TBPN Live - You Are Not a Lottery Ticket, Book Recommendations, Bucket of Crabs Theory, The Psychedelic Trap

Episode Date: December 19, 2024

TBPN.com is made possible by:Ramp - https://ramp.comEight Sleep - https://eightsleep.com/tbpnWander - https://wander.com/tbpnPublic - https://public.comAdQuick - https://adquick.comBezel - https://getbezel.comFollow TBPN: https://TBPN.comhttps://x.com/tbpnhttps://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/technology-brothers/id1772360235https://youtube.com/@technologybrotherspod?si=lpk53xTE9WBEcIjV(00:00) - You Are Not a Lottery Ticket (28:47) - DM's (32:30) - The Timeline

I didn't know that you had North Korean investors in your first company. That's wild. Is that hard? Welcome. Oh, we're live. Welcome to Technology Brothers, the most profitable podcast in the world. Today, we are doing a deep dive on a classic Peter Thiel talk at South by Southwest, back when South by Southwest rocked. It's called You Are Not a Lottery Ticket, and it's a big discussion of luck versus skill and hard work. And a bunch of amazing frameworks came out of this. Most people know this, but I think even if you've seen it and you haven't seen it in a while, you're still going to get a lot out of this because we're going to take it in a bunch of different directions, give you the high level, give you a bunch of analysis and see how all of

his predictions played out a decade later. So let's start off with... Wait, before we get into that, I just wanted to highlight one of our own posts. We spend a lot of time highlighting other people's posts, and we wanted to highlight a post that's near and dear to our heart, which is a simple post, a low-tam banger, where we said last week, we fucking love podcasting, and we're trying not to swear too much because we want our children to be able to listen to this it's also just low class and uh swearing is low class and vulgar but every once in a while we slip up we slipped up this post but uh we just wanted to say john and i really enjoy podcasting and uh we're we're glad that people listen to the show but we'd still be doing it even without any

listeners we'd still be recording recording putting it out. So anyways, we're grateful to get to do this. And thank you to everybody that's actually tuning in and participating in this cultural movement towards technological progress. Yeah. So let's kick it off with you are not a lottery ticket. The core question that Peter is asking is to what extent is success in startups and life driven by luck versus skill planning or effort? The traditional perspective is luck can be overcome or influenced by hard work, but there is a contemporary bias that success is often seen as a function of random context, the lucky sperm club or birth circumstances. And Peter aims to

debunk this. And he has a whole host of great examples asking the question, was it luck or not? It's always hard to say when you go back and look at these narratives. Elon Musk went from PayPal to start SpaceX and Tesla. Jack Dorsey with Square and Twitter. Steve Jobs with Apple and Pixar. Thomas Jefferson once said, I'm a great believer in luck, and I find the harder I work, the more of it I have, suggesting that it is something that you can overcome. Samuel Goodwin said, the harder I work, the luckier I get. And I think that no matter what you think about luck, it's worth redefining it. And thinking about it as something that is a product of all the hard work. My working definition of luck is something that it is the reward for incredible networking,

independent thinking, and relentless work ethic. Yep. In contrast, today's dominant view is that success stems from the whole context, which is random. Maybe you were a member of the lucky sperm club, the lucky egg club. Maybe you're lucky where you were born and that's what drives everything. There's a version of this that applies to startups. The successful ones were accidental and it's pretty clear how big a role luck plays. Yeah. It's funny being born and raised in California. I, I, from a young age had a sense of how lucky that was because I feel like I would travel and people globally would be, would tell me, Oh, I can't believe you're from california i've always wanted to visit there and then when they could they would do whatever they could to go visit yep and the thing about tech that's interesting is is doesn't matter like a lot of

the most successful people in tech were born far from the golden land of california and totally made the effort to move here yeah and so it doesn't you know being born here maybe you have some level of advantage but you can create luck by simply moving to california yeah i always love the story of the founder of discord jason citron he grew up i think in florida in not even a major city and then went to a college that was like a trade school for video game development and then started one company and i don't think it went anywhere, but there's this old video of him demoing it at TechCrunch Disrupt.

Crazy. And then finally figured it out with Discord and has just built a beast of a business. Yeah. And it was clearly just built differently. But Peter starts off by explaining that there's a difference between going from zero to one and going from one to N.

And so he has a two X and y axis chart zero to one is technology doing new things. It's vertical one to n is globalization It's copying existing things and it's horizontal and this will Echo through the rest of the presentation and there's a very interesting Conversation in here where he says, I agree with Paul Graham on a lot of things, but I think this is a place where we just automatically channel our society's default bias. And it's worth asking how much of this is true and how much of it is not. And we discussed on a previous show, this idea that maybe the advice of PG and the advice

of Peter Thiel are actually at odds in many ways. Yeah, so like talk to customers versus call your shot. Exactly, yeah. And it goes into the way that they've tried, the concentration strategies, where Peter will try and be, you know, and roll series C, A, D. I think they just put more money in the latest round,

which I don't even know what the letter is, F or G. And it's just concentration, concentration, D, I think they just put more money in the latest round, which I don't even know what the letter is, F or G. And it's just concentration, concentration, concentration, whereas YC has been diversify, diversify, diversify. And, you know, they both work, but they're very different strategies. And so there's been this, you know, shift in cultural attitude. In the past, luck would be something to be mastered, overcome by effort and vision. But in the present, success is seen as heavily dependent on uncontrollable external factors. And that makes you very docile. And it makes you very just indeterminate, which is something he'll go on to define.

And there's a line from Peter, something, there's a line from, from Peter, something about failure is not valuable at all. Like it doesn't matter that you didn't don't like pat yourself on the back being like, I learned a bunch because you could have failed in like 50 other ways. You just happen to fail that one way. And it matters a lot more of like how you actually won. Right. No, I love that one. And so Peter starts breaking down the whole crux of this. You are not a lottery ticket. Speech is about this two by two matrix with four boxes and it defines two axes on the Y axis. We have optimistic versus pessimistic. How do you feel the future will play out? And then on the x-axis, you have determinant versus indeterminate. And so he uses a number of different examples.

Maybe we should start with the general category. So in the optimistic determinant category, you have engineering and art. You believe that you can change the world. You believe you can do something, but you have to go and instantiate it yourself. In the optimistic indeterminate category, you have finance and law, which are tracked and heavily diversified. In the determined pessimistic scenario, you have wartime rationing.

And in indeterminate pessimistic, you have insurance. Something bad is going to happen and you're creating a safety net and and then he also maps this to eras in geopolitics and so in the US in the United States between the 50s and 60s when we were going to the moon we were very extremely optimistic but extremely determinate we we realized we know JFK stands up and says, why do we climb mountains? Because they're there. You know, why do we go to the moon? Because we choose to go to the moon. And we did. And the indeterminate optimist is what the U.S. has fallen into currently, where the government

doesn't build anything anymore. It's all just wealth transfers. And Peter calls out this fascinating concept of the government doesn't know what to do It's all just wealth transfers. And Peter calls out this fascinating concept of the government doesn't know what to do with the money, so they just give it to people. And then the people don't know what to do with the money, so they put in index funds. And then the index funds don't know what to do with the money,

so they give it to companies. Diversify. They diversify. And then the companies don't know what to do with money, so they give a dividend. My favorite, the optimism of the California government that we're just going to build this like high speed rail line and then spend billions of dollars barely going a mile. That's sort of the. And that's that's one of the greatest segments.

I mean, Peter's always good at like keeping a very high level theoretical framework that he's breaking down, but then grounding it in a bunch of historical examples. And I love these. He talks about, to illustrate what determinant optimism looks like, we can consider historical examples. The construction of the Transcontinental Railroad in the 19th century was a radically different future, connecting the entire country.

By today's standards, no one would do it. People would say it costs too much. But at the time, it was a self-fulfilling prophecy. Another example is Robert Moses in the mid-20th century New York, who built parks, roads, and infrastructure. There were many specific plans for a bigger, better future. It stopped in the mid-1960s when people questioned

whether building another highway was really better. Once there was no longer a definite view of the future, no one could build anything new. Nothing major has been built in New York City since then in any meaningful scale. And the last one is crazy because it's in California, in the San Francisco Bay Area.

It never happened, but the Weber plan in the late 40s, building dams, freshwater lakes, and a 32 lane highway. It was a radically definite view of the future. Such a plan is unimaginable today. He was a school teacher. He wasn't even some- Yeah. And he was an amateur theater producer and he could propose

such a grand plan and it was taken seriously enough for congressional hearings. Today, these sorts of grand definite visions don't exist. So another example here that's interesting. So there's some terraforming projects happening in the Middle East and, and, and potentially happening in parts of Africa where they're basically trying to divert large swaths of, of, um, or basically turn like desert land into, uh,

lakes and rivers and things of that nature. And so this guy gave this great talk on it. And one of the areas that he identified was potentially able to be terraformed was the um there was this uh place called the salton sea outside of palm springs that used to be a lake and um i believe it was the colorado river was changed which diverted at one point and um it ceased uh to basically um and it just evaporated over time and um i asked the guy who gave the talk how would you actually make this happen and he's like i have no idea yeah and it would take an extremely determinant plus optimistic view to actually get something like

this done because if you just say oh we should terraform the Salton Sea and return it to being this lake because it'll create all this agricultural land surrounding it you're just you're not gonna it's not gonna happen unless there's like this very very intentional um approach from a large number of people to say like this is really hard we're gonna do it like we're not gonna just like hope that it happens we're gonna make it happen yeah the terraforming stuff is fascinating because there are entrepreneurs who are talking about this. Like Augustus, I went out to the Salton Sea with him. Oh really? Oh yeah. And we filmed a whole video and he's talked about that. And Mike Solana wrote a piece about it a long time ago, but it's just not culturally taken seriously at all. And all of those projects are laughed at.

Yeah. If you look at top YouTube results for Elon Musk's tunnel project, The Boring Company, it's all photos of Elon with a red clown nose on. And it's just somebody who is not a scientist at all, just a YouTuber, just laughing at how preposterous this is, how it will never work,

how there are better solutions. And it gets me. Yeah, for every 100 feet of tunnel he could do it this 20 kids through school yeah and it's just shuffling the it's just shuffling the chips around the board endlessly and it's like okay like people always say oh well like we should just build bike lanes it's like okay like yes and let's also do the tunnels and let's do the bike lanes and let's also do bus lanes and let's also do planes that are supersonic. Let's do it all.

And that's not the vision of a lot of people that are pessimistic and a lot of people that are indeterminate. And so it's the same thing with the Dubai projects. I mean, I find myself even like laughing at like the idea of the line and like how crazy that is or Dubai building like these incredibly like insane like islands that are man-made. All of that. It's hard to resist the urge because there's such a cultural pull from just going crazy. Isn't it interesting, though? In many ways, the Gulf, the GCC, countries are very determined and optimistic. They're like, not only are we going to buy the PGA,

but we're going to terraform this part of our country and we're going to build this city on a line that looks like it's pulled out of the future. And so in many ways, it's playing out over the world. It almost takes a monarchy to bring that approach to governance today or very, very, very strong leadership. Yeah. I love this framework framework i mean obviously like

the quadrant model is very important and uh peter breaks it down in a bunch of different ways he shows the different philosophers that fit into these coordinates so hegel and marx are in the determined optimist uh quadrant determined pessimists are are Plato and Aristotle. Indeterminate optimists are Rawls and Nozick. And then pessimistic indeterminate is Epicurus and Lucretius. And I remember when I first got on Twitter, there was a guy, the Epicurean dealmaker, who wrote about Wall Street. And seeing this, it's kind of like it's all clicking about his worldview. And he was like a little bit pessimistic in finance. And that's why his account grew

because he was always pouring cold water on things. But he was also very much like, you know, the broad diversified investor. Not saying, I mean, even Michael Burry is pessimistic, but determinate. Michael Burry is saying, we need to short this exact thing right now. And he's wrong a lot, but you know, everyone's wrong.

What's the phrase? Pessimists sound smart. Optimists make money or something like that. Yeah, exactly. Yeah, it's clout versus wealth. And I love this other frame, just simplifying it just to what's the difference between determinant and indeterminate? So you can really put your finger on it.

Determinant is substantive and indeterminate is process-based. So when you hear someone talking about what their business is or what they're doing and they're talking about the process that they're working on, that's a signal that they don't have a concrete vision and they're running a playbook instead of actually thinking independently

and building something specific. And so Peter goes on to break it down in a bunch of different realms. In finance terms, the determinant optimistic is invest in concrete projects and engineering. And this is like a lot of his investments. Anduril, SpaceX, Airbnb, Stripe, Rippling, Ramp, all these companies are very concrete changes

in the worldview. How will the world work after this gets built? Heavy on engineering. The indeterminate optimist is low savings, low investment, rely on indexes and diversification. The whole efficient market theory is very much propagating that idea. And then indeterminate pessimistic is high savings, fearful, no plan, insurance-based mindset. based mindset and that goes to to China where you know they they they do operate very aggressively but towards a scarcity mindset for sure so there's implications for society and business in indeterminate optimism you do nothing

specific you have minimal savings minimal targeted investment without a vision money becomes an end itself accumulated but not invested in big ideas. Nothing changes. It's zero sum. And real interest rates go negative because no one knows what to do with cash. And this was the famous fight that Peter got in with Eric Schmidt over at Google saying,

you are out of ideas. You don't know how to innovate. You have $50 billion on your balance sheet. You should easily be able to invest that in something productive. But the fact that you can't, just the fact that it's on your balance sheet tells me that I've already won this debate.

And it's like one of the most famous debates in Silicon Valley, in my opinion, because he just had them dead to rights. He had them dead to rights. And Eric was so used to arguing like the TED Talk philosophy way of, oh, well, we're shareholders and we want to be prudent with this stuff. And there's a bunch of good reasons for why we're doing this.

We're waiting, maybe. But it was like the sign of a pattern. Gotcha. I think he clocked it correctly. And it's one of the greatest, greatest moments. If you're ever hanging out with Peter Tucker, bring that up. He loves it. He loves it. I tried to make it happen again i wanted a round two debate because i think

eric has evolved a lot and i think that they would have maybe we should have a tv debates product where we get because we're pretty neutral party we we try to tell it how it is and we're we're conflicted in many ways due to our investments but uh we try to keep keep things um you know uh generally aligned but uh having having a debate stage and being able to run back version 2.0 of that would be would be great even even pulls it to literature we've moved from definite science fiction futures like 2001 a space odyssey to ones that are static or unchanging like Neuromancer, Blade Runner, 1984. It's fascinating seeing like the, yeah, how the sci-fi has instantiated these different ideas of like, you know, what the world looks like, whether it's like an optimistic scenario or negative

in the future. Like we need positive sci-fi. That's clear. Like, I mean, hilariously, that Stallone movie, what's it called? I'm blanking with Wesley Snipes. It's called, I'm completely blanking on it. It came up on a previous show, but it's fascinating. They predicted like all the self-driving cars, all the demolition man, demolition man. Yeah, great movie um and so uh he starts to close it out with talking about startups and innovation the official religion of today is that everything is statistical luck driven and incremental you need to a b test your way to success you need short-term horizons

and i'm sure you've seen that with like brand development and marketing campaigns is that a b testing is like the very last segment of this. And in general, like you need a unique idea. It's the era of the ideas guy. Yeah. John Fio is not AB testing his way to, um, to, to coming up with an idea. The only thing he does is, is, is use the Instagram polls product that he does collect data that way. I love it. Um, If you're building consumer products, copy FIO and leverage Instagram polls to gather feedback. It works well.

Yeah, and he tells this great example. I mean, he highlights that Apple under Steve Jobs, they had a multi-year vision, very definite optimism. The smartphone will be the dominant platform. Let's put an immense amount of R&D resources towards this. Spend years getting it perfect. Don't release it until the screen can be glass because I don't want my phone scratched by my keys.

And Steve apparently just came in one day and was like, my demo phone is getting scratched. It has to be glass. Go figure it out, right? And that's something that you probably could have run some study and found that, oh, well, like the customers will still buy it. So we don't need to do it. And it's more expensive, but he had a vision. Yeah, right and and that's something that you probably could have run some study and found that oh well Like the customers will still buy it so we don't need to do it and it's more expensive

But he had a vision and then the best example, which I still love so much and such a great Bull signal if you can pull this out of a founder and they're not lying to you is Facebook's refusal to sell to Yahoo for 1 billion dollars in 2006 2006 which is like literally a year after the company started uh they walk into a into a board meeting and it's peter and zuck and i believe jim brier over at excel and mark's just like well this will be a quick board meeting like obviously we have to formally discuss this but we're obviously not taking this deal and uh and peter and jim are like uh we should probably talk about it, right? Like, you know, there's a lot of money. At least five minutes. You own 20 for 5% of the company.

There's a lot that you could do with $250 million. Like, this is a reasonable thing. And Mark was like, but I don't know what I would do with the money. I would just start another social network. And I kind of like the one I have. Like, why would I do this? And so eventually, you know, they talk about it and they pass. And looking backwards, Peter realized that it'd be somewhat unscientific to do this analysis. But if you looked backwards at

all the companies, every time someone refused a billion dollar offer, eBay, Google, it had turned out to be right. More importantly, Facebook's refusal. That's interesting. Yeah. That's interesting because there's a lot of companies that don't take the $100 million option to sell and then end up regretting it. I do feel like there's a ton of,

we don't need to say them on the show, but you'll meet guys that still kick themselves for not selling when they had a deal on the table because the next year like things soured or whatever. But for some reason, if somebody's willing to pay a billion dollars for something, there's probably some real magic. Also the quality of the acquirer. You're talking about if a founder mode company is making you a billion dollar offer, a significant portion of their market cap, it's a signal that you're onto something

really, really serious as opposed to, oh yeah, some strategic public company was gonna write us a hundred billion dollar check, but they're a hundred billion dollar company, and I didn't even talk to the CEO because it was such a small deal for them. Like, yeah, you should probably take that because they're not evaluating it properly.

Whereas if Zuck is taking you on a walk and being like, Hey, like here's a billion dollars. Like, you know, you should really come work with us. Like you might be really putting the screws to them in a few years. And I think we kind of saw the counter of that play out with Instagram, which could have been huge. Um, yeah. And, uh, Nikita's company too. Yeah. Zuck was, yeah, it was worried. Yeah, yeah, exactly. And so there's a bunch of takeaways here. Purely luck-driven or incremental approaches may not yield breakthrough innovation. Having a definite idea of the future

can guide bold investments and enduring companies. The best future, a determinate, optimistic approach where big visions drive real progress and transcend mere luck. Including thought, overcome luck by defining and working towards a radically better definite future. And he quotes with not just a static future like a dead channel on TV, but a definite future that's radically better.

Yeah. And I mean, one of my favorite parts of this actually is not even Peter's thinking. It's just Thomas Jefferson quote. I'm a great believer in luck. I's just Thomas Jefferson quote, the, I'm a great believer in luck. I find the harder I work, the more I have of it. And I think that having that definite vision, but understanding it's not enough to just have the vision, right? Look at Augustus, like he's got a very clear vision of what he wants to execute towards, but he's also putting in 14, 15 hour days every single day. So it's like that balance of you can overcome luck, but you also want it to work in your favor. So just work harder. Yeah. The reason I actually

pulled this up, the reason this resurfaced was because I had a friend who is considering joining the government and was doing kind of an informational interview with one of the partners at Founders Fund and was like, what should, how should I go into this interview and get advice? And I was like, the most important thing is figure out what you want in life, where you want to be. It's the classic question of like, where do you see yourself in 10 years?

And that's such a silly played out question that we didn't, we stopped asking it, but it's actually incredibly important to ask that question. And so go do some thinking. And I often find it's useful to go back to what did you want to do as a child yeah because maybe after you get past astronaut there might be something serious there astronaut influencer what's the next what's the next one and there's probably a moment when you were like yeah I actually wasn't dreaming of being a lawyer I was dreaming of being you, a business person or something else or building something or doing something.

And, uh, and I remember, uh, when I interviewed at founders fund, I got a call with Trey and towards the end he was like, yeah, like, what do you want to do? And I was like kind of giving him a wishy-washy answer. And he was like, you can just tell me like, and it was like very informative. It was like, he kind of like beat me over the head with like i want to be the number one technology podcaster in the world yeah yeah yeah and and and just uh and i mean honestly i hadn't really figured it out at the time yeah um but it was but but it's a very very good framework and i think people need permission to to just say out loud what they have so many so many questions like what where do you see yourself in 10 years that got kind of canceled for some reason yeah i don't know why because

it was like oh well some people just want a job or whatever yeah and then the question it got you got in trouble for asking people what do you do at parties okay because it's like you remember this like it was like have something more interesting to say than what do you do? And for me, for me asking somebody, what's your story? What do you do? Yeah. That is the, if I'm meeting somebody for the first time, I'm trying to understand who they are. That's probably some of the best information I can get. Yeah. They're going to choose what they want to share. And then that will say something by itself. Yeah. I mean, asking someone like, tell me your life story feels like kind of cringe, but it's, that's cringe. But, but, but I think that, I think that if you can pull that out of someone,

like that's the most interesting thing that they have to say. And, and if you, if they can actually, a lot of people will just kind of give you the resume, but if you can actually get like the highs and lows and like all the problems that they solve throughout their life, like that's, that's very interesting and a good way to get to know someone yeah um and i feel like we got there like in our like first meeting it was like we were very open and like actually telling the truth about like the full arc of our careers which i think was totally um but yeah i remember i remember i actually remember that when we first met i was like wait so do you want to be like president or something i didn't really i don't you know we're all figuring it out at the time but i was like

is this guy gonna be like the mayor of pasadena governor of california maybe president i mean podcasts have run for content before it's a clear playbook now it's a clear playbook reagan was an actor. Yeah. Trump had a reality TV show. The next president will be a podcaster. Why not? Yeah. The bodybuilder to governor pipeline. Fantastic. Also movie star. Yeah. Yeah. Got to be able to communicate. But yeah, think, think really hard. I know even, even outside of the Teal verse uh this guy uh who runs strauss zelnick he runs uh take two interactive they make gta and a ton of video games and uh he takes like an immense amount of like coaching calls from people he makes himself very available he wrote he wrote a book just called success

it's it's private i wrote the book yeah i wrote the book on i wrote the book success yeah yeah and he wrote it when he was young too it was crazy and he i mean this guy has a badass career but uh he you can only get it by emailing him and he sends you a copy it's not published like you can't get it anywhere it's amazing and and in there he will always just start with like what do you want because if you don't want to be the ceo like you'll never get there if you don't want to be the CEO, like you'll never get there. If you don't want to be a founder, you'll never be there. Like what, and figuring that out

and being honest with yourself. So the exercise is usually like that Ica guy thing. Like what are you good at? What makes money? What do you love doing? Find the intersection of that. Then be honest with yourself about what that is because if you're the best dentist in the world,

you're going to wind up building a massive dental empire. you're the best pottery artist in the world like you will but you have to excel instead of just being okay yeah i happen to like you know dentistry and i'm just going to do it to pay the bills and i never have any ambition like become an entrepreneur still in whatever field you're excelling in yeah i love that i love that talk it's one of the best good one let's Go watch it. If you haven't watched it, it's fantastic. It goes way deeper than we went. Welcome back to Technology Brothers, still the most profitable podcast in the world. We have some DMs, some Q&A from the fans. Let's go to Pete Campbell. He says, Dear Tech Bros Pod. Not the fans, the brothers. The brothers.

Let's go to the brothers. Pete Campbell says, Dear Tech Bros Pod, can you think of anyone more accomplished or deserving to deliver next year's Stanford commencement speech than Gary Tan? I can't. That's a fantastic idea. And I don't know if you thought of this yourself, Pete, but we should definitely get this trending. We love Gary.

Gary went on a campaign to save San Francisco. Pete is going on a campaign to get Gary to do the Stanford. I mean, Gary's too humble. He would never lobby for himself for this, but this would be a fantastic fit, I think. And pretty good marketing for Y Combinator. For sure. Event marketing moment.

Yep. You know, talking to a bunch of Stanford grads. Hey, by the way, I run a small accelerator called Y Combinator. You know, a few times a year we give a number of startups a little bit of money. That was the thing when I got to Silicon Valley. Every big shot would come in, and they loved being like, well, I got to Silicon Valley, and then I started working for a little company called Yahoo. And we started hearing it again and again.

We were like, this is such a played out meme. Every VC loves saying, yeah, I went to a little company called Microsoft. It's like saying I was one of the first 100 employees, but it sounds cooler to be like, yeah, I worked for a little company. And then you're all like, you were just some product manager. Then you go to their house and it's like a $50 million mansion in Menlo Park or something. You're like, okay, yeah, it's real. The Yahoo money was wild. Those guys made a lot of money early.

It was great. Anyway, let's move on Those guys made a lot of money early. It was great. Anyway, let's move on. We got another question from Tyler. He says, help, Tech Bros Pod. I'm looking for a book that covers the intersection of brand history, technical innovation, and collecting watches. Give your take. I'll make a specific recommendation, and we'll go from there.

So you don't need to read books on brand history. You can list, just listen to founders podcasts. So you can go listen to like, you know, 50, a hundred episodes back to back, just block off like a few weeks and do that. And then the other categories I would just say,

I think one of the most underrated things that you can do is if you're interested in a topic, read parts of a few different books in the category. Like you don't even need to, the whole trap of having to read the entire book, like it's totally fine to just read some number of pages. And if you get bored, just like go on to the next thing.

Skip around. Yeah. Or skip around. But yeah, just like read, read the top, you know, five books on,

on watch watches. That's good. And I have a specific recommendation for you. It's a book on the history of Rolex. And there is a fantastic episode of Founders, 351. I'll just play you the intro here. The book I'm going to talk to you about today is nearly impossible to find. It was first published in 1946.

There's only 1,000 copies ever made. It's called Rolex Jubilee. And then the subtitle is actually in 1946. There's only a thousand copies ever made. It's called Rolex Jubilee. And then the subtitle is actually in Latin. But when you translate it from Latin into English, it literally means go with me. And so it's a tiny four volume, like history of Rolex. And volume one was written by Hans Wilsdorf, who is the founder of Rolex. So go listen to episode 351 of Founders. Maybe pick up the book, try and get a copy. I think that will probably hit all three of these.

And lastly, just keep listening to the podcast, man. We're going to be covering all three of these every single day. We're trying to give a proper analysis of every business ever, because we love business. So in the total history of Technology Brothers, we hope to cover every business at least once, even if it's just one promoted post.

Yeah, exactly. Let's go to Based Baron. He says, yeah, I'm Polly. Polly gonna beat the shit out of some EA teapot post rat godless virgin if they get up in my grill on this app one more time. And yeah, very funny post. Got it.

Getting in fights, getting in fights. We wanted to highlight Based Baron because he claims to be an analyst at Tech Bros Pod. He's not officially affiliated with us, but we're always open to supporters. But as we reviewed your timeline, Based Baron, maybe a little bit too based, a little bit too negative

we want to keep the keep the momentum up keep the optimism don't want to be the definite pessimist on this show you want to be optimistic and a lot of the things you're saying a lot of the shit you're talking not unreasonable but where's it going to get you yeah pessimists get clout yeah optimists get rich the key so base baron in seem seemingly in group emerging poster it's got some got some good takes got some takes that are kind of trying to take down some of our buddies yep things like that but um here's what i'd say based baron you want to get to the point where uh two years from now when you got a hundred thousand followers000 followers, you're allowed to share who you really are without burning a bunch of bridges.

Because at the trajectory that he's posting, he's going there for sure. He's going to 100K. For sure. That said, you've got to make sure to not make too many enemies along the way so that when you do that big face reveal, it's like you're sort of confident in doing that

and not attacking too many people. And people will have two levels of reaction to an account like this. The first one is like, ha-ha, like dunking on all the lolcows of tech. And are you familiar with lolcow? No. It's a person that is milked for lols because they're so downtrodden that the whole, it's from 4chan, so the 4chan community will pick someone who they just laugh at endlessly. And anything that they do, they're just getting dunked on. And then it creates this really vicious cycle. But it's all related to the

bucket of crabs theory. Are you familiar with this? So yeah, the crabs, they pull each other down. And as soon as one is about to escape the bucket, the rest of them get pulled down. If they were just working together, they could lift each other up. And so level one is like, okay, yeah, this guy's funny. He's got some good dunks. He's talking trash. He's naming names. He's unhinged. That's great. But level two is like you're revealing that your financials are not intertwined with 25,000 different startups. Yeah, you're not conflicted enough. Not enough conflicts of interest. Yep. revealing that your financials are not intertwined with 25,000 different startups and organizations. Yeah, you're not conflicted enough.

Not enough conflicts of interest. Yep. Not enough conflicts of interest. Call us once you've LP'd into 25 different funds and can't talk shit about anyone anymore because you're a bag holder on even the worst companies. So you wouldn't say a word. Bright future-based Baron. Yeah.

And we'll definitely ship you the JD when we open up the analyst role. Fantastic. Fantastic. Let's go to Dan Gray. He says, why are so many startups pitching the same ideas? This is the result of startup catering, where founders work on the problems they believe VCs care about rather than problems they are connected to. It occurs whenever there is a strong and vocal consensus among investors on the opportunity of the day, e.g. agents, vertical AI, gaming, etc. Obviously, this is a negative influence on innovation. The purpose of startups is to build novel solutions, which others are unable to anticipate. Consequently, the best VCs focus at most on broad problem areas rather than solutions. Yeah, interesting.

This is something where it's always like the bear case for the YC request for startups. It's like, are the best founders, do they need that? Or are they already building it? I've built two companies that didn't fit into any trends at all. And that's been good, but also extremely painful because I haven't been able to

just flip them to meta for a hundred million dollars in a year. Extremely painful. Extremely painful, but it's all worked out. And yeah, you got to have the definite optimist view of the world. And oftentimes that also can coincides with the contrarian vision and seeing something different and having everyone tell you that you're wrong for years and this was the case with coinbase and airbnb and stripe oh why are you doing this something already exists unnecessary this isn't trendy the one positive the positive about the yc requests for startups is if you're working at a fang and you see that you're like oh that's interesting and then you that catalyze you catalyzes you into starting a company and then you start that company and maybe you end up pivoting to something

else. Like at least it made you, it provided that initial activation energy to get you to go and do it. But yeah, I've seen this, I've seen this so, so much just as an angel investor, seeing people come pitch me an idea and I'm like, you're hitting all the right buzzwords, but yeah, it's not an original idea. I've seen a bunch of other pitches for it. And then there's no reason you're not like, there's no reason why that you should win versus anyone else that's doing this. In fact, it's usually the opposite. It's like, well, you picked this idea because you thought you could raise a $2 million seed

round and, and, and like basically play founder. Yeah. And a lot of times you're a year too late or there's some company that's more well-funded in stealth mode or you're just behind the ball. Let's do a promoted post. Promoted post. I'm excited for this one. We love promoting the fantastic inventory

over at DuPont Registry. Today we're talking about a 2017 Lamborghini Centenario Roadsterster one of only 20 produced it has an ask a very modest asking price of only 2.9 million uh great spec uh things in white on black it's got a nice wing on it killer and just like you can tell when something's been specced properly and this is very intentional not over the top um and uh it's got a nice like arrow kit on it and um i don't you know they're just not making lamborghinis like this anymore and this is one at 20 so yeah pick this up this looks like a great vc great for the gp greatest street

park in san francisco yeah make a statement yeah and don't buy this if you live in miami buy this if you live in sf exactly this is a great daily in SF. Exactly. This is a great daily. Yeah. If you're going to be stuck in front of, behind a Waymo. Yeah. And you're sandwiched by Waymos, you want to be in a white Lamborghini, Cincinnati Roadster, just to mog the people. Yeah.

I want to hear some noise complaints. Filming the steering wheel being like, oh,, oh, look, it's turning by itself. And you're like, yeah, it turns when I do it. Yeah, yeah, yeah. Yeah, I want to hear some noise complaints in Menlo Park and Los Altos. Yeah, yeah. In Incline Village. Let's tear it up out there.

And if you need some driving lessons, MKBHD. Oh, yeah. It's fantastic. His videos aren't explicitly driving lessons, but he certainly knows how to drive. Read between the lines. And when you head to your Lamborghini dealership, tell them the technology brother sent you. Let's go to Lulu. She says, it's very hard for public company CEOs to state their unfiltered beliefs and principles.

The pressures are immense. Among public co-s, it's basically Toby Lutke, Brian Armstrong, and Elon Musk holding the Overton window open. Yeah, we talked about this with the fuck you money post from Marc Andreessen. Like you get so entrenched that saying any unfiltered belief or principle could slice your customer base or your employee base or your investor base. Like you have like thousands and thousands of institutions.

Well, it's more so they're hovering over, they draft a post, they're hovering over the post button. The weight. And then they're thinking, oh, this pension fund or institutional investor owns four percent of my company and i'm gonna immediately get an email saying hi mark let me know if you can talk yeah and you're like okay great yeah but i think the

key here so so the interesting thing about the examples that lulu gave yeah is the approaches are dramatically different oh elon very clearly seems to just say whatever he's thinking off the top of his head, be liberal with emojis. Like, you know, I don't think he has like posts are not the opinions of any of my companies. It's like, no, his posts are the opinions of his companies. And then Toby is the opposite approach of like seemingly very intentional, like sort of using his megaphone as like, you know, it's very curated. It's not on the fly.

And so both ways work. And Brian too. Brian writes a long post, very thoughtful. He puts a lot of work into it, but he's not afraid to be unfiltered and controversial. Yeah. I don't even know if unfiltered is the right, like the best thing is to be, is to be, is to be, you can be controversial,

but be filtered and tasteful in the delivery of that. And I do wonder if there's, if this is going to change as more companies go public, because, you know, public company CEOs, okay, well, what happens when the annual goes public

or what happens when, there are a lot of founder-led companies right now that just aren't public yet, but will, it'll probably be easier for them to maintain their unfiltered nature than retrain an era, a generation of public company CEOs. It's interesting to think about the X long post and how that's kind of changed the platform from a communication standpoint. Because historically, you wanted to share a lot. You had to post a thread, but then somebody could screenshot one tweet and be like look this guy hates this type of people but then now in a long post it's like it would be disingenuous to not

show the full context based on one thing that they said so it actually opens it up yeah it's great uh santiago been on the show before says, you can just not do psychedelics, lol. Bold statement, Cotton, and very true. We support this message just because psychedelics are popular in Silicon Valley. It does not mean you have to do them. It doesn't even mean that you're going to benefit from them. I think we've maybe talked about this on the show, but psychedelics can provide this novel experience that makes people feel like it's super monumental.

And maybe that they just hadn't put their phone down for a while. It's like a lot of people, the only time they go for a long hike is when they're taking LSD. So they're like, Oh, this is amazing. But you could just like take the hike. Yeah.

Yeah. Uh, the best metaphor was that post we read about, uh, I took so many psychedelics that at a certain point I had a meta epiphany that the drug was just leaning on the epiphany key in my brain. And it was just making me think I'm having an epiphany, I'm having an epiphany, I'm having an epiphany. And that's actually not having an epiphany. And that same thing happens with a lot of cannabis where it's like, oh, everything was so funny last night. Oh, tell me the jokes that you were laughing at. Not funny at all. Only funny in the moment because it was completely synthetic.

And so, yeah, you want to stay away from that. Yeah, and I've talked about this before, but when I was in college, Tim Ferriss was directly or indirectly massively promoting psychedelic, like basically as like a lifestyle to the, one of the biggest podcasts in the world, just telling everybody like how great psychedelics are. And I think that that's irresponsible. I think it's, I think it's something that can be done, you know, in small circles, but it doesn't need to be on a megaphone. It's degenerate.

I agree. Let's go to Bryce. He says, we're in multiple golden agents ages once, quoting Jeff Bezos from this fantastic interview that Bezos did that there's a great breakdown on David Senra's ex-page. And he did a whole deep dive on it, got re-shared by Ivanka Trump, I believe. Or no, no, it got re-shared by uh jeff jeff is his wife that's right lauren chance lauren sanchez um but i i agree with this multiple golden ages as once we're doing space travel we're doing ai we're doing bio um there are a ton of things we're doing doge doge making the government innovation and government it is it is a fantastic time to be alive i i just like that he put this quote out there it's great thank you bryce thank you let's go to andrew reed that's over at sequoia he says although he doesn't have the the tag anymore i gotta check these still there um he says never make the same mistake twice make it at least three or four times so you're absolutely

sure you're wrong then change your approach i like it so i've had this with people like early in my career not even that not even that long ago i would start talking with somebody maybe about investing or partnering in some capacity or a higher and i would have like a little something in my in the back of my head that wasn't a really strong intense uh sort of intuition but there was some intuition that i shouldn't that there was some red flag and and over the last like two years i've really tried to be intentional intentional about listening to that yep and i had to make the mistake of not listening to it four or five times and so now when it happens i'm very i know what kind of comes after making that mistake. So I'm just like, yeah, I'm just not going to start. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. It's almost, it's almost hard to make the

mistake once and fully learn the lesson. Yeah. You need multiple data points to prove, to prove out a real thesis there. Yeah. I remember a friend of mine in high school, uh, I think we were, I think we were in college and one of his younger brothers came out with everyone partying. And his younger brother was like drinking, like trying to keep up with the college guys. And one of our friends, you know, the older brother is like, hey, take it easy. Like we are college guys. Like you're just not going to be able to keep up with us. Our tolerance is like way higher.

You got to go easy. And one of our other friends just like grabs his the older brother's hand and says like look some lessons have to be learned the hard way yeah and to this day they refer to this as like des lessons because like that's the type of like lesson learn the hard way alcohol is a very positive feedback loop it is a poison yes people consume it they feel good but then they feel really bad really bad it creates less desire to do it again even though you might feel good for a little bit. Yeah, hopefully.

So yeah, some things you got to learn the hard way. Let's go to Justin Mayer's brother of the week this week. He says, the FDA literally has a 10 second rule. If a company fries something in oil for less than 10 seconds, there's no requirement to add the oil to the ingredient label. Reform can't come soon enough. Fascinating. Yeah, the FDA has a bunch of these weird rules,

just like little archaic things that get exploited. You've dealt with this more than us. Yeah, tons of weird stuff that just like, this has to be on, this can't be on. I mean, there's a ton of stuff in the tobacco industry where you, like, because the cigarette companies were making claims about low tar, now you can't even make a claim about any tobacco product,

including a tobacco-free product, that it's sugar-free, or it doesn't contain seed oils, or it doesn't contain microplastics. You legally cannot make those claims, even if it's true. And it's just super hard. Is that regulatory capture? Basically, yeah, for the cigarette companies. Yeah. Every law about cigarettes.

So you can't market product benefits against us. Basically, yeah, for the cigarette companies. Every law about cigarettes... You can't market product benefits against us. Oh, yeah. The whole backlash against the tobacco companies was just like a master class in jujitsu and getting a good outcome. Everything was like, oh, yeah, you'll totally tie our hands on this and

also create the strongest monopoly in American history. Oh, yeah. No one will be able to advertise. Who would that benefit? The entrenched incumbents? Absolutely. With crazy distribution. Yeah.

Oh, yeah. And durable brand value. Exactly, exactly. So every decision that they made was just very long-term focused. It was a long-term win for the tobacco companies and a short-term win for the regulators. And so they got to say, hey, there's no more cigarette ads. It's like, okay, well, you know, let's see how this plays out.

Will people still be smoking in 40 years? Absolutely. Yeah. My, my take with, with, uh, with, I had no idea about this rule and it's crazy, but I think you basically, if you're not consuming foods that you watched being made or you just assembled the ingredients and made that yourself, it is just default going to be less good for you than, than that. Right. Like there's no amount of, Oh, it's gluten-free or it's seed oil free, or it was made with beef tallow. Like all that stuff,

like sort of matters, but then, Oh, there was lead in the, in the process. And you know, now, now, you know now it has whatever. So anyways, if you're really optimizing for health, it's got to be Whole Foods. Let's go to Boring Business. He's quoting someone who says, is there a job where they just pay you for being a chill guy with good intuition about stuff?

And Boring Business says, venture capital. Great post. I had the post today about like everybody wants to be a vc why wouldn't you want to just be an lp yeah you know you just that that's also a chill job vcs hang out yep ski resorts go cat skiing heli skiing you know deploy a little capital, sit back, watch it, watch it work. Um, but, uh, but yeah, I do, I do think if you're, if it's funny ideas, guys, you know, monetize well through, uh, through just building companies. Um, but, uh, there's a lot of VCs that are ideas guys, and they basically just sit on this buck, you know, this like basket of really good ideas for years and wait for the right entrepreneur to come to them and say, hey, I'm going to build this thing. And they're like, oh, I've thought about this for a long time.

This is great. Now I'll give you money to do it. And I get to watch my your vision kind of play out. Yeah. Let's do a promoted post. Let's do a promoted post from's do a promoted post uh from our friends over at montclair uh we've talked about this at length ski season is in full effect uh and montclair says diamond run extraordinary layers for every angle of mountain life explore grenoble fall winter 2024 at montclair.com uh so montclair proving that they

are excellent posters here they're putting a link in even though they know it's going to hurt them in the algorithm uh but this jacket that they're showing off is so fantastic that i'm sure it'll still do numbers uh it's a great great post uh from montclair and And if you get invited to go cat skiing, heli skiing, or have a more humble, you know, if a VC says, Hey, do you want to come up to Aspen? And you know, we'll ski at the resort. If you get more modest VC like that, any of those environments, Montclair would be a good fit. So thank you to Montclair. It's fantastic. Let's go to Vittorio. Let's stay on the topic of things with pockets. He says, a lawyer in your pocket. There we go. He's showing that with Grok 3, court cases are being added to the training set, aiming to provide Grok with the ability to offer compelling legal verdicts.

Pretty exciting. A lot of companies are staying away from this. Yeah. So this is going to be already when people talk about what what's wrong with america it's it's the law fair that's just constantly being waged yep it's good business for um good uh one reason why it's great to be a lawyer in this country for the most part but it's going to be really insane when the sort of consumer ai products and do not pay was an early version of this, but it was less like I'm going to sue somebody and more like we're giving you the tools to kind of fight back against different laws that maybe you don't, or like work with laws. And there's a world in the future where, where Grok can launch a lawsuit for you against one of your ops. And like, and it's just 10 times,

like most of what stops people from launching lawsuits is the cost of the lawsuit. You know, if you have some type of dispute, let's say you're disputing over $10,000, it doesn't make sense to enter into a lawsuit because it's going to cost you a hundred thousand dollars to even get to any type of conclusion or maybe more.

So when that cost goes to zero yeah what happens i do wonder where the nash equilibrium will be for all this because yes there's a world where it gets a lot easier to sue people but then the ai should also be used to defend people and so you'll have all of these lawsuits that are kind of being fought by ai and don't really bubble up well this this is real thing. We should create a data center just for the bullshit lawsuits. Oh, it's going to be huge. And just put them out and like, you know. This has already been happening for years in legal billing.

So there's software that companies use to read through bills from law firms to determine what was a billable hour and what wasn't. So they can effectively redline the invoices when they come through and say, oh, this was just like an associate reading case law. That's their homework. That's not something that's billable. So we want to pay you 25% less.

And if you save 25% on your bills with your massive law firm and your Fortune 500, that's a huge amount of money. But then the law firms got the software too. And then they, when they submit their bills, it goes through a review and says, okay,

what's, what's going to get thrown back at us. Let's not put that on the bill. And so it just became this like, you know, equilibrium fight of like the AIs essentially. And the result is that like, I think just as many hours get billed,

but now there's a, there's a tax from the AI, from the tech companies on both sides. Love that. That'll probably continue. Anyway, let's go to Isaiah Taylor. He says, guys, I've had enough. I'm leaving X and heading to the other app. I'll still post occasionally and like and RT my friends' content to be supportive of them.

Reply to a few comments, a scroll here and there perhaps, a rare DM. But trust me, my heart will be in the other app banger shots fired such a good such a good oh oh there's a cuban i was thinking but it just yeah i mean it's it's applicable to many many different types of people who are no the conversations still happen on x baby yeah it's not going anywhere it's greatest app of all time i i i tried to log into blue sky to see like okay has anyone actually moved over and it was pretty minimal over there pretty sparse but we'll see yeah it's it's funny that um if you're building any products that are that you want to get in front of the sort of tech audience, tech elite, whatever you want to call it,

you still got to be on X to promote it. Yeah. Let's go to Zach Weinberg. He says, the trend that confuses me most as a tech angel investor is the juxtaposition of A, incredibly cool new AI-driven seed stage ideas with B, early stage valuations

that do not make economic sense given C, increasing competition from everywhere. Great time to be a customer though. And then he goes on to say, it's become so easy to be a seed stage software founder with all the incredible tools out there. Top of funnel ideas is huge. Prototypes are increasingly easy and cheap to build.

Will be interesting to see how VC returns work in an environment like this. Yeah, this is the bull case for Y Combinator right now because they have a set structure to their investments and you can't negotiate it. And so they are able to buy into companies effectively artificially low because of their program and brand.

And then everybody else has to pay a premium once they are a part of that program. So big, big bull case for YC. I did see recently, I was pitched by a company that was started by some guys that had started a big consumer tech company in the sort of early Facebook era.

They were coming back for a new AI infrastructure product. They told me like, oh, it going to be done at like 60 posts like we're just waiting on terms and then i just heard yesterday it got done at 12 posts so there is there is some okay there is some um pushback on that there's some pushback but still like the super crack teams are still getting these egregious valuations out the gates. Yeah. I mean, 60 posts, that's like going to be a $10 million round. That's like, you're just a 50 person company on day one.

Like it's almost like working against you because there's just burning a hole in your pocket and you're going to have an overly large team for hunting for that product market fit. But those rounds, I mean, they're happening. Yeah. Unless you really have CapEx that you need, whether it's R and D or some sort of, you know, data center build out, like you really got to think through that. Does your business need that much to get to from zero to one?

It's a big question. No, but I think it's some, some weird thing. It's even like second time founders are drawn more because they're used to measuring themselves by numbers. Like if you, if you start a company and you get to $50 million run rate and sell it, then when you go back to square one, you're like, Oh yeah, it'd be pretty nice to have 10 million in the bank. Cause like I've, I've spent this much money before effectively, but it's much different to go and spend it from zero to one to do that versus spending your Series A and your last company. It's also just extremely jolting to go from a company that you're building where you have teams for everything. And then you go into seed stage and you're like, wait, I have to do this stuff myself.

Or I only have a person instead of a team. Everything feels like it's maybe kind of moving slower. Well, I had one i mean part of what happens is i just think this is like pretty relevant part of what happens is you get a really smart team that goes out and they have a good idea good team and they go yeah we're going to raise four million dollars and then one of these bigger multi-stage funds just goes okay well like we, well, like we really want to lead you around. We love what you're doing. We want to own at least 12% or whatever, 14, 15%.

And then they're like, we'll give you eight on 40. And then the founder's like, it's objectively wrong for me to turn this money down in many ways if I can get way more resources for the same level of dilution yep and then all the smaller investors and the angels like I've invested in multiple rounds over the last 12 months where I'm like this price doesn't make any sense but I want to be in the company because my friend yep and it can be so hard because it's like okay so then you could push down the amount of dilution but then your valuation is still high and you have to clear that hurdle for the next round yeah or you push down the valuation and then you get diluted more and it's just like all tension everywhere.

It's, it can be very, very, very fraught. But just got to go get the engine humming on the building and build something. So let's go to Molly O'Shea. She's been on the show before.

She says coming off a week of holiday events and I couldn't feel more optimistic and grateful for LA is unique tech community everyone is crushing it 2025 is going to be incredible i love it just an optimistic post to end on uh maybe we should do one more but uh we should do one more let's no i do love the optimism la's tech ecosystem gets so much hate but it's great but one of the reasons one of the reasons i'm grateful for it is we were connected because somebody was like you're the two people in la's tech world that i actually like really like and like you guys should meet each other and that was like basically the whole yeah yeah reason we got connected yeah um yeah it's a small world out here and i don't know

there's there's some benefits like there's there's plenty of events we saw a ton of people people fly in it's close to San Francisco people are happy to travel to LA yeah exactly because it's fun weather's always good but it's not so

great holiday parties and it is spread out enough that you're not getting like it's not the oh come to this partiful every single day and like the FOMO is not nearly as bad here

I get partifles every week that I'm just like I'm not going to drive an hour. Yeah, exactly. Exactly. Yeah. Yeah.

Uh, just no way. No one in LA has really understood that it's like Europe. Yeah. It's like, no, LA is the most Europe of Los Angeles. Okay.

Santa Monica. You want to go to France tomorrow? It's Malibu. So thank God. Yeah. Uh, yeah. I mean,

it's, it's, it's significant to get around here. Well, let's go to some boom news. Blake Scholl has announced a new fundraising round. As XB1 approaches Mach 1, I'm happy to share that Boom Arrow has raised $100 million in new financing, fully funding the first symphony engine prototype. And Paul Graham says, I invested more in Boom than I've ever invested in a startup before, but this company is important for America. They'll also make a huge amount of money if they succeed. No one else is anywhere near having a supersonic airliner. So I think

we got to hit the size gong a bit for the $100 million round. But this was very rough. This was a down round. This was a recap. I believe it was $100 million on $100 million round. But this was very rough. This was a down round. This was a recap. I believe it was $100 million on $100 million pre. So the new investors took about 50% of the company. But it's sad for all the early investors and probably some of the employees that got diluted. But it's great that Silicon Valley has kind of rallied the troops and said, circle the wagons.

We want this to be a thing. And we're keeping it in business and we're keeping the story going. It's better than just washing our hands of this. It would be absolutely tragic. Like for example, if China had a company like this, they just wouldn't let it fail.

Like there'd be like a government intervention to say this technology is critical enough that we're going to just make it work at whatever the cost. That's literally the story of TSMC. Yeah. That's literally the story of TSMC. Could. That's literally the story of TSMC. Could not fail because they had the backing of the Taiwan government.

They were like, this is critical. Yeah, and so I'm really glad to see it. And that's like a beautiful – it's created a beautiful moment out of an otherwise sort of unfortunate set of circumstances to see a bunch of the most successful, influential people in the Valley say, this company is too important to fail. Let's make it happen. Should we take a moment of silence for the early investors who got wiped out and crammed down? Yeah.

This moment of silence is brought to you by Bose QuietComfort headphones. Find your moment of silence at Bose.com. Okay. All right. Back to the show. Back to the show. Should we close with Databricks? This is a real size gong moment.

Real size gong real size gong databricks is on track to raise a 9.5 billion dollar round at a 60 billion dollar valuation famine baby this is amazing let's go we should do one gong for every billion that you raise yeah we need nine nine gongs for this. This is fantastic. I don't know enough about Databricks. We should do a deep dive on the company, break it all down. I know that they're doing very well.

Everyone's excited. And it's very, very cool. And the founder is available and does podcasts. And I've seen him at conferences and stuff. And he's probably under-discussed because it's one of these B2B database companies that's a little bit not sexy or consumer-y.

But I love that he's out there talking and they have some really cool investors and I'm really excited to see where this goes. So should we close with one more promoted post? I love ending on an ad because if there's one thing brothers love, it's ads. And I got a good one for you today. We have a 2021 Mercedes-Benz AMG Black Series.

Oh, I love this car. These are... Grail. Yeah, this is a Grail car. I mean, this is like one of the last like truly great cars Mercedes has made. Oh, me? I just drive a Mercedes. Yeah.

I just have a Mercedes. You just have a Mercedes. Yeah. I just... You know, I commute in a Mercedes. Yeah. Just happens Mercedes. Yeah. I commute in a Mercedes. Yeah. Just happens to be an AMG Black Series. Yeah.

Yeah, yeah. It's probably got a sub-seven minute Nurburgring. Yeah, sub-seven. And this mean AMG is finished in one of 16 graphite gray Magno over black exclusive Napa leather. And what a great spec. I mean, the the full the Batman black series yeah it doesn't really get better than that and yeah go pick this up oh you're still listening to the show you love ads which means you probably have

an extra four hundred and fifteen thousand dollars laying around yeah go buy this car you know what you know what you need upgrade that metris metris black series yeah you know they may be r63 which was the amg minivan yeah 6.3 liter that's a real great that's dads like us that's a grow that's a grail there's only like 50 of them in the u.s they're not that expensive really but yeah yeah they're just like they're so weird and they don't even have the the doors. Now I need to go. Oh, this is a grail car as well. But go to Mercedes and say, I'm equivalent to the Sultan of Brunei.

I want a custom Metris AMG Black Series. Put a V8 in that thing. Wow, one just sold on Bring a Trailer. How much? R63 for $39,000. $40,000. 40K for a minivan? I mean, steal. Why would you get a Honda Odyssey when you could have a 6.3 liter V8?

What an insane car. It's so insane when you hear the engine note on that thing. You pull up to the school, dropping off the kids. Get it lowered. Sub four. Get it lowered. It's great so yeah you know amg gt black series for the weekends and the daily but when you're dropping off the kids the r63 we recommend

them both we recommend them both firm sometimes when you sponsor the podcast you know we'll promote the main thing but we'll we'll promote your whole catalog yep yeah yeah multi we love multi-product companies. Yeah. More products to promote. Yeah. And that's a good place to end, folks. Thank you for listening.

It's been a great week for the Technology Brothers. Yeah, it's been a fantastic week. Merry Christmas. And thanks for listening. Subscribe on X. Subscribe on Apple Podcasts. Please leave us five stars.

Add on Spotify. We have video up there now. YouTube. There's short form. There's long form. Any different thing you want. All different forms. And we're coming to LinkedIn soon, folks. Get ready. We have video up there now, YouTube, uh, there's short form, there's long form, any different thing, all different forms. And we're coming to LinkedIn soon, folks, big, bold move.

And, uh, everybody said, Oh, you guys, you guys don't have what it takes to hang on LinkedIn. It's a different, it's a different ball game over here. Coming to the big leagues of professional networking, but we're going to go over there. We're going to make a statement and we're going to bring those people back to X, just the base ones. We'll bring them back to X and we'll sort of help them find their footing over here. So stay tuned. Talk to you later. Thank you. Bye.