TBPN Live - Shifts In The Creator Economy, Kylie Jenner x Meta, GPT 5.6 Limited Release | Diet TBPN

Episode Date: June 27, 2026

Diet TBPN delivers the best of today’s TBPN episode in 30 minutes. TBPN is a live tech talk show hosted by John Coogan and Jordi Hays, streaming weekdays 11–2 PT on X and YouTube, with each episode posted to podcast platforms right after.Described by The New York Times as “Silicon Valley’s newest obsession,” the show has recently featured Mark Zuckerberg, Sam Altman, Mark Cuban, and Satya Nadella.TBPN is made possible by:Ramp - https://ramp.comPublic - https://public.comCisco - https://www.cisco.comConsole - https://www.console.comCrowdStrike - https://www.crowdstrike.comFigma - https://www.figma.comMongoDB - https://www.mongodb.comNYSE - https://www.nyse.comRailway - https://railway.comShopify - https://www.shopify.com/Follow TBPN: https://TBPN.comhttps://x.com/tbpnhttps://open.spotify.com/show/2L6WMqY3GUPCGBD0dX6p00?si=674252d53acf4231https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/technology-brothers/id1772360235https://www.youtube.com/@TBPNLive

We're back. France. We miss you guys. We miss you guys a lot. Yeah, it was rough. It's genuinely brutal. We feel deeply unwell by around 1 p.m. if we haven't gone live. Regardless of the time zone.

Sweating and shaking is crazy. Yeah. It is a full withdrawal. I mean, yeah, and the withdrawals. I mean, maybe it would get better after a few weeks. But yeah, the symptoms are brutal. Anyway, it was a high-stakes trip. Of course, Jordy has battled with French president,

Emmanuel Macron, in the past. And then what appeared to be a direct shot at me, France recently banned nicotine pouches fully, very controversial. Pretty much all oral nicotine products banned. Yeah. As of April. Can Lyons. It used to be mostly about creative advertisements, giving awards for creativity, and there's a big

focus on the creator economy. It's not packed with A-list celebrities, but it feels like everyone has a following of some sort. And that was a big point of discussion. There was one level of conversation that was just like creators are the future. Everyone's heard this pitch a million times. But the bigger discussion was something that Andrew Ross Sorkin from Squawk Box, CNBC, deal book mentioned, talking about the tradeoffs between independence and consolidation. You've talked about this before, just the idea of a roll-up of independent sub-stackers.

Where is the right economy of scale in the creator economy? Maybe not everyone should be independent. Maybe not everyone should be with a large organization. and this trade-off sort of interesting to dig into as we see both creators go bigger and produce more expensive shows and then also the legacy media companies are getting better at social media type content.

So we can kind of dig into this. I'm flying back from Cannes, something I've been thinking about. I was taken aback by how some of what I thought were the most successful influencers say that they need to spend so much money to keep up that they're not making the kind of headline-popping numbers we often read about Niasks for thoughts. I think there's a few things happening.

One is the big transition from independent creators pivoting from making content to making shows. And you can look at subway takes in this way. The other show is keep the meter running much more high, much more produced, much more edited, much more costly to produce. But you're still faced with some of the awkwardness around how do you actually monetize that. There isn't a logical ad break, although I think there should be. be in a three-minute subway takes video, a three-minute episode. I think that it would be fine to have a five to ten-second mid-roll in the middle of that, but that has not been done. Like that floodgate hasn't opened yet. So most creators are doing so, it's either a really polished vertical video

about their own content, and then they'll do a promoted post that's another 30-second, 60-second multi-minute vertical video in their same style, but purely sponsored content. And a lot of those videos don't go as viral. And so you have this awkward trade-off where the content that's great that people want can't be monetized, so you have to do one-and-one. It'd be a little bit tricky. Like part of the way our show works is that we're just talking about whatever, and then we'll tell you about Cisco, critical infrastructure for the AI era, unlock seamless real-time experiences, a new value with Cisco. It would be different if we had to do every other episode is just purely about Cisco. And then we go back to about just the news.

talking. And so that's something that's like starting to evolve and those higher cost structures. I think that they still have more enduring value. Yeah, Forbes came out with their top creators list and earnings. Mr. Beast was at the top with 300 million. I would imagine that's revenue. Yeah, like earnings is is not the right word here. It should just be gross revenue. Yeah, yeah, yeah. I have no idea what, what Jimmy's margins actually look like on that 300. It would appear he's spending like. He's obsessed with reinvesting for the future and growth. Yeah, yeah, that's always been a part of a brand. As opposed to Joe Rogan, who has these big deals, and he seems completely content to be in a tiny set.

And, yes, people are still breaking through, but they're breaking through with new, more polished products that, of course, have higher costs. Simultaneously, traditional media companies are starting to dial in content strategies for traditionally creator-led platforms. I think the New York Times has done a fantastic job here. You have the Ezra Klein Show and Ross Douthit, who are sort of like the left-and-right perspectives, and their shows have become really successful on YouTube a lot due to the packaging. They understand how to get a good title and thumbnail together. The editing, the production values are really, really high quality.

And so those podcasts do very well on YouTube in a way that other shows from legacy media companies, it's been hard for them to break through traditionally. But they certainly have, and it's interesting that it's recent. The other thing that was interesting, France appeared to put Brian Johnson on a pack of cigarettes. Oh yeah. You had to pull up this image.

That does look like Brian Johnson. Really out of pocket to take an asset. It works pretty well though. Don't die. Don't smoke. You know, it's his message. I think he would approve this. But I saw this and I had to take a picture because I was like is actually uncanny.

He has like a lot of pictures of himself. It does look like them. Playing down like that, eyes closed. Also, this looks like a man being put in a body bag, but at the same time, it looks like just a man who got a, getting a beautiful nights of sleep, getting tucked in after a nice couple of hot heaters.

He ripped a couple darts, had a couple of years, crushed a couple cold ones, and now he's ready to get put to bed by someone. Yeah, this is actually much more tame than some of the other. Oh, some of them are gruesome, like, so gruesome showing, like, the x-rays of cancer patients and, like, black lungs and stuff. Like, this is pretty mild.

If you look like this guy after you're smoking a whole pack, like, you're doing pretty well. The end state of this debate, it's interesting. There's a little bit of grass is always greener on the other side going on with independent creators thinking, ah, maybe it'd be better if I was with a larger organization. And then vice versa with a lot of the folks inside big organizations saying, ah, if I left, I could probably make so much more money. I don't think it's one-size-fits-all approach here. I think it's more of a sorting process.

Some creators will find elegant business models outside. of large organizations. Like those 80 to 90% EBITDA margins still exist for certain categories, certain products. Yeah, look at obsession, right? It's like a low margin, highly competitive, but it's hits driven. So you can have one breakout hit and, you know, have insane margin. Yeah. So I think it's more of this like sorting process.

Some creators will find elegant business models outside of traditional organizations. Others will probably wind up leveraging the possibility of going independent into more meaningful contracts within traditional media organizations. But it's increasingly clear that a one-size-fits-all approach, perhaps with a tagline like independent creators or the future. I don't think that quite fits anymore to each their own. I think everyone sort of needs to find their own way and figure out what's right for them. Smart glasses are inevitable, but what or who are they for? This is on the back of the new meta glasses that launched. Christopher, Christopher. for MIMS says the deluge of smart glasses has begun.

Has it? It feels like, I don't know if it's a deluge. It feels more like a, like a, just a trickle or like a steady stream. But maybe I've been following it too closely. I think that's all of my problems with analyzing this category and we'll get into that. Yeah. My criticisms are like very odd technical. Yeah.

And it's, and it's, and it's, so meta has been selling a lot of glasses. The products are, the products are. Like dozens? Hundreds? No, they've been selling. I believe they've already, I believe they're already in the, in the mill, in the, millions of units of not the hundreds of millions of dollars i believe so uh ben i think it's getting i i i agree with you i think it's working material i think it's getting material but what i was going to say

is that it's four products that are functionally like a great pair of glasses with a camera attached yeah right these are not like i i don't see a lot of people talking about like oh i'm replacing air pods entirely with these even if even if that is one is that just because and that is also with like having, being able to sell through a one-of-one ad unit on the greatest distribution platform in history. But they're going up against stiff competition. Like, the Applevision Pro is so good. That, like, you know, it's like, jobs finished.

Like, we have the Applevision Pro. Why should you do it else? It was so funny. So I never tried the Applevision Pro until this trip. And I asked John, I was like, hey, can I take him for a spin? And you were like, oh, it's like kind of a asshole to set up. It is. You have to like put it in guest mode.

John was like, no, I want Jordi to experience this. Yeah. And so we go through this whole like hassle of setting it up. And I'm like 20 seconds into the dinosaur demo. And the flight attendant comes up and is like tapping me on the, yeah, like actually getting out of virtual reality. Yeah. It was like, the audacity.

And I think the question was just like, are those cool or something like that? It wasn't like, sir, you need to put on your seatbelt or something. It was like. I was fully immersed. Yeah. And it completely ruined it for me. And what's funny is, like, the whole pitch for the Applevision Pro was like, you don't need to take it off to talk to somebody because it will show the eyes.

And, no, Tyler's on his way bad. You guys went to France for raising. Raising canes, yes. Raising canes. Raising can is good. Yes, Tyler got left at CDG. Yeah, no. Shotety.

But, uh, we got, we got T-Moo. We got T-Moo. T-Moo, Tyler. Yeah. I have the answer for the meta glasses. Okay, yeah. How are we doing? So since 2025, there's been 7 million plus sold across Opie and META.

Two million dollars was just the Raybans. Okay. Wait, two million units. Two million units. Okay. And that's the estimated gross retail sales was 2.1 to 3 billion. That's pretty good. Yeah, John, the way you were framing it, it was like, yeah, we've sold seven million.

And you're like, $7 million. And it's like, no, it's seven million. Like, it's a lot of units. A lot of units. Yeah, yeah. Yeah, it's getting there. And if it wasn't meta, we'd be like, wow, this company has, like, insane product market fit. Yeah.

Selling 7 million units of a new consumer. Yeah, if it was Orang or Woop or something like that, we'd be very impressed. Yeah. I think you're 100% correct. And it would be, like, it could probably be, like, a standalone public company. But people would still be slamming it for it for being, like, way worse than the Applevision Pro. In terms of watching old films. I watch Master and Commander on it.

It was great. Anyway, let's go back to Christopher Mims in the Wall Street Journal. He says, at the low end, there's a new line of meta-glasses, which start at $2.99 and play well with vision benefit plans. Interesting. So you can buy them with insurance. For another $100, there's a pair aimed at fans of Kylie Jenner. We saw these in action, and they looked great. They, I think reviews are very, very high quality.

If I hadn't seen the launch, I wouldn't have noticed that they were meta-glasses at all. Yes. It really is something. It has this jewel. You can see it. It's that small white glint right there. And I was so confused by this, but this is purely a me problem because I assume that that was a recording light or some sort of display.

Because if you look at the meta rayband displays, you'll see that there's slight grooves in the glass for forming the beams to show you the display. And so I was like, oh, that's a smart feature. But it's in fact not. It's purely aesthetic. And people who are in the market love this. I was confused by it, but I think I might be the only person that is confused by it. So I don't think it's a problem whatsoever.

But Metas is $800. And Spex from Snap is $2,200. They are so chunky, they look like something you might see in a Prada ad and never in real life. Silicon Valley has been trying to make smart glasses happen for more than a decade. Remember Google Glass, Facebook and Instagram parent meta platforms, has captured more than 80% of this market, not bad. But in 2025, that meant selling just 7 million pairs of glasses. By comparison, the world buys more than 100 million smart watches a year and more than a billion smartphones. What does it say about the broad investor views on smart glasses overall if meta has 80% of this emerging category that's selling 7 million units?

and they get like basically zero credit for it. When I see seven million pairs of glasses compared to 100 million smart watches, I feel like this is perfect trajectory. Like this is great. Do you think that meta ever makes a free pair of glasses that's ad supported? I don't know.

I think that an ads business would actually be much more attractive. When you say, oh, they're making a billion dollars in revenue, that's not 100% margin, I think about, well, what is threads revenue going to be? And that's going to be much higher, margin. Like threads is probably more exciting to the core business and to the financial outcomes. Yeah, I just think if you. I understand it's exciting. I like hardware. Like it's cool. It's just like it's it's hard to underwrite to like some oh, it's moving the needle on cash flow. This is going to pay for

another data center. I would expect to see just like we saw the ad supported Kindle. I think we'll see the ad supported metaglases. Are the ads on the inside? Yes. Yes. For the for the user. So you're walking on a street and you walk past a restaurant at pop. pops up like, you know, get a free macha. I don't like that. I like the other way. I want to be wearing the glasses and I want it to be barking ads at everyone around me while noise canceling those ads to me. So I don't get, I don't have to hear that.

You become a loud billboard. Exactly. I pay for the no ads version, but you didn't pay and you're sitting next to me. You dress up as a guy on the street and you're pretending to do like, what do you do for a living? Yeah. But then right when you get up, instead of saying, what do you do for a living, you just activate the ads. and you just try to bark like four or five apps. What is your intelligent cloud provider?

Is it railway? Which one is it? Let me tell you about Railway. Railway is the all in one intelligent cloud provider. Use your favorite agents to deploy web app, servers, databases, and more, while Railway automatically takes care of scaling, monitoring, and security. That would be a great ad to bark out of your glasses. The idea of a face-worn computer has garnered skepticism,

even hostility, which is understandable. When most of us are trying to reduce our time in front of screens, it seems absurd to mount them right in front of our eyeballs. Why should we be okay with everyone we meet pointing internet connected cameras at us? It feels like an assault on what little privacy we have left. So why you carry a flash bang around? Then there's the built-in AI. Artificial intelligence let these glasses identify objects in our field of view.

That is not a very compelling use case for me. Hot dog, not hot dog. It's just like I'm looking at a building. What is this building? It's a building. What is this tree? What do you see? It's a tree.

I don't know. Do you care if it's a fikistry or not? It's pretty rare. South African meerkat. How often are you running into an unidentified mere cat? This is not that big of a problem. The bigger one is that you're just able to talk to an AI agent and have it look up things for you, have it do whatever you want on your phone, in your world, in your agent. But it's very rare that you're seeing things in the real world. Oh my God, what can is this? What is this? I need to know. Come on. I know what a Diet Coke is. And yet there will be smart glasses and you and I might even choose to wear them. Their technological inevitability, a new consumer tech arms race, for the last

and best real estate on our bodies. I envision that someday all glasses could be smart glasses said a man who should know, Zaid who heads the division of Qualcomm responsible for making the chips that go into the meta, the meta, Snap and Samsung smart glasses. Well, meta's working on a bunch of other stuff. They're working on artificial intelligence, you may have heard. Zeffer says they seem to be pretty focused on coding right now. I'm pretty sure this is the largest coding training data generation effort in the world. They have the compute. 30 to 50 percent of engineers on core teams have been forcefully reassigned to data labeling.

Meta's radical plan to become a leader in AI will require vast amounts of capital, and her door was open to discuss innovative financing structures and partnerships. They might wind up raising billions more to fund the build-up. out of MSL and META's AI efforts. One engineer told this reporter that the whole situation feels like the movie The Hunger Games, when tributes are randomly selected and then remove from their environment to something completely different, except that meta, many more folks are being affected with between three to five from a 10-person team going from building products used by hundreds of millions

to giving human feedback on AI-generated GitHub repos over and over, so a wider impact than in the Hunger games. with less drastic consequences. Yeah, still air-conditioned with free snacks, which they are improving, apparently. So, Doc, we're going to have meta-code. Yeah, I mean, it seems like they're trying to have a model that they would sell it on the API or something? I was expecting meta to spend enough money

to get the meta-AI, you know, chat, GBT, Gemini, Claude competitor to the top of the charts and keep it there because I expected Zuck to think, like, hey, if I get people asking questions all day long, I can just target them much better. Oh, you mean the app store charts? Yeah, so I expected them to go super hard on consumer. They don't have background in enterprise. They bought Manus, but even Manus was like sort of unclear what they were going to do over time.

Maybe they would integrate it into ads manager. But I expected them to just say like, Zach say like, hey, I'm going to spend a lot of money. And I have billions of users already. I'm going to do whatever it takes to get a consumer chat app to the. the top of the charts, keep it there. And over time, just focus on this one thing. And the meta AI app sitting at 17 in the app store right now, you know, not, not nothing. Like the market is not, is clearly not like sending signals like, hey, we're really excited for you guys to like pivot into enterprise and like spend hundreds of billions of dollars competing against

Google, AWS, Microsoft, Google, Open AI, Anthropic, you know, all the Chinese labs, SpaceX, like this would be an absolutely incredible come from behind story. But I think it's reasonable that the market is saying like, no, they're not pricing it in. Certainly. Well, there's other news. Zuckerberg directed meta to build a prediction markets app,

which is a wild shift. The experimental app internally called Arena would be independent of Facebook in Instagram, it could compete for attention with Polymarket and Kalshi, the biggest prediction markets, has Mike Isaac. I think sentiment is at near rock bottom. Yeah. Sentiment on prediction markets is like, I don't know if it's at an all-time low. I think users actually like generally like, they like the products.

It's way lower when it was like, oh, we're going to find out who the next president it is. And now it's like, it's a gambling thing for sports. And it's like the vibe has very much shifted. Yeah, and I think a lot of people have had, like, have benefited from using prediction markets as a data source. A lot of people have benefited from sports betting. There's a story about a guy who won $6 million on Draft Kings and built a mansion with a bowling alley in it. So what I was saying is, like, prediction markets are, you know, revenues exploding. I think that's a sign that users like the product.

I appreciate them as a data source. I always have. But sentiment around them broadly is just, like, bad. Yeah. And then sentiment around meta, is at almost an all-time low, at least in the capital markets. People are, you know, very, very unhappy. And so maybe Zuck is just saying, like, F it. I don't think it can get any worse.

But feedback to the Kelly Jenner meta glasses has been way, way better while Silicon Valley finally figured out who controls consumer spending. This is not finally. Meta's been partnering with great celebrities for our. a really long time. This does not come as a shock to me, but it is the right person to partner with. And it's so, it's fascinating because we were trying to estimate like how much meta spent on this like partnership campaign. Yeah. I was putting it at like somewhere around like 50 of no information on it. Million?

Like 50 million. Yeah. Yeah. How much does it cost to get the top influencer in the entire world to do a campaign like this? Yeah. And launch a product with you. Yeah. You know, maybe something like $50 million. Then Alex Heath, the Heathenator, who we were with this week. Scoop athlete. Scoop athlete comes out and Scoop's that Snap is working on a deal with Robert Downey Jr. to spend $100 million, potentially for a partnership there, which is deeply confusing. Okay.

For like, you know, a lot of reasons. Like the Kylie Meta campaign makes a lot of sense. Kylie is like one of the, like probably the or one of the top influencers on, on Instagram, right? So it's a deep existing partnership. You don't know that this couldn't be, this isn't deep. It could be a super deep integration. We could be looking at like Iron Man 4, Snap Spectacles. And the whole movie could revolve around Iron Man taking off the suit and only using the

snap spectacles to stop Thanos for the fifth time in a row. Previewing today, GPT 5.6 soul, next generation model. You named after Soul, bro? That's crazy. I don't know about that one. Because I would assume soul is the biggest, then Terra is the medium and then Luna's the smallest in terms of the model size. Of course, by U.S. government directive access is limited to only 20 pre-approved companies. 20.

That's so small. Which is brutal because our very own Dan Shipper will not be able to do a vibe check on it at least yet. He's got to get access soon. But a lot of this comes on the back of the distilled. gate that's happening. Anthropics says Alibaba has distilled clawed many, many times. And I saw a chart of the amount of

tokens that are getting resold off the back of that API, and it is staggering. It's a true somebody was like, they professionalized fraud, which seems accurate. And so having really tight control, it makes sense in the distilling world. It's still

very unfortunate. To go back to your other question, so Sol is the frontier model. Pera is a balanced model for efficient everyday work, and then Luna is a fast and affordable model for high volume work. Okay, cool. There's more data center backlash. Data centers, how do they work? Theo Vaughn says nobody wants a data center dude.

And the people that want them to me, they seem kind of evil. Nobody wants this. One of these companies are going to own all this information. He had some very funny takes about... He said emotional credit score. Emotional credit score would be weird. Yes, the data center issue needs to be messaged much more. more clearly.

And, and I think there's such a wide gap between the water or the power. I'm assuming, I'm assuming he starts this way, but then he says I'm going to be switching to distributing my podcast on CD. That's such a bad, that's such a bad countertake. Because truly, like, the data centers that are required to power the YouTube and podcast stream, it's like so, so small compared to what AI is doing in terms of data center construction and and the power requirements and the build out requirements. I mean, like, you fire off one AI agent and you're using, like, you, it's equivalent to

YouTube for like 10 years, probably. Anyway, we should move on to other stuff. Open AI limits access to new models citing government security concerns. Company says White House review of AI releases shouldn't become long-term default. Ban on Mythos model remains. opening eye said it's limiting access to its newest artificial intelligence models after discussions with the Trump administration, but warned that the recent trend of the White House restricting industry activity on national security grounds on a case-by-case basis shouldn't become the norm. The maker of chatypt-tie, yeah, I saw a lot of like safety people being like, this is the worst of both worlds.

It's not some sort of like broad-reaching, apply, you know, just like the rule exists and then everyone can easily comply. it's like the highest touch government intervention and it makes the government have much more power over AI, which is something the safety folks, I think, at least the ones that I saw talking about this, we're not a fan of. Yeah, it's also just like, you know, there's the new, it's GLM 5.2.

Yes. That a lot of people saying like, hey, I could use this as a daily driver. And all the lab leaders have said open sources is like six months behind. And so now we're like approaching six months past like the last jump in paradigm and like massive cyber capabilities. so those cyber capabilities are coming to fruition in the open source world.

There's an interesting dynamic between the risk of like bio stuff and cyber stuff. So if you have a model that can hack a system, it can usually patch that system for that hack in far less than six months. Like probably in like an hour. It can see, oh, there's a there's a exploit here and we shipped the code, merged it in, and now that exploit is closed. And so the gap between like you create the hack machine 9,000, you can hack everything, but instead you use it for legal reasons, for economic reasons, to patch all the systems,

that's great. The problem that I'm worried about now is if there is a, if there is a world where building the counter, building the counter, like the good version of something, takes longer than six months. So the example I'll give is in bio. So let's say that you have a next generation model. It's really good at finding viruses that if created would wipe out a ton of people. It's also really good at building early warning detection systems and counteractive, like take this pill and you'll no longer, you know, be susceptible to that deadly virus that is now possible.

That's fine as long as you continue to roll out the biosecurity initiatives first. you should be good because by the time the open source hacker, nefarious actors, state actors, get access to the bio weapon 9,000, you've already patched your society so that you have bio risk, security, early detection, all the different medicines that you need to fight back. But if manufacturing all of that and actually deploying the biosecurity, the bio risk, the good version, takes. a year, but the frontier is only six months behind, you could wind up in a situation where manufacturing the virus is much shorter than manufacturing the antivirus. Well, let's go back to

the Open AI news. Open AI followed a similar process with versions of GPD 5.5, like cyber, which demonstrated an ability to discover vulnerabilities in software that could be used in cyber attacks. The similar capabilities of Anthropics mythos models prompted the White House to increase its oversight of the industry and overhaul its light touch approach to AI. There was, of course, that news that the NSA commented that Mythos was able to hack into a bunch of their systems. That was during a red-teaming exercise. The unprecedented intervention led Anthropic to halt all access to comply with a new rule. Anthropic had previously worked with the administration on a limited rollout of an earlier version of Mythos.

And Open AI said it hoped to make 5.6 generally available in the coming weeks and that the government's current approval process represents a transition period while President Trump's recent executive order on model oversight is implemented. Quote, we don't believe this kind of government access process should become the long-term default. It keeps the best tools from users, developers, enterprises, cyber defenders, and global partners who need them. We are taking this short-term step because we believe it is the strongest path to broader availability, especially as the open-source frontier advances. It feels less and less reasonable to keep close-source models locked away. why is the open source model frontier advancing is because the models are widely available.

If you make these models available through everyday consumer subscriptions, there will be groups that will create networks of thousands of accounts and distill the models. And then you're giving away this like advanced capability, whether or not that causes like, you know, these sort of like doomsday scenarios, you know, not entirely clear. You think meta's stock would pop if Zuck could go get a preliminary ban? on some of their new model. The aura farm of the ban, it does seem to be working. It's too powerful.

There's other open-a-I news. I mean, the chip jalapeno launched designed with broadcom. Halapeno is purpose-built for LLM workloads powering Chatschaputechipc. Codiac API, future-adentic products. Very exciting. Crazy, crazy, crazy timeline here. What? Just how quickly they were able to.

Oh, yeah, yeah. A lot of people are saying, like, this is the first chip designed. with AI agents in the loop, so you can write the instruction set much quicker. Sort of unclear exactly. You've got to give a lot of credit to the humans on both side. But it is just cool because for a long time, it was like, oh, it'll take five years to launch a chip. And now companies are clearly doing it faster. And so the go-to-market cycle is tightening.

Also, apparently, Open AI made deals to purchase 40% of the global raw, undiced DRAM wafer output until 2029 millions of raw DRAM waferes that cannot be used until they're processed. smart move, going deeper and deeper into the supply chain. Always, always interesting moves from the deals guy at the top. Speaking of timelines, people are comparing GTA 6 with the Burj Khalifa. Burj Khalifa was built for $1.5 billion and took six years. Apparently, GTA 6 is $2 billion, and it's taking 12 years. But at the same time, people really have said, like it is the Burrush. Belch-Khalifa video games. It's kind of two Berge Kleeffas.

Opening Alainthropic Stripe and Bill Gates are putting $500 million into funding a new organization called Intercept. Intercept's goal is to prevent the common cold and the flu and eventually eliminate all respiratory viruses completely. Incredibly cool project. Yeah, just like an incredibly cool, like tangible thing. I saw a stat that I saw this chart of what percentage of weeks are parents sick with something viral generally as a function of how many kids they have. And it's like a fast takeoff

curve. So it's like one kid and you're sick, like 25% of the year, you have like some virus in your system, a cold, a flu, something. And then as you get to like two, three, four kids, it ramps to like 50% of the year you are sick. And people will feel that if they're like, yes, I'm getting less sick. It's working. Yeah, when the podcast, you know, optimizers that struggle to have, you know, two drinks and continue podcasting. Like, they are so woefully unprepared for having children. Fortunately, most podcasters, they don't tend to go down that path of having families.

But if they did, we could potentially see this strategic podcast reserve decline meaningfully. Anyway, leave us five stars on Apple Podcasts on Spotify, I sign up for a newsletter at tbPN.com, and we will see you on Monday. Have a wonderful weekend. Goodbye.