the point that they can take a gun and go shoot anyone that they want? The answer is no. I think even the most die-hard libertarians would argue

that there's some degree of what is it, John Stuart Mill's sex, you know, you should have the ability to do whatever you want within your sphere of influence as long as it doesn't intersect with the sphere of influence of others. And so the philosophical argument that I believe the pro-life movement may,

which is really a different point of view on values, is that the sphere of influence of a fetus exists at some point in time and therefore it shouldn't be invaded by the by the by the mother. Now I'm not speaking obviously my point of view, my point of view is extremely pro choice just to be very clear. But the argument is I think one that we all kind of blush over and assume that it's it's about taking away a woman's right without recognizing the voice on the other side, which says that there is a right to life by a few that's at a certain point in time.

And so to me, there's almost like this principle debate that arises and it probably certainly falls more along religious lines than it does along on a religious spectrum than it does on a kind of a libertarian spectrum or a spectrum of liberties that kind of defines that crossover point for people. But clearly, Texas is a really interestingly confused state, right? There's this argument about individual freedom, but now what comes across is a highly kind of conservative point of view with respect to the freedom of a pregnant woman. And so, I don't know if there really is an easy answer.

It certainly seems to me nowadays that the pro-choice movement is the majority. The pro-life movement is the minority. And maybe I'm off on that side, I could probably know better. But I'm not sure this truly does set a precedent that becomes a widespread recognition of a new way of addressing the pro-life movement or giving the pro-life movement to some additional movement. I still think that the pro-life movement remains a minority and an over time that will, you know, there'll be perturbations, but there'll certainly be some resolution over time in favor of what I think the majority of them are.

Where are all the politically correct people? Where are they? Where are they right now? Where are all the politically, I mean, I guess they were happy to get Mike Richards or whatever the guy's name was fired from Jeopardy last week, but where are they now when we really need them? But, Tomat, are you really saying there's not enough outrage about this? I mean, I'm seeing a ton of outrage on social media. I see everything, I see nothing but I see.

I see a lot of useless virtue signaling. I don't see anything that's actually more good. Well, I think what we're talking about here is the leadership of companies and leaders in big companies. Where are we going? There's going to be a million person march within 45 days. OK.

Well, let me go back to Chamos Point about whether, you know, he called this, this, this bill smart in the sense that it was really thought through. I agree that it's a deliberate attempt to circumvent Roe v. Wade and hard making it harder to sustain a legal challenge against it. But I don't think this is smart. I think it's stupid, philosophically, politically, and legally for the, even for the pro-life movement. So philosophically, I think the problem here is they're creating unlimited standing to sue across state boundaries by somebody who

hasn't even experienced harm. I mean, this is so far from what conservative jurists and legal scholars have always professed to believe. I mean, I remember 20 years ago, tort reform and ending frivolous lawsuits was the absolute bedrock plank of the Republican Party. So they're just throwing that out the window here with unknown consequences for hold on a second. For example, why would this be used to circumvent people's second-member rights? Why wouldn't you just create a private

right of action to sue anyone who couldn't, you know, aid and abetted a gun crime? You know, so I think this is going to boomerang on conservative second. Here's what I Let me get to the Political stupidity of it and then I'll cast your one of this as one piece. We didn't have to do so much editing to mouth. No look finished No, look pull pull the the Wall Street Journal has a great editorial today. Okay. This is the Wall Street Journal editorial page is a great piece. This is from They basically say look they, sometimes we wonder if Texas of Attorney General and Paxman is a progressive plant. That's the guy behind this. His ill-conceived

legal attack against Obamacare, backfire Republicans in last year's election and lost at the Supreme Court. Now, he is leading with his chin on abortion. How about thinking first? So they're pretty clear. This is going to get overturned. And frankly, then politically, this is just handed. This is, you know, Democrats are already having a field day with this. So Biden said, this law is so extreme, it doesn't even allow for exceptions to the case of rape and incest. I mean, look, he's right about that. And Gavin Newsom, the polling for him is now going through the roof because all he has to do for the next 10 days is talk about right

to choose in this Texas bill, and he's going to cruise towards defeating the recall. Because that's basically- You're talking about something differently than I was. What I'm saying is something very specific. If you go back to Roe v. Wade, it was written by a man, first of all, which, you know, we can debate whether that makes any fucking sense. But Harry Blackman went to the Mayo Clinic and lived there for like six or eight weeks reading medical textbooks and came up

with this trimester framework. And again, let me just gonna go out and say, I don't have a fucking clue what's going on in a women's body. And I don't think Harry Blackman did even though he was much smarter than I and was on the Supreme Court, okay? And then Casey tried to clean this up

by going to this fetal viability thing. So we have this law that was really kind of ill-conceived, but was kind of going in the right direction, but it was really a very first form of judicial activism. We tried to clean it up in the early 90s, but it's always been an issue where eventually what's really been happening is we've been pushing this to a state's right issue. And I think that the cleverness of this bill, and it's dangerous, but it was very well fought out. This was not a random thing where two haphazard dipshits got together and wrote this bill,

David. I think that this was methodically planned out for years. And I think that- They are dipshits, though. It's totally going to backfire on them. It's not going to- David, let me- Let me- for example, we now have an activist Supreme Court, who

may actually not opine on this on the validity of the issue, but say this is a state's right issue. If this stays in Texas and doesn't get outside of Texas, you will have this specific thing holed and stand. And I think that, that's a very bad precedent to have set. I think that these folks planned this out. And I don't think's a very bad precedent to have set. I think that these folks planned this out. And I don't think they thought that it was an easy way to overturn it. And I think that's why when everybody was waiting with baited breath for Alito to basically stay this, he didn't. Listen, I think there's a lot of hysteria and hyperbole on social media right now saying

that Roe v. Wade's been overturned. The Supreme Court is overturned. I'm not saying that. Yeah, I get it. You don't know anything. Yeah, I say, I, I, but, but they're saying that because the stream court ruled on very narrow procedural grounds, and it wasn't ready to hear about the Texas law because a harm hasn't been committed yet, but they haven't said they won't look at it in the future. I believe they will. I believe that this law will be found unconstitutional, not necessarily-

Do you think the whole on? Not necessarily because of abortion, but just because they're e- No, I know, I know, I know. Because they're a burden of abortion. The legal definition of standing in a way that flies against everything we know about how the court system works. I just, I think ultimately this is too clever by half

by the state attorney general. I think it was. I don't think he's a tease of twit. All right. Do we want to move on and talk about Apple allowing people to link to their own websites? The Apple thing is really big news because it kind of goes to show you that you had a pretty progressive legislative framework in South Korea. I don't think it's particularly a huge market for Apple because most of the app activity

I think is Android more than it is Apple. But they basically just seeded the market and by deciding to basically conform to this law, then they started with these reader apps and allowing payments, allowing the link. It's a beginning of the beginning for the app stores to be deconstructed and opened. This just so people understand, Apple said it would allow media apps to create in-app links to sign up pages on those companies' websites, allowing the likes of Spotify and Netflix to bypass the iPhone makers' cut of subscriptions. Now, of course, you can use Spotify and Netflix on your phone, but you may have probably

people haven't experienced this because they've already become members of it and did it on their site, but you can't actually pay through your phone and you can't sign up through the app. They were technically not allowed to link to it. So this is a small, small concession only to media folks. So what do you think, Sacks? Well, I think, Tremoth has kind of said this at the beginning of the end. I think there's some truth to that. Look, I think the root of this is the fact that Apple has this 30%

rate on any in-app purchases. And like Bill Gurley said, it's a rate too far, right? Just because you can charge 30% doesn't mean you should charge 30%. Ultimately, this is why the whole ecosystem has been up in arms. They formed an industry coalition to challenge Apple that resulted in a lot of legal challenges, lawsuits, and you know, a lot of these companies like Spotify and Tile, they testify against Apple in hearings. So I think this 30% rate has ultimately backfire in Apple. It's created a huge backlash and now they're paying the price.

They've already had to roll it back for these so-called reader apps. So if what you're doing is buying a subscription to say Netflix, Netflix will now be able to redirect you to the website, you can buy it there, and then consume the content on your iOS app without Apple getting a part of the split. But this now opens the door for this type of thing to apply to games as well,

where there's a lot more in-app purchases, like Fortnite, right? So I just think this is a case where, what's the old line that pigs get fat and hogs get slaughtered? Apple has been a hog and now it's getting slaughtered. Yeah. I Want to point out like this is a really interesting experience of the free market, you know, clearly consumers and the the free market, clearly consumers and the developers in the App Store ecosystem were vocal and angry enough that this behavioral change from Apple, the structural change kind of came to bear. It didn't require regulatory intervention. I just want to point out how important and relevant that is that

you're having a reminder. The market is functional. The market is functional. And having the government and regulators come in and people complaining to the Senate about Google and Apple monopolizing them out of their businesses ultimately gets resolved when enough, there's enough kind of collective mass from the consumer slash partner that says to the big incumbent player, we're not going to play by these games anymore, but these rules anymore. I got to think Lena Khan being appointed did make Apple think maybe even if it's getting up fear here, right? To kind of to kind of start giving concession.

Right. Some modest concession that yeah, if you're a Spotify or a Netflix or Audible, we're going to let you buy through the app. I mean, do you you're gonna go for regulation. And hopefully, it's a great time to trust. Well, yeah. Don't you think this is a nice win for the free market? Yeah, I do.

Well, look, I don't think monopolies are, I don't think letting monopolies do whatever they want is free market, okay? I mean, monopolies and competition, they will squash innovation. They will, you know, they will basically get in the way of permissionless innovation. So I, you know, I'm in favor of rating in these monopolies. And the two big issues, I think with Apple and Google, well, Apple especially is number one, side loading of apps. So the idea that they have total control

over what apps get loaded onto your iOS device, people want the ability to create alternative app stores. That already exists for Android, right? So I think that is coming for Apple. Apple claims it's a security issue, but. It is. I mean, what they should do is if you click on side load apps,

it should just give you a warning. You are no longer protected by us. You're subjecting yourself to phishing scams, your information, and buyer beware. Then people can make their own decision. I've always thought it would be the best decision for what I like about this is I think this gives Apple the ability to now just compete against everybody in the App Store without having to have this, well, we're partners with you. They are not partners with people in the App Store without having to have this, well, we're partners with you.

They are not partners with people in the App Store. They watch the App Store, and when something great comes and emerges, they will copy it. They just do it slower than Facebook. So Apple Music studied Spotify, and they created their own Apple product. Apple TV Plus now with Ted Lasso

is competing against Netflix. They watch Netflix. And I signed up for Apple Arcade for my daughters because I didn't want them to be paying for like, you know, in-app purchases, I'd rather just have the games be stop upselling them. And that's been wonderful for five or ten bucks a month to have that. And I pay for the news product. So now they can just compete against everybody directly. I think all of these media companies are gonna be video games, podcasts, TV shows, and music. So I don't know if you saw Netflix

is gonna be doing podcasts about their shows and video games. I think Amazon will be video games content. It's all gonna be one thing. And Disney Plus will have games built into Disney Plus. I bet, and that subscription price. So the consumer's gonna win ultimately. You plus, I bet, and that subscription price. So the consumer is going to win ultimately. You know, I think monopolies are good because monopolies are just like lazy and it's easier

to innovate and compete against a monopoly to be honest than it is to compete against cronism. When there's kind of embedded, got a government regulation that prevents emerging competitors from competing effectively, it's a lot harder to prevents emerging competitors from competing effectively. It's a lot harder to win than against some slow, big, uninnovative monopoly. And well, yeah, go ahead.

Well, here's the, the Ken Ari, so I agree with you that big, slow, lumbering monopolies can be great to compete against, but here's the problem. When they could pull access to an be great to compete against, but here's the problem. When they could pull access to an ecosystem when they're gatekeepers, that's the problem because now you have to go to them and they're gonna be slow lumbering and stupid

in terms of allowing you to innovate and when they see you becoming a threat, they'll squawk to you. That's the problem. If these guys didn't control platforms, that would be one thing, but they control the most important platform there is, which is the operating system. So I just think that, you know, this is Microsoft and Windows all over again, except there's two of them, right? There's iOS and Android.

Well, in a Microsoft example, you could load whatever software you wanted. They would just bundling. They weren't saying you couldn't load that, uh, net scape. They're just saying, we're going to give you Internet Explorer with the operating system. So this is even worse. I mean, Apple is, you can't even install your app. Yeah, Microsoft was actually pretty open by comparison, but there is like a version of bundling here. What Spotify said is, look, when we have to pay 30%,

and Apple music doesn't have to pay anything, we can't compete with that, you know? And they have a point there. Yeah, it's a complete valve point. California's on fire. This is what the third or fourth year in a row, this has gotten acute for the Bay Area. People are now making plans, as Freeberg mentioned,

on the last pot, I think, that there's, or two pods ago, there was like two or three weeks of the year, maybe even a month, where you just can't really be outside. Do stuff. Northern California. You can't be outside. Have you ever seen a friend?

Three of our friends have been evacuated because they moved up there in the middle of the pandemic. They had to come down. They said it was raining ash. One of our friends's homes is literally threatened. It's just like, and then the fire season is moving up earlier and earlier in the year. You know, my kids were in Camping Tahoe this, this July, and they had to be evacuated. And fortunately for us, you know, we had a really good friend of ours in

neighbor here whose, whose kids were also at the camp, be able to drive up in the, but my god, like that was, you know, there's, there's a bad what's going on. There's about eight trillion dollars of real estate value in California. And, you know, if you assume a tenth of that is exposed in the middle of this kind of dense fire, these dense fire regions, let's say it's a, let's say it's a trillion dollars. It's a trillion dollars of real estate value, but you cannot ensure it anymore. So, I had an idea about this, Freiburg. I was looking two or three years ago

when this fire started, maybe it was four or five years ago now, for a blanket that could go over a home, could be installed or dropped over a home with helicopters. I know this sounds crazy, but is there a material that's light enough that you could put it on a helicopter and drop it over one of these two three. Yeah, that's the work.

Yeah. Well, why doesn't this start up exist? I mean, this would be amazing. Imagine if these homes had on the roof some sort of a system that when fire or heat got there, it just deployed the blanket and protected the home. I got to know if you guys know this, but right now in Marin County, California is nearly impossible to get fire in shirts. And this is becoming kind of a predominant factor in California,

particularly in all the areas of lots of forest land. There's a hundred million acres of forest land in California. So if a trillion dollars of real estate is actually exposed to fires and you can't get fire insurance, ask yourselves the question, what's going to happen when hundreds of billions of dollars of real estate literally goes up and smoke or Or get sold off who ultimately bears the cost? Where does that cost have its economic flow?

And that's just the tip of the iceberg of the effect that may arise as these things start to take hold You know, we had this huge upswing in real estate in Tahoe as everyone moved out of California and went to Tahoe during the pandemic Now we're seeing Tahoe real estate sell off like crazy. This happened in wine country in Sonoma and Napa County last year after the big fires they had there. And so there were counties where you start to have these massive fires causing this massive real estate sell off and or the real estate burns and it's uninsured. And guess what happens? FEMA steps in, right? The federal government steps in and ultimately the federal government is going to have these like Katrina events four or five times a year that we're going to be underwriting losses for people's real estate

that's valued in a way that doesn't account for the effects of climate change. You know, I started a shift in economic value that we're going to someone's going to have to pay for over the next decade. And this is just the beginning of it all as my strong belief. I tweeted this out about maybe six or seven months ago, but with this fabulous entrepreneur named David Soloff, I co-founded an insurance company called OTT Risk. And, you know, we've been trying to build models and price this kind of insurance, climate insurance, you know, social media kinds of like disruptions, civil unrest insurance, things that are

very typical, atypical, sorry. And to your point, Freeberg, it is really, really hard to try to forecast what's going on in a way where you can actually ensure these things with the margin of safety. And so just as a person who would be the provider of this kind of insurance, what I'm telling, what I'm learning is, man, these, and we're negotiating multi hundred million dollar policies with these big corporates. And you know, for example, like, you know, they want pandemic insurance. If there's the next Delta variant or whatever, and I have to shut down my facility and here's my economic loss, I want to, you know, you to ensure that.

And okay, it's impossible. And so I can only imagine what it's like then on the ground floor, somebody to just buy some insurance that says, if my house burns down, it's very hard. And this kind of parametric insurance doesn't exist, which means that if you live in any of these areas, like I basically, I think what it means is that climate change is going to ravage suburbs. And it's going to ravage these sort of like far-flung communities because nobody's going to want to step in there and ensure the parametric risk that allows people to live their safe.

This is my last company, right? Climate Corp. We started out in 2006. We offered parametric weather insurance online. And so it was all about our mission was to manage and adapt the climate change. And so you could buy weather insurance online and you underwrite the risk. And the way you underwrite risk like this and auto insurance and any kind of insurance is you look at past data, you build a statistical model that's represented by the past data

and the frequency of certain things happening. And that's how you price the insurance. The problem now is the past data has absolutely no bearing on what's going on. And so you have to basically create more fundamental deterministic models of fires, which is something no one's really good at. No one has any ability to do because we've never seen this kind of environment before. We've never seen hot year after hot year, dry year after dry year. And so there's no historical data to draw from to build the model.

So all the insurers throw their hands in the air and we can't take on that risk. We don't know how to price it. And we may not do that. I'm telling you, the government's going to end up having to step in and pay people money for the lost homes. Or the government's going to have to say the reality here is that we can't afford to do this and you can't build homes there. And what's talk about functioning markets, I think what we're realizing is the market now is so convinced that global warming is real and you can't deny it that we just can't ensure for it. Therefore, we're going to have to make serious societal changes. And that's part of this process. Insurance being denied for hurricane zones and insurance being denied for fire zones is part of the process

of people accepting the reality that we're not doing enough. Yeah, Jake, the problem is not that it's going to be denied. It's that you're not going to be able to get it, and if you are, you're not going to be able to afford it. And so it's not even that people are really open to writing the kind of cover that allows you to go and safely live in Lake Tahoe 10 or 15 years from now. And that's the shame of it.

So we have these beautiful places that I think are just gonna be under-duration under pressure. And it's gonna force everybody to live more and more in the major metropolitan areas, which is, I'm not sure that that's what everybody wants. Or it's gonna change building. I mean, we saw now in Florida and other places, Louisiana, other places that are flood zones.

Nobody builds on the ground floor anymore. Everybody builds on stelts and they put a car garage underneath it, because it's gonna flood it. I have friends in New York this week and I'm here and I had to change my flight to come to New York for the wedding that I'm going to. I had to change my flight because last night we were gonna be flying into this craziness here.

They got three inches of rain in one hour. 15 people, my understanding, is died in basement apartments because they couldn't, or they didn't get out in time. It's kind of hard to understand, but I guess people stayed in their apartments while they were filling up with water. Did you see the video of like the flood waters ripping into the New York subway? Yeah, it's crazy. Oh my god. And New York is not built for this. So now New York's going to just basically have to say you know what all the Basement apartments or the basements that exist they're not livable. You can't live in a basement anymore and when we build new structures the first floor is going to be

Belt like they build them in Miami, which is for water to flow straight through them right the garages underneath are designed to accept Mass of flood waters. I've been spending a lot of time on water recently and the thing that I learned this week, which I'm not the thing that I learned, but a great way to summarize this for folks listening if they don't understand climate changes. The areas that are hotter get hotter, the areas that are drier get drier, and the areas that get wetter get much more wet. And so when you have a period of dryness or heat, it's going to be extreme. And when it rains, it's going to be so extreme.

And we're just going to get buffeted back and forth between these two extremes. And this is only going to escalate over the next 20 years or 30 years, because we have so much embedded pollution that we have to work our way through. Forget all the new stuff, but all this embedded pollution has a cost. And we're just starting to begin processing that pollution.

Well, welcome to the all in depressed episode. I mean, fucking depressive. What? Wait, this is my goddamn birthday guys. What the fuck? Happy birthday. The happy birthday. Women's rights are being taken away. Planted is on fire. New York is underwater. A COVID is not ending. Nobody can ensure anything. And yeah. I don't know, man. The market's ripping. There's lots of money coming into climate change. Investors and entrepreneurs are more optimistic than they've ever been.

You know, there's a backdrop of challenge, but with challenge, it's opportunity. And I think people are pursuing it like nots right now and it's pretty exciting. They're fair like the ones you say entrepreneurs because I say it entrepreneurs, but you say entrepreneurs. There's say entrepreneurs, but you say entrepreneurs. Newer. It's got an E and a U to math. I mean, entrepreneur. Yeah, but it's a very literal pronunciation of it today.

You don't like it. Yeah, look, I think that's your end, your real friend galley of the word, the entrepreneur. Fiction galley. You're going to monetize something now, Saks? I got Saks. Monetize your new app. Monetize calling. Yeah, leverage the E.O.L.L.L.L.L.L.L.L.L.L.L.L.L.L.L.L.L.L.L.L.L.L.L.L.L.L.L.L.L.L.L.L.L.L.L.L.L.L.L.L.L.L.L.L.L.L.L.L.L.L.L.L.L.L.L.L.L.L.L.L.L.L.L.L.L.L.L.L.L.L.L.L.L.L.L.L.L.L.L.L.L.L.L.L.L.L.L.L.L.L.L.L.L.L.L.L.L.L.L.L.L.L.L.L.L.L.L.L.L.L.L.L.L.L.L.L.L.L.L.L.L.L.L.L.L.L.L.L.L.L.L.L.L.L.L.L.L.L.L.L.L.L.L I think that in terms of processing all the bad news, I do think we have a

tendency to underestimate how much political partisans sort of whip things up in any event. Should we end with this Rogan thing? I actually think it's a pretty good issue to talk about. Joe Rogan got COVID. He was, I think they mis-framed what he said. I actually saw the original quote where he said, should a young person take the vaccine, this was in the very early days of the vaccine, or should they wait a little bit and see if it's safe. I think was his position, not

one I agree with, but I don't think what he said was absolutely crazy. His quote was, if someone has an ideological, physiological reason for not getting vaccinated. I don't want to force them to get vaccinated. So, and then he got it and he had to cancel some shows. I think there's something kind of funny here, but also kind of serious here about the way the media covers news like this. First of all, the media is positively gleeful whenever they can report that somebody who expressed any vaccine has sincere skepticism gets COVID, right? It's almost ghoulish, I think. Look, I'm vaccinated. I'm really happy I got the vaccine. I think it gave me, it helped me have a much, much milder case of COVID than I was what I had. So, I'm pro-vax or whatever, but here's what the media does. And the craziest headline I saw

about Rogan was that Rogan is taking a horse-dewormer as a medicine for reforey to Ivermectin, right? Now, look, I don't know whether Ivermectin is a helpful treatment or not. I think you've got to do a double blind study to figure that out. But I also think that it's very dishonest to be describing Ivermectin as a horse-deworm. I mean, the person who invented Ivermectin intended it as a treatment for humans. Humans do take it as a treatment against certain parasites. It also happens to have a benefit in deworming horses, but that's just one of its applications.

So to describe this drug as a horse d-wormer, as if it was the only thing it does, the purpose of that is to make anyone who thinks that I have remect as a possible treatment, to make them look ridiculous, right? And, you know, so why is the press doing that? Well, the agenda is the press decided that vaccines are good. Okay, I agree with them about that. But they, but this is where it goes off the rails. They decide that anybody in pursuing that agenda, they have to make any alternative vaccine, which would be any therapeutic treatment, and anyone who would take that therapeutic treatment

look ridiculous. And this is where I think the media just crossed over into total dishonesty. They're doing the same thing with Monique Lonell, anybody's, which actually I think our treatment that works, but anyone who is expressing support for... This all goes back to the polarization with Trump, right? He was the drug that he was so, which is a big proponent of that didn't actually work.

Hydroxychloroquine. So I think it's back to that. What do you think, Friedberg? Are you have any opinion on trovrogon getting dunked on another anecdotal story of somebody? It's interesting to observe how much we've kind of, as with a lot of things, when I say we, I mean, like, society, each of us, reading social media, the internet, media itself, kind of orient things along a spectrum, right and wrong, black and white, left and right. I feel like vaccination and vaccines

have similarly become, you're either vaccinated and you're good or you're not vaccinated or you're bad or the opposite is true. And it's pretty clear there's tons of evidence that vaccination while it may reduce kind of the severity of COVID. severity of COVID, you know, there seems to be much less protective effect with respected transmission, particularly with this Delta variant now, and that's just a fact. You know, you can say, oh my gosh, I'm vaccinated, therefore I'm safe. It's like, no, you're also exposed to Delta as someone who's unvaccinated in terms of catching it and transmitting it to other people. There may be less severity and there may be less transmission. One interesting fact, by the way, is that there's much, much, much less time when you're vaccinated.

That you get infected with delta, when you're actually infectious. Yeah, incredibly, incredibly reduced amount of time from like 10 days to like one to two days. But still that is a very infectious kind of variance. And so it's spreading. But it's almost like we're blaming people that aren't vaccinated for delta spreading. Delta spreading because it's a very infectious kind of variant and so it's spreading. But it's almost like we're blaming people that aren't vaccinated for Delta spreading. Delta spreading because it's a really effective virus at spreading. It's like the story. And this orientation around like you're the reason

that Delta spreading is completely false and everyone tries to then fit the story into that narrative. You know, the joke is right. You think there's like such a strong agenda? The guy got infected, it sucks. Like it has nothing to right. Yeah. Do you think there's like such a strong agenda? The guy got infected. It sucks. Like it has nothing to do with that.

But was he vaccinated or not? He was vaccinated. I don't know. Who cared? Like the point is it's not about the he didn't do anything wrong in the sense. And he's not to blame this delta variant is infecting people. Sacks got infected with delta.

He's, he's vaccinated. No, I mean, I think you're, I think the point people are trying to make here for you, Berg is that he's been kind of, people believe that with his platform, he's not. No, I think you're, I think the point people are trying to make here for you, Berg, is that he's been kind of, people believe that with his platform, he should be more pro-vax because vaccines, there's no downside. But, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, in this case it's provax and I'm not saying that's wrong, okay? I'm just saying that the way the media works is first they decide what the agenda is gonna be then they Distort everything to fit what their agenda is so for example Iver mechden's called a horse D. Wormer and the logic here is completely tortured They just don't want there to be any therapeutic alternative to vaccination I didn't want to give credit to potentially and the same things true

Now look I'm not saying I've remarked in is an effective treatment. I have no idea. But there's no need to distort and demonize it before even know what the truth is. By the way, I wouldn't I wouldn't use the term agenda. I know that that's a commonly used term that the media has an agenda. I would argue that the media has a narrative. And I would secondly argue that that narrative isn't necessarily defined by the media or by some set of people in control, but that that narrative isn't defined by the consumers that consume the media. And they vote for it.

They vote with their views. And so the more views, the more clicks, the more dollars you spend on certain media outlets and certain writers, the more those writers get more stories to write and the more the consumption happens. And so my point of view is that the consumer ends up ultimately being the writer of the narrative and the definer of the narrative. And the storyline starts to fit that narrative versus feeling like we maybe felt years ago

that oh my gosh, there's a few people, the cabal that's in control of the media and they're running everything and they're telling us what to believe in C.C. I think consumers vote with their dollars, they vote with their views. And as a result, that is the narrative that gets written. They were not supposed to be tribal. They were supposed to be objective.

That was the concept of reporting is to just report the facts and let the... Not what it takes. ...to be tame a consumer product. Well, it's always been a consumer product, but now it's just become so hard to run those businesses. It's the more you sell the more money you make. And if it's on the internet. It was supposed to be subscriptions

were supposed to inoculate the writers from this that, oh, we're getting paid for subscribers. Therefore, we don't have to worry about clicks anymore. Now it's happened, it's worse because you will lose your paid subscribers if you don't give them what they want. Yeah, I'm gonna pretty right now our downloads on YouTube are going to be a six to 10% ratio. We have covered. We have covered. You're not paying COVID aboard.

A portion of Joe's in the back seat. This is going to be our worst rated episode. It does it, but it was a good discussion between the four of us. All right, everybody. Four. The Rainman, David Sacks, please download the All-in app. Just put a C in front of all in and you'll find it in the app store. Congratulations to the folks who got into the syndicate and thank you to Sacks for allowing all in syndicate to participate and lead the series Bay. We're going to be leading the series Bay. Sacks gave us the ability to lead the series Bay Bay. 45 bitches. I'm trying 45.

I, 45 never felt so good. 45, you look good. You're a little stuck-of-silver. By the way, we have a show called All In After Party on Colin, where we've done a couple episodes, including we introduced our Wack Pack. You know, it's a sort of in-between. So like actually what we should do is all the fans

of this show, if you like All In and you want a little more bestie Go go to the after show go to the go and sign up for all in after party We have 4400 subscribers already after one day on the app. It's pretty good. Yeah, I mean be great for those Especially if the whack packets in there. I talked to our guy who does the merch the bestie merch guy He said he's made like five or six grand on merch in the last quarter. It's paying his way through school on it. That is so great. Yeah, I'm happy for him. All right, freeberg. We'll see you at the production board closed event. Nobody can get in. Sorry, if you want a ticket, it's not available. Chimath, happy birthday.

Happy birthday, Steve. Thanks, guys. All right, we'll see you all. We'll see you all. Wait, Saks. This is where you say happy birthday. You fucking. Yeah, happy birthday. Say I love you, Bestie. HBD. HBD. Flash HBD. HBD.

Love you. Love you. Bye. Has Saks ever used an emoji? I don't think Saks has ever used an emoji. I mean, I have 10 years of text messages with this fuck. He's never used a single emoji once. No, that's because he has no emotion.

We'll put the emoji in there in the days and He's written he's written at one point smiley emoticon he wrote those words All right and congratulations to producer Nick who is getting married yeah great fucking decision See on the other side you fucking dumbass Congratulations Nick we we love you. And Rachel. And Rachel, congratulations guys. Rachel, you're gonna get half of the call and stock that Nick has.

Congratulations, you got half of his advisor shares to call in. I will see you all next time. Bye bye. We'll let your winners ride. Rainman David Sack. We open source it to the fans and they've just gone crazy with it. I'm going on a swing. What are you trying? Besties are gone. That's my dog taking a wish to drive away.

Oh man, I'm in the ass, you're a meaty ass. We should all just get a room and just have one big hug or two because they're all just like this like sexual tension that we just need to release somehow. What? You're the beef! What? You're the beer of beef. Beef is what? We need to get买 cheese aren't we? I'm going all in! What you're the big big What you're the big You're a big Big What you're the big What you're the big We need to get merch these aren't ours

I'm doing all this I'm doing all this