The Joe Rogan Experience - #2394 - Palmer Luckey

Episode Date: October 16, 2025

Palmer Luckey is the founder of defense technology company Anduril Industries, designer of the Oculus Rift, a virtual reality head-mounted display, and the founder of Oculus VR, which was acquired by Facebook in 2014. www.anduril.com/profile/palmer-luckey Perplexity: Download the app or ask Perplexity anything at https://pplx.ai/rogan. 50% off your first box at https://www.thefarmersdog.com/rogan! This video is sponsored by BetterHelp. Visit https://BetterHelp.com/JRE Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Joe Rogan podcast, check it out. The Joe Rogan Experience. Train by day, Joe Rogan podcast by night, all day. Um, I haven't done the ball, but I have done those knee chairs. Okay. They're a little annoying. And you're like... What are standing desks?

You a standing desk fan? No. Yeah. When I use them, I usually have lower back. It gets kind of sore. Just standing there. I feel like some part of you should be relaxed. And if you're standing, you're going to want to lean on something.

To have a conversation especially, because I know some people do podcasts standing up, like a standing up table. I'm like, okay. That's crazy. I have a buddy of mine who's doing a, have you ever seen the float tanks where you float in the salt water? Yeah, we have one here. Oh, no way. Yeah. So I know someone who is building a rig with a waterproof keyboard, waterproof mouse, and a VR headset so that they can have a float.

computing rig and they want to just they want to program while they're floating in space and he hasn't he hasn't gotten all the way there yet the hardest part has actually been the mouse there's lots of waterproof keyboards for various industrial applications like you know so you don't get metal shavings in on and oil in them

but mice it's actually it's actually harder but that makes sense because there's a well it's a laser now used to be an actual ball that would have been really hard yeah at this point I don't think it's that hard I think he's been he's been screwing around with just taking a normal one and then wrapping it in saran wrap.

But that's kind of splash-proof, but not immersion-proof. Is he actually underwater with the setup? Yeah, because if you're taking your hands up out of the water, one, it's uncomfortable. So he's floating like this and the keyboard. Underwater. Yeah, exactly. So you're floating at neutral position, basically.

And just to code? He wants a code like that? He wants to code. He must be a super weirdo. I want to do it for VR gaming. I think that'd be really interesting. It's kind of, if you can't simulate the experience of your body being in the game, at least to forget that your body exists and have the only thing you're viewing be your vision and the sound.

I feel like it would be very interesting experience. So I'm begging off an hour in it from him when he gets it done, but I'm looking forward to that. I would let you use ours to try it out, but we just had a problem with one of our pumps broke. Oh, that's a bummer. Yeah, it flooded everything with salt water. It's weird. It's a weird excuse. Have you done it? I have actually never done it. I'm so fascinated by it and I've actually booked a session at some of those like float tank companies several times and then every single time my schedule is intervened and it turns out that I've not been able to do it. You should get one for your place. Maybe I should. Yeah. I should probably try it first, right?

Or it's just so good I should have it. Yeah, you'll love it. Yeah, it's very relaxing too. And it's really good for thinking. Like if you have a thought and you're just fucking around with it. in your head, you're like, I don't know, do this. You're in there, you have zero distractions. It's like your mind has more computational power that's available because even though you don't think about it, like right now we're in these chairs, your butts touching the chair, your feet are on the floor, your hands on the table, your clothes are on your body. There's all these different things that your body is recognizing as input. Sure.

When you take those away, it's like if you're having a conversation, there's a bunch of people right beside you with a jackhammer. You're like, this is too distracting. Let's go over here. And you go to where in the park, it's nice and peaceful. Now you can have a conversation, it's so much easier. Well, you don't realize that, like, regular everyday life just establishing the distance between the walls and thinking about all the data. All that stuff is your brain is computing this.

Yep. In the silence of the float tank, there's none of that. And you don't feel the water because it's the same temperature as your skin. That's right. So you just feel. And it's all soul-laden, so it's isotonic. Exactly. Exactly.

You feel like you're flying. That's so cool. It's really cool. I've done a lot of reading on it, and I'm super interested in the science of it. But I've never actually managed to get into a float tank, which is really embarrassing. I mean, you think that a billionaire would have the resources to get into a bucket of saltwater. Yeah, you should have somebody make you one. Have someone build you one at your place.

Oh, that'd be cool. Maybe get one made out of wood instead of like the plastic. You want metal. Mine looks like a giant meat locker. That's what it looks like. but the guy who made it for me was like a mad genius he died unfortunately

he was a mad genius who also didn't believe in medicine and I think he did he die of hepatitis I think he died of hepatitis well you'll have to show it to me so that I can check it out it's dope yeah but it's it would definitely

be at some point in time the best way to disconnect from your natural environment if they do come up with some sort of haptic feedback that's like or whether it's some sort of a neural interface that completely changes, you know, the environment around, like you drop into it. That would be the perfect environment to do it in salt water.

Yep. Well, I mean, that's been my, that was always my dream in the old, you know, my first company was Oculus. And so, like, that was my dream was to just fully feel like you were inside of the video game. Completely forget about the real world. How old were you when you started working there? So I started building virtual reality headset prototypes when I was 14 or 15. And then I built the first prototype of what I'd call the Oculus Rift at 16, and then I'd formally turn it into a company when I was 18, launched the product when I was 19, and then sold the company a few years later to Facebook for a few billion dollars.

So it was kind of a crazy arc for me. Wow. That was like, that was putting myself through school. Did you work with Carmack? Yeah. So, well, Carmack was, so John Carmack was one of my heroes growing up. And it was one of these crazy things where the universe kind of brought us together. I was working on my VR technology and nobody was paying attention to VR back then.

It was kind of a crazy person thing. Nobody was paying attention what I was doing. But I was posting about it on this internet forum. And then John Carmack started posting on that same forum asking for help modifying his own Sony head-mounted display that he had bought to reduce the latency. And so I gave him a bunch of input on why he couldn't do it, why it was a large, impossible project. because I've been trying to do the same thing. And then he ended up seeing the work I was doing on the Oculus Rift. And he said, hey, Palmer, can I buy one of these from you?

He said, well, I'm not really selling these yet, but I'd be happy to lend it to you for free. And so I sent it to him. He ended up writing a review and posting it on his blog and said it was the best VR experience the world has ever seen. He introduced me to Sony. They tried to hire me to run their VR research and development lab. I turned them down. They doubled the offer. I turned that down.

and then so John was kind of the guy who got me like really he's kind of the first guy who got any public attention for me where everyone was like oh if John Carmack says this is important then this must be important and then if you can believe it two years later after I started Oculus and started selling these he actually left in software and became the CTO of Oculus so we got then I then I had the incredible opportunity to work with one of my childhood heroes as my CTO that was what year was that that was 2012 okay because he came on the podcast I think 2000 2016, you brought one. Yeah.

So, yeah, he joined in 2013. So I think it was June of 2013. So about a year after I started, Oculus is when he joined his CTO. Well, he showed us, and he was doing whatever the one is where I guess you have drumsticks. Is that what you have? And you're whacking stuff as it comes out of the sky. He showed us that. And, like, what a workout is?

We're probably with Beat Sabre. Yes. He's a huge Beat Saber fan. Oh, he was going nuts. And he was doing it really fast. I was like, this is nuts. It's actually, like, it is good fitness. Yeah.

It's good coordination training. Like, Beat Sabre was great because it really busted this myth that VR was this, like, you know, totally inactive, be a fat, lazy slob thing. VR gaming, at least as it exists today, takes a lot more caloric expenditure than any other type of gaming. I mean, like, for sure. And, like, even more than, like, other motion games. Like, remember Wii bowling and we sports? Like, that's, like, one movement every once in a while. Like beat saver is a full body workout

What's really impressive is the boxing games The boxing games are a really good workout Did you play I think one that was Creed By a company called Servios? I don't remember what the name was We had a couple different ones At the old studio in L.A. And I'd work out with it

I'd put it on and you know You do a round with these virtual boxers And you really get a workout in Your feet hurt like you're like wow I'm utilizing a lot of movement here Yep You know the company that did a few of those boxing games It's this LA studio called Servios, and the two co-founders that were actually guys who worked with me in the Army Research Lab that I worked in before starting Oculus.

So it's one of those teeny tiny worlds. There were so few of us that really believed in VR in those days. Is there a VR that like a professional boxer could use? Like could you get VR to the point where you could program it with AI? So you could take like the movement of like a Sugar Ray Leonard or something like that and actually program it. into the machine. So I'd go first. It's not just something you could do.

It's being done. There are boxers who are using this technology. Really? So, like, I know, I know Logan Paul and Jake Paul, and have talked with them a lot about using virtual reality and how they're using it to do combat training. That's right. Wow.

Well, my thought was that you could actually emulate an opponent. So, like, say if you were supposed to fight Canelo Alvarez, well, we have this database of all Canelo Alvarez's performance. performances and training footage. So you could calculate what his normal exchanges are, what his opening moves are, how he sets the hookup off the jab, he faints the right hand. You're giving me crazy deja vu. Let me show you the text message that I was just doing with Logan Paul last night.

I said, it's time to have robots fighting people. My dream is that you can have robots perfectly tuned to match your own current physical capability and progressively ramp up against yourself over time or against the greats. Like we were talking through, this was less VR. Well, are you even following some of the robot fighting league stuff?

Yes. So that's controlled by VR. You put on a VR headset, you put on a motion capture suit, you teleoperate a robot. One of the things I've been talking with Logan about is the idea of having where you have one teleoperated robot versus an actual human.

But then what we were talking about is this idea of having the robot learn from, like you're saying, learning from footage of not just the greats, but even yourself, so that it can be basically, you could fight against your style, your exact level of strength, and then, of course, you want to fight against the grades and see just how far you have to go and just get the shit kicked out of you. The other thing I was thinking about what a robot could do, if you programmed it correctly, it would have a really accurate sense of distance, so it would be able to touch you instead of hurt you. It could pull its punches. Yes. That's a really good point.

Best sparring partners. Someone who can, so the mechanics of it are all the same, but you don't have the follow through. Well, it would have more control probably even than a person, right? So you think of the precise movements that surgical robots are able to do. Absolutely. Yeah. Well, I mean, you could do this.

The main thing that robots have is they have just such fast reaction time. And so you could put sensors in like a glove. You could have it where the moment that it hits, or even a ranging sensor. I mean, it could stop a millimeter. away from you. So, yeah, you could totally you could totally do that.

Is this something that someone's working out with? This is a robot fightly again, San Francisco. Oh, so actually, this is a buddy of mine who's been working in VR for a really, really long time.

So it's again, what a tiny world of weird wackos. But yeah, Six Live has been working on, which is his real name, by the way. He's been working on

VR stuff for the past 15 years, and he recently got into doing this this this robot robot combat sports league so that's that they're doing a bit they're doing a big u.s versus china fight in December if you want me to get you tickets i can i can make it happen i can pull some strings where is it where is it taking place i think it's going to be in san francisco that's funny i try to stay out of san francisco i also don't same really want to watch robots fight no i don't mind watching them on tv but yeah did you ever uh you ever see you ever read manga or

anime about fighting? No. One of the, so I'm, I'm, I gotta admit, I'm less of a fighting guy, more of an anime manga guy, but I love some of the just ridiculous inventions that then make you think if there might be something there.

So like, Fist of the North Star, there's a move that a guy learns, and it's like a, I forget the name of it, but it's like a double punch. So what you do is you fold your fingers and you punch the guy. Right. And then, like, his skin recoils, it delivers the full hit. And then

you fold your fingers in, so you hit, fold your fingers, and then punch again. And it's like one punch, but it's a double punch. And then one of the culmination of his training is where his master

shows him that there's actually a final step. You can see where this is going. It's a triple punch. So you punch him like this and then like this and then like this. And mostly that stuff is nonsense and never going to work with a person, but it makes me wonder if a robot could do it.

Well, you would need momentum, right? I mean, if it's generating force, your force would be stopped, with the first blow to be able to generate additional momentum in a short distance

would be very difficult for a person so what I'm thinking is a robot would allow you to do this this type of multiple muscles it's using a different force

exactly so your first one would carry all your inertia through and then you could you get a second one because you would think you would want the most power in the first shot and concentrate only on that

but what if you could do the most power in the first shot and then another follow shot anyway or like you hit him and it throws him back of it and then the moment, you know, the distance it creates, look, I'm not a fighting expert. I'm a, I'm a, I'm a, I'm a computer kid.

The thing, the what bothers me about it is the human body's inherently flawed. It's not a good design and it's not a good design for fighting. So if I was going to design something to fight something, I would never design it after a human. I would use an animal or something more destructive. I wouldn't use something so vulnerable or something with like shitty mechanics. Well, it ends up looking like a battlebot probably. Yeah. You know, something heavily shielded and armored and it's got a big spike on an arm.

It would be like that. That's what you would have for a robot to fight because a human is just too goofy. Well, I mean, that's why the stuff that I make for the Department of Defense, or I guess now the Department of War, none of it looks like a human. I mean, we're making robots for fighting, and they all have very hyper-specialized forms. And some of them look a bit like sharks or a bit like birds, but generally, you're right. The human form is not the one that you would actually base a Terminator off. No, it's terrible. It's terrible form.

Although I would say one of my, I don't think James Cameron ever really. explored this in Terminator, but my personal kind of like a head canon theory would be that the reason that Skynet made the Terminators into a humanoid form is because maybe there is really some

hope in that there's something of humanity left in it. If it was truly a merciless killing machine with no affiliation with humanity, why would it make its agents so uniformly human shaped? But that's just

That's just something I paused from time to time. I think it's just for deception. Well, the later ones truly were for deception. But if you look at a lot of the flashes into the future, they don't have meat shielded Terminators. There's lots of like T-Series humanoid combat robots that are just walking around as bare metal skeletons.

And so I feel like that it's almost like an admission that the AI does see itself in the mind. It sees itself as a creation of man. and it sees itself in the eyes of man. That was very creepy, right? Because that's in the Bible. God created man in his image. That's exactly what I was thinking. It's like it's very much like it realizes it was created in man's image and derive some sort of satisfaction or value from that.

I don't know if that's good or bad, but I thought it was interesting. And that's how life eventually does create artificial life. Well, I mean, you're familiar with all like, you know, like all the theories around, you know, like humanity being like planted here by. Oh, yeah. And like that's always interesting because, you know, you could imagine a world where, yeah, it is this cycle of things that look kind of like humans were on top of us and maybe eventually there will be things that look like humans beneath us. Wasn't there some weird discovery, recent discovery of an asteroid where they picked apart, whether it's the crucial amino acids for life or some sort of genetic material? You're talking about the NASA release that there were strong, like biosign. that are compatible with what we would expect from life.

Yes. There was. And then I think recently, right? It was recently, although they walked it back pretty quickly. Oh, did they? There was kind of an initial release that said that we found that they're strongly aligned with being biological signals. And then they kind of reached back. They said, well, maybe not.

I haven't dug into that one as deep as others. I've just been too busy really lately. And you're right, this is like very recent news. I always wonder if someone got overenthusiastic or if someone said, hey, yeah, why don't you shut the fuck up? You know, like we're trying to slow this whole release of alien technology, alien life, slow it down, trying to keep society together. So we have a stock market. Well, the good news in this case is I think even in the most optimistic sense. And optimistic meaning, I hope they find life.

I think it's going to end up being, you know, some microbes. It's not, whatever they saw was not consistent with, you know, oh, dude, it's a person in the rock. Right. Which is, of course, what we all want. We want either people or, you know, little green men or something like that. That's probably going to be pretty far away. It probably is. And it seems, I mean, my experience on this front is largely from a military angle and looking at a lot of the footage that's coming out and a lot of the sensor feeds that have come out.

and the thing that what we like what we really need even more than discovering microbes like these flying objects yeah the problem is that most of them most and I'm not saying all of them most of them they we're only capturing them on let's say one sensor like a camera is seeing it or a radar is seeing it's very rare to get both of those totally different types of sensors looking at the same time it's relatively easy to imagine a world where a sensor would have an error or an artifact or even that's being actively spoofed right like people are actively trying to trick it you can make radars see things that aren't there. You can make cameras see things that aren't there if you're really smart about how you interact with them. It's very hard to make something that makes a radar

and a camera see something that isn't there in a way that perfectly aligns with what is there. Now you saw the recent one with the hellfire that was fired and it appears to have broken up

but then kept moving. That's interesting because now you have something that's on a camera and you sent another thing with a seeker and it got there and it blew up.

Is that definite real footage? I mean, I believe... It's been verified? I am probably not in a position where I should say if I know if it's been verified, but I'll tell you this, I believe the footage is real. Let's run out through perplexity and ask... What do you mean by verified, though? Just ask if it has been verified that this is legitimate footage from the military of whatever they thought it was going to be and a hellfire missile hits it. I do believe that one of the members of the unidentified aerial phenomenon committees in...

Congress introduced it into a hearing. That's where it came from. It came from a hearing. Yeah. Who released it? It didn't just, like, show up on Twitter. Oh, okay. Which guy released it? I want to... I don't know. I don't want to speak out. You saw the phenomenon? Yes. Fantastic. It's really good.

You know, the guy who did it is doing a follow-up. Have you heard about this? What's you doing? This episode is brought to you by the farmer's dog. We all know ultra-processed food isn't good for us as humans. Why would it be any different for our dogs? The farmer's dog is real fresh food for dogs, and their recipe goes beyond just using good ingredients. It's all about how they use them. Unlike most pet food, they always use real meat and vegetables and gently cook them to retain vital nutrients without any of the bad stuff that comes from ultra-processing. Their food is developed by a team of on-staff, board-certified vet nutritionists who make sure it's all complete and balanced, and it's backed by research and made to human-grade safety standards.

It's portioned for your dog, making it easy to manage their weight. And they label each pack with your dog's name that lets you know that this food is truly packed for them. Plus, they have 24-7 customer support, so you can chat with real dog people who care about your dog any time. The farmer's dog says good ingredients matter, but the best recipes call for so much more. Head to thefarmer's dog.com slash rogan to get 50% off your first box. free shipping. This offer is for new customers only. You know, I probably shouldn't say too much more, but there's, there's a follow-up to it that's coming that's even. Wait a minute. Wasn't the phenomenon James Fox?

Was it James Fox? Was it phenomenon? It was. Say again? James Fox, was that the phenomenon? Yeah, but the age of disclosure? He had moment of contact. He had the Varsenia. That's the Virginia one. And then didn't he have the phenomenon too? somebody did it I saw it

why did I think it was Fox it is Fox yeah Fox has been on here a few times he's got that crazy one about the Virginia Brazil sighting do you know about that one

that one's nuts like the whole town saw this thing crashed in the 90s and they have like a statue of this thing like as you're entering the city and supposedly

this is the crazy story there was a wounded alien one of the police officers carried this wounded alien in the back of a car they brought it to a hospital there's records of them bringing this to the hospital

the hospital said we can't handle this we have no take it to a different hospital so they took it to another hospital then the guy who carried the thing gets a severe bacterial infection that's unresponsive

to antibiotics and dies whoa yeah young healthy you know fighting age man gets this weird infection after handling this creature Multiple witnesses say they saw another one of them. There was like a couple of them. One of them was injured that they picked up,

and there was another one that was there. And then many people in the town said that they saw another craft come by to retrieve those aliens. It's a really nutty story because it's the same story is told independently by a bunch of people. You know, I've kind of got my retirement figured out. And I have for a while. Can you just retire right now if you wanted to?

I mean, I could. It's just, what I'm doing, I think, is important. You know, so I got to, I got to see my mission through. Like, the government is, we've been spending way too much money on defense, not getting nearly enough for it. So I started Androl with the goal of saving taxpayers hundreds of billions of dollars a year. I need to, I need to see that through. But what I get to someday is, uh, see, there's a handful of these government groups that are going around looking into things like what you're talking about. You know, like they look into the strange phenomenon.

Right. Um, those groups do exist. And I've tracked down a few of them. them. The problem is that they're not taken seriously. They're not well-funded. And they're subject to all the same normal rules as an average government employee. Like, their problems are not, you know, finding weird things. It's stuff like getting approval to buy plane tickets to go somewhere and, you know, getting approval to stay there for two nights versus one night. Really? Oh, look, it's just the, it's the typical government bureaucracy where they have to make every penny count.

They only have so much money. Anyway, one of my dreams is I'm going to, at some point, when I'm retired, I'm going to go get deputized by the government, go get my federal badge, and I'll be the government's privately funded X-Files. And I'll just fly around, I'll fly around my own plane, I'll have my own team, we'll bring our own sensors, our own computers. Oh, man, if only we could bring in this expert, but he's on the other side of the world. So bring him in, bring him in, send the plane. Yes, sir. Put out the Palmer signal. Yes, sir, he'll be here in 12 hours. I feel like there's a And not even just aliens.

In general, there's enough weird stuff going on that it doesn't seem like a stretch to have somebody or something that really stays on top of that stuff. It seems like a very good idea. Did you see the age of disclosure? Did you see the documentary? Age disclosure. No, I haven't seen that. It's a new one. And it has a hypothesis.

It has a theory of why there hasn't been disclosure. And a lot of it has to do with the legal implications. Because too many people have been misappropriating fun. if this is real. Sure. So if this is real. Like if there's recovered alien crash objects, if those have been parceled out to private companies. Exactly.

That's exactly the dilemma. So say if, let's say, just to make up a name, Lockheed Martin gets it. And they have this back-engineered craft that they're working on. But then Raytheon doesn't get it. Raytheon should be able to sue the government. Like, why'd you do that is an unfair competitive advantage. Also, the people that are in charge of the projects. There's all this money that they have to lie to Congress about.

And so in this documentary, one of the things that they're proposing, guys like Lou Elizondo and like, what is the path to sanity with all this stuff? One of the things that they're proposing is amnesty. Just give like blanket amnesty. Tell us what the fuck you know. Let's go. And I still have a limited time amnesty. And the amnesty only applies to what is disclosed in this amnesty. It doesn't apply beyond that.

But also if it's government, you know there's a lot of fraud and waste. Sure. So even if these guys are just monkeying around with billions of dollars, there's a little yacht here, a little vacation here. Yep. A little Cayman Islands there. You know, like, so stuff is probably, it's probably real ugly. Right. Which is, and they've been doing this for, if it's real, they've been doing this for decades.

Yep. With no oversight. Yep. So they probably are, they're a little wild. I mean, it's just across the board. Our country's been spending so much money on what is supposed to be for national security. but in reality it's a lot of it has nothing to do with that

and so that was why I got into that was why I got into the defense base isn't that with everything though right it's like that's how it is with charities as well it's with everything but it's a question of how you can apply targeted pressure as a private individual right so yeah like charities there's a lot of

a lot of graft going on but what can I really do to stop that at each of these charities right like there's there's no one charity that kind of dominates right it's it's a it's a thousand it's a thousand grains of rice, whereas the Department of Defense is one giant entity with a trillion dollar a year budget. And so it's much easier.

Like if you wanted to, you call it, like save $100 billion a year for taxpayers, you kind of have to go after the big concentrated chunks. Like you might be able to do that going after like health care problems, maybe education problems, definitely going after Department of Defense problems. And I know a lot more about how to build good technology than I do about health care. Like, if these were all private companies, they would never survive the way they're running. Correct. Well, I mean, yeah, these government agencies, when they make mistakes, they don't go out of business.

And, in fact, they can make bad mistakes over and over and over again and still remain in business. It's, I do think, I think we're turning a corner with some of this. Did you see the new Secretary of the Army, Dan Driscoll's AUSA talk yesterday? No, I just not. Oh, man, it might be worth pulling it up. He pulls up this piece, this piece of hardware, and he's like, hey, like, this little thing, like, it costs this insane amount of money, and we were able to make it in our own lab just 3D print it for, like, $10. And so that's what we're going to be doing now. And he, like, he killed the joint light tactical vehicle program.

He killed this new kind of boondoggle of a robotic tank program where it was going to be millions of dollars for these robot tanks. that we're going to get blown up by $300 drones. And so he, I mean, there's just kind of been like no rules, just going and axing all of the dumb stuff that doesn't make sense. And then taking a knife to these companies that have been charging way too much money, which is very different from the past. It's very rare. It has been a long time since you saw a secretary level official being willing to publicly contraindicate defense companies and say you're screwing over taxpayers and it ends here. So I'm actually pretty optimistic about this across the services. I think people are fed up.

Do you think Doge sort of started that ball moving and then that direction, that direction is sort of momentum is headed on its side right now? I think the Doge thing was interesting because it wasn't even the technique so much. Like the techniques where they kind of went into the data on like USAID and looked through all of this stuff and like basically where the data science of it is what allowed them to find the graft. That doesn't really apply to finding the problems in DOD because it's just so much more deeply buried. But it kind of gave people permission to go look at these things.

Like, it gave people permission to even say, I believe there is billions of dollars in waste in my department. I'm going to do something about it. I don't think people felt like they had like psychic permission to do that five years ago. Oh, wow. That's interesting. Well, I mean, let's go to like kind of like. So you just didn't want to rock the boat. Well, I mean, let's go to like the height of and, you know, not even making it political.

just timeline-wise, go to the, like, the middle of the Biden administration. Could you imagine any official in that area, like secretary or chair or anybody coming out and saying, my department is wasting billions of dollars? We are taking money from taxpayers and using it on absurd nonsense. That would never happen five years ago. And I think the Doge stuff gave people permission to come out and say that and for them to be seen not as, you know, crazy, but as just being. honest about the truth. So when you see, like, the Secretary of the Army come out and say,

we are wasting billions of dollars on total bullshit and we're getting, we are getting screwed this, that way, and the other. I think that's a really, that's a really good development. Well, it also seems like it's a really shitty way to compete with other countries that operate very efficiently, like they're private companies. Correct. Other countries, like China, the government fully embedded in private companies and the private companies are competing Civil military fusion. Right. Well, and it goes even beyond that.

We're like, you know, central planning has downsides, but it does have upsides. And one of the interesting things there is also, like, there are some people who are being accused of corruption because they just want to kill them and get them out of the way for political reasons. There's other people who are actually corrupt and they're going in. And when people are wasting money, they're not going and saying, oh, well, you kind of wasted a few billion dollars. But, you know, we're going to give you another shot and try this again. they just they just they just they just imprisoned then for treason and or kill them i'm not saying that's what we should do exactly but i think that there's a scale to all of these things on scale of you know give them another shot versus shoot them in the head for treason we could probably

move in that direction without going all of the way and it would probably be healthy for our country's national security would that be the like if you ideally would it be that all this national security stuff was handled by a private company would that be like ideal in terms of efficiency, in terms of technological innovation, implementing ideas. I think that, look, like, private companies. I'm not suggesting that. I'm just saying like, no, no, so, look, I've got, I mean, look, I've got a strong, I've got a strong opinion here.

I think that what you want, it's not a private company. It needs to be done by competing entities, right? And so if it's private, and at least one of them has to be private. So, like, I don't even really mind the government doing something if they're not being favored. In other words, if there's some government office that is competing with multiple private sector companies... Like the post office versus UPS. Exactly. Although, that's

a little unfair in that... I don't know how deep... By the way, I'm very deep on this. Like, I don't understand why we give the U.S.PS a monopoly on normal mail. Are you familiar with this whole bit? Yeah, it's a little weird. It's... Like, we would never... They're the only way you can get chickens shipped, too. I didn't know that. Yeah, if you have

baby chicks, they send them through the regular mail, but they won't send them UPS. That's so interesting. Well, it's the same thing with firearms. You can only send them USPS. You can't send them. So, like, I don't know why we've given a private company a monopoly. If there was a private company that had the same monopoly that the USPS does, and they were using it to send, you know, a hundred pounds of junk mail to every American every year, there's no way they would survive. Like, they would be regulated out of existence. Yeah, right. But, you know, what you really want is competition. You want

organizations, private or public, that when they trip and fall, they skin their own knees instead of getting bailed out by taxpayers. You want them to, you live in fear, be highly competitive. And by the way, this is- Make their audits, by the way. Yeah, exactly. And they have to survive an auditing process. They have to be accountable to, you know, whether it's a board or to, you know, some

committee. And the problem is right now we don't have a lot of that. I will say, though, you asked, should these national security, you know, programs be in the hands of private companies? I think that's true for the development of the technology. However, it can never, ever be in the hands of private companies. private companies when it comes to the actual national security policy of what we are building or who we are building it for or where it should go.

Of course. I get people all the time who come to me, usually people who are more skeptical of government. And yet they say, Palmer, aren't there countries you would commit to never building for? You know, like, would you just build for whoever gives you money? And I say, well, look, my job is to do what the government tells me. They're the, you know, they're the ones who decide who are going to work war or not. They say, how could you do that? How could you work with this country or that country?

How could you build this type of system or that type of system? And my point to them is, do you want to live in a corporatocracy where big tech CEOs get to decide the de facto foreign policy and military policy of the United States? Like, you should, if I were in a position to make those decisions, something's gone very wrong in this country because you can't vote me out. You can't elect my competitor. And so a lot of people who normally are skeptical of the government and government power and overreach. Suddenly, they look to the private sector for, oh, like the private sector is going to regulate this. To me, that's the most, like, cyberpunk dystopian thing either. Imagine, like, me and a bunch of weapons executives sitting in a room, be like, so, which countries are on the green list this year?

Hmm, I don't know. I was thinking we could sell some missile defense to those guys, and I think we should sell some offensive weapons. Those guys are like, no, that has to be the government, unless you just don't believe in democracy at all, right? Like, if you believe that the system, that we cannot elect officials that are accountable, then that's a different thing. But I'm not that black-pilled. I'm not that black-pilled either, but I'm getting there. I know. Look, sometimes I see it too.

I mean, I think that what it is is inevitably when you have a pendulum, sometimes it will swing too far. But I think the good news, it can correct. I mean, like, look at a lot of our misadventures in the Middle East as a really good example, where there were a lot of things, like, the government caused a lot of things to happen. I think never would have happened and people really know the truth behind a lot of those actions. But in the end, we did have the ability to hold them accountable. Now, the real problem is that people didn't hold them accountable. Like, there's a lot of people today where they're not really that worked up about some of these people in government who lied to us. But I would say that's a fault of the American people, not of the democratic process.

It just means people don't care about that issue as much, which I think they should care more. I think they're also not that informed, like universally. Now, is that because they don't want to be or because they can't be? It's difficult because most people don't have time. I think that's a big part of it. That does make it hard. That does make it hard. But I mean, I think that, you know, not to butter you up, but this is one of the things where shows like yours have made a huge difference where they've been able to take things that are pretty complex for a person to figure out from first principles.

Stories that they would never read about in establishment media, like let's say the New York Times or Wall Street Journal, which, by the way, is dependent on continued access to the U.S. government. They can't just go out and burn everybody in the government or nobody will ever talk to them. Right. You've taken a lot of these stories and put them into a format where the guy who's busy, he's in his truck, he's on his way to the work site, can actually become informed on these issues. And as someone who is a journalism major, I've been so happy to see that shift because I wanted to be a journalist because there were no good technology journalists. And I was good at technology. Figured I was going to beat all these guys and be a better technology journalist. In the end, I ended up dropping out of school and starting Oculus instead.

That worked out. This is an ad by BetterHelp. We have a lot of big holidays coming up, but before you start preparing for trick-or-treaters or make plans for travel for Thanksgiving, there's one other big day you should focus on. World Mental Health Day. It's October 10th, and if you don't know already, it's a great day to send some love to therapists. Maybe a therapist has made a positive impact on you or someone you love. therapists listen, ask the right questions, and help someone move forward. They can help you if there's something keeping you up at night.

If you're looking for a safe space, BetterHelp is a good place to start. They've spent the past decade helping people connect with the right professional therapist and based on the millions of highly rated reviews, it's safe to say they do a great job. BetterHelp does most of the work for you too. All you have to do is fill out a quick questionnaire. This World Mental Health Day, we're celebrating the therapists who've helped millions of people take a step forward. If you're ready to find the right therapist for you, BetterHelp can help you start that journey.

Our listeners get 10% off their first month at BetterHelp.com slash J-R-E. That's BetterH-E-L-P dot com slash J-R-E. But yeah, I think you would agree it is getting easier to become educated on these things. Like, 10 years, what would you have done? It isn't America, but it's a little disconcerting. Like, when you see the way they're handling things in Europe. Oh, sure. Like, it's getting really weird in the UK, 12,000 arrests this year for social media posts about immigration,

and now they want everybody to have a digital ID. You got a license for that meme, mate? Yeah, it's getting really weird. And, you know, as that. rests for uh posting a disturbing or offensive content yes or annoying could i share a little story sure um this has been so funny watching watching this in the uk because so i the first thing i ever did that anyone cared about was called mod retro so it was this internet forum for people modifying game consoles making making making portable versions of in of old game consoles

upgrading modern game consoles anyway when we started the site it was me and a few other people who were kind of running it. I was the founder and there were a few other co-administrators. And one of them was this British guy who went by the online handle of bacteria. And I won't say his real name because it doesn't matter. But he was a British guy. He worked in very, very low level British government. So like not a higher up at all. But he worked in a government, government agency, government office. And he was always, I think of all the people on this forum, which was mostly like teenagers and college students. He was kind of like the older guy. oh we need to be kind about what we say

you know that we shouldn't say anything that is bad and he was always pushing that our rules should say it's that it was against our rules to offend anybody and you shouldn't be able to say anything that was that was too offensive and you we mostly just made fun of him aha he's the old British man you know and but what's interesting is

he ended up eventually leaving the site because he thought people were being too mean to each other and he started his own competing website and the rule number one was no content that make that may make any member feel demeaned uncomfortable or insulted. We're like, well, I mean, and we're all making fun of that.

We were making our own little image macros and memes about it. Like, we actually made some fake ads for his website and put them on Facebook. And it said, come join the bacteria's website. Nobody will say anything to you that might offend or displease you. But what's interesting is, as all this UK stuff has come around, I've remembered these kind of like long-forgotten childhood memories. I was like 13 or 14 at the time. and I think it really is partly a cultural reflection for them

like there are a lot of people in the UK who genuinely think it's good to police this stuff they don't want people to be able to go out and just cause a ruckus you know to say things that are insulting in the streets and of course you have people who are protesting against that but I think also their surveillance state you know where there's cameras everywhere it's actually a reflection of different cultural norms and so the one good thing about what's going on in the UK

is I don't think it would ever come over to America very easily because culturally, you know, we're not walking around feeling like it's like we don't feel like it's a crime to insult people. They feel like it should be. Maybe perhaps some of them do, but I think it's so overwhelmingly moving towards tyranny. I think it's the majority. That's the crazy. Really? I think the majority of people want it that way. I think that the majority of people in the UK have no problem with people who post spicy memes getting a visit from the local constabulary.

Wow. Oh, really? That has been my experience. Now, there are people who disagree, of course. And, like, I would say maybe it's a growing group. They're a highly visible group. They're protesting. But if I had to bet, most people don't care.

Most people in the UK just don't care about it one way or the other. And I think the group of people who are on the side of the control is larger than the people who are not on the side. By the way, similar thing in China. You know, people talk about Chinese censorship on things like, you know, Tiananmen Square. And that's actually the majority Chinese opinion, too. If you talk to most Chinese people and you say, well, what do you think about the fact that they're censoring all this discussion? The typical, and I know lots of people in China, they say, that's an irrelevant issue from 30 or 40 years ago.

It doesn't matter. Anyone who's trying to make every discussion about Tiananmen Square is just a troublemaker. And I don't care if they're shut down. I'm glad that they're not clogging the comments. And I'm glad those people are being pushed out of the conversation. And that's such a pretty normal opinion. Don't cause trouble needlessly. Now, these same people might say, I have strong opinion.

about the COVID lockdown information locked down in China. Like they might say, I don't like that the Chinese government is locking down on, you know, locking us in our apartments. But when it comes to discussion of political issues, China, in general, they think that people who bring this up, like, you would just be a troublemaker. They just say, ah, that Joe Rogan, he's a troublemaker. Why is he bringing up all these problems from the past? It's irrelevant. Why are we allowing this guy to take up our public spaces?

Like, if you're public protesting in public space, they're not here. You've probably seen protesters you didn't agree with. said, you know, I'm glad they're, I'm glad they're doing something they believe. I'm glad George Soros has sending them checks. Maybe not those, but true grassroots. You know, the guys who scribbled. Look, it's important. But that's not a thing in China.

It's an important part of our First Amendment. People in China see that and they say, look at those troublemakers ruining my beautiful public space. It's a very interesting cultural value difference. Well, they also don't have any perception of the ability to change the government. That's right. That's right. There's no one party in power. I think we can do this.

I think we can push them out. I think, nope. Yep. You ain't fixing shit. So put your nose down, get to work. I wonder if that really is the difference. I mean, in Europe. It has to be.

Well, in Europe, you see. They kind of resign themselves to the fact that they're not participating. Yep. You know, it's a lot easier to be apolitical when it's a futile exercise. Yeah, it's like, what are you going to do? Stop being a troublemaker. Of course, you know, part of this, it comes down to an attitude. I mean, you're probably familiar with the numbers in the American Revolution.

Only about 3% of America supported the revolution. It was a really niche movement of very dedicated, motivated people. And so the best way to probably stop that 3% from existing in China is to convince them that it's futile and to kind of fuel that cynicism almost. You see this in Russia, too. I mean, military dictatorships. Same deal. One of the conclusions I've come to, you know, I work in the weapons industry and I've seen a lot of cool stuff. I've seen stuff that U.S. is making, that I'm familiar with a lot of the weapons systems that Russia and China have in.

fielding or in progress. Some of the stuff that China and Russia are doing, I mean, it's as sci-fi as what the United States is doing. But I've come to the conclusion that their most powerful weapon is not any bomb or missile or drone. It's their ability to control people's minds through the media, through propaganda, through kind of state pressure. They convince them to believe things about the world that weren't true, that aren't true.

And then they're basically making people willing to fight for causes that don't really exist. Like, a good example, this is Ukraine. a lot of the Russians who went to fight in Ukraine in the early days. I think the truth is out now. But when they were first invading, they were told that the people of Ukraine want to be liberated. You're going to be a hero. You're going to go over there.

They desperately want Russia to save them and reunify them. And it's just this, you know, Kiev-led, you know, cabal funded by the West that's barely holding on to the country and keeping and staying in power. And people in Russia really believed that. Like the guys who were fighting on the front lines, the guys who were flying tanks and helicopters, they believed it. When I went to Ukraine during the war, one of the things that I got to see was there was this helicopter wreck. It was an attack helicopter that was trying to seize an airfield of a private aerospace company. And the guys actually shot it down themselves.

Like they showed me videos of them wearing polo shirts shooting down the helicopter in their parking lot. I mean, it's like crazy shit. So the pilots kind of go bag This bag with all of his emergency And survival gear in it It had three or four days of water Three or four days of food

Another flight uniform His dress uniform with dress shoes Because they were told they were going to be They said this is going to be a five-day military operation There's going to be parades So Dress uniform And then 50 condoms

This guy thought that he was going to be He thought the women were going to be all over him They were going to need to We need 50 condoms for the post-war celebration. Wow. And to me, that speaks to how brainwashed this guy was. And remember, helicopter pilots aren't like the dumb grunt, drag-I mean, he's probably one of the more highly educated people.

Right. And they convinced him that the people of Ukraine wanted him to liberate them and that they were going to be so happy to see him that he was getting in his dress uniform and 50 condoms. Wow. And there are a similar story. 50 is a lot. 50 is a lot. That guy's fucking up a storm.

That's crazy. I will give him a little crazy. doesn't take up that much space in your bag. But it's a lot. It's a lot. And this was not like the, well, this wasn't the only guy. Like, this was actually pretty common. Everybody had 50 condoms?

I don't know if everybody had 50, but a lot of guys had condoms. And a lot of people brought their dress uniforms. They thought that they were going to roll into Kiev, take over, the people wanted them to be in power, and that they were going to be marching around town. People would say, look, it's our liberators, our saviors. Now, of course, that's totally divorced from reality. Like whatever you, however you feel about the politics of Ukraine and Russia and the America, because they're all tightly intermingled.

Right. That's clearly not reality. And so what I worry about is, like the easy one is if China invades Taiwan, they're going to come with a similar story. They're going to trick their people into thinking, oh, Taiwan wants to be reunified. You're fighting for the better cause. But then the really spooky thing is what happens when our media pulls the same stunt? I would argue that what we did in the Middle East was driven by really not that different, right? I mean, a lot of the justification for going over there and doing this nation building.

I mean, we were told all these stories, oh, they want, they don't want, they want to get out from under the Taliban. They don't want to have these, you know, tribal rule. They do want democracy. And in reality, we were kind of sold a bill of goods that just wasn't true. So it's easy to make fun of the Russian with his 50 condoms, but we're not really that much better. Well, we also had a very distorted sense of what war is in the 20th century and in the 21st century because of Desert Storm. Yes. So Desert Storm, we were like, where the fucking shit? We're just going to roll in and kick everybody's ass. And it happened so quickly with so minimal casualties. And my grandpa, he wasn't military, but he was a United Airlines pilot for 45 years. And he was part of the civilian support element for Desert Storm. So he actually has a letter from the Secretary of the Air Force that they sent to all of the commercial pilots who are bringing troops and equipment back and forth for a few days. I mean, they were flying like crazy 24-hour shifts getting people in and out. But, I mean, like, I remember my grandpa.

He, you know, he came out of that saying, man, nobody can stop us. I mean, we are just, we are unstoppable. If we want to go in and do something, we just go get it done. And, I mean, he was convinced, you know, but you're right. I think everybody was convinced by that. That's what everybody thought in the 1990s. They thought that the United States government and the military was so much more powerful. And it probably was.

It was for a while. Relatively speaking. Relatively speaking. For a while. Now, technology seems to be shifting all that stuff in a very weird place. Yep. And this is where I get concerned with China because they have complete compliance. Yep.

Like their government and their private corporations, they are the same. They work together. And the stuff that they're producing in terms of like, if you pay attention to their electric cars. Oh, yeah. They have a 300 mile an hour car now. They're and their cars are extremely cheap and they are extremely good. Good. Extremely good. Really nice cars. Crazy technology in terms of like the ability to absorb bumps. Have you seen how smooth they are? They put champagne glasses on them. So one of the,

that one I will push back a little bit. I've seen the demo you're talking about. There are German and U.S. cars that do that type of thing, but they're not the cars that people want here. So this is a whole other interesting cultural. Oh, what are the car? Well, so think, so it's, this is, this is one of my, this is such an interesting rabbit hole. So in China, people with money don't drive cars they're driven that like that that is the culture you don't drive you are driven

if you have really any money of course there's a few rich guys buying sports cars but in general the wealthy in China don't buy cars to drive themselves and so for example Tesla has a China exclusive model of the Model S which has teeny tiny little front driver and passenger seats

and then it has two seats in the rear with extremely long leg room not like three in a row but like just two giant chairs, and they kind of cram the, they cram the driver way forward to create this gigantic path. I think it doesn't even have a trunk. That's right. They pulled the trunk out of it even,

or maybe it's just way smaller. And in China, that's what people want. So, like, they're best-selling Mercedes-Benz, even American brands like Buick. We have these cars that are made to be driven in. So as a result,

their most luxurious, most expensive cars have suspension that is designed to absorb all of the bumps, be extremely smooth, because, you know, riding in the back, and it creates terrible mushy road feel for the driver. In America, rich people, they want to drive, and you want to feel the road. You know, you want that sports car.

And even our SUVs, people generally want that sports car-like feel. And so I guess I will push back only on the champagne glass thing because I've seen people saying this a lot. Believe me, there are a handful. You can buy an American Buick or even a Mercedes that is that good. but they're just not very popular here. In China, cars like that are much more popular. Cars that feel like shit to drive for the driver and are super mushy and bouncy,

but for the guy in the back, his champagne glass doesn't fall over. That's interesting. So when it gets to a certain price point, then it becomes all about the passenger. Exactly. And it's almost, it's not even when it gets to a certain price point. Long before you're buying a $100,000 car, you're being driven around.

Like, even if you're halfway there, you're being driven around. people again rich people there they don't drive they are driven it's a it is a cultural thing it's it's a sign that you've made it as well oh and also remember that their their wages are so much lower that it's much more accessible it's kind of like how you have these countries where like almost anybody who's middle class uh in like the in southeast asia has a live-in uh nanny and a live-in housekeeper it's it's a little bit like that where like if you get to a certain point uh and that happens pretty fast you have have a driver. If you don't have a driver, people are like, what else is going on? Like, you're an eccentric if you are a rich guy who drives himself around. That's weird. It is weird. But they do have sports cards over there. Like the electric sports car that goes 300 miles an hour. They do. And I would say largely, those are export-focused. China knows. The broader markets want this. Did they sell them in America at all?

They don't, but that's largely due to American policy being very protectionist against Chinese cars. The reason that Chinese manufactured cars have not taken over the U.S. is not because Americans don't want them. By the way, that seems kind of crazy because Japanese cars are ubiquitous. Japanese cars are ubiquitous from Japanese brands, but many or most of them are actually, exactly. Like the most American car you can buy, I think right now, it's either a Nissan or a Toyota outside of Tesla. Like, Teslas are made in the U.S., but I think the most, I can't remember. It's either a Nissan or Toyota is the most American pickup you can buy.

right now. Wow. And it's because we have a lot of our parts, even for our U.S. made cars made in Mexico, made in Canada, or made in Japan. That's such a dirty trick for someone who wants to drive a Chevy because they feel like it's an American brand. I'm buying American. I agree. Helping American jobs. But here's the, well, this is the point I was trying to get to

is here's the problem. Let's say you said we're going to make an all-American version of the Chevy, and it's 10% more. People wouldn't buy it. Like, that's when I say that, like, people, I think unfortunately, would buy these Chinese cars if they were for sale in the United States. People can say they want to support the U.S. But at the end of the day, they want to provide the best quality of life for their

family. They have a fiduciary duty to do so. And so if they need to buy, like if they have a choice between an American truck or a Chinese truck, a Chinese new TV and a Chinese new computer and a Chinese new HVAC system and a phone. And their phone, how can I blame them for choosing the Chinese one. Right. The only way we can solve this is for the United States to become competitive with China again, which means we need to get our energy costs down. We need to get our resource extraction cost down. Like, you know why these cars in China are cheap? It's not magic. It's because the cost of resource extraction is lower. The cost of making steel and aluminum is lower.

The cost of building a factory is lower. And that's why you're able to buy a awesome car for $10,000 in China. And here, the cheapest thing you can buy is a shipbox for $17 or $18,000. I mean, like, it's bad. Like, have you ever driven a $17,000 car? What do they have that's $17,000? I think you can buy a Chevy Volt or something. So not, not, so there's the, I think you can buy a Chevy Spark, which is actually not an electric car.

The Bolt, the Bolt was an electric platform. I think you could buy a Chevy Spark. I think you buy Nissan Versa. Those are the two cheapest cars in America right now, I think. Both of them, I believe you can get them out the door for less than $20,000. And look, they're, I'm sorry. I'm sorry Chevy. I'm sorry Nissan. I like those brands, but these cars are not the stewards of the brand. They're the college student ship boxes. Just transportation. And you can buy a car like that in China for three or four thousand dollars. Three or four grand. We'll get you a car that here is almost 20 grand. And again, it's not magic. They're not genius. And people also like they kind of have this. There's this current attempt to kind of mythologize. Like, oh, well, they're geniuses. Like they're just so good at it. If we would just do the basics right, we can be competitive. But we but we aren't doing the. basics right. We've made energy so competitive and materials fabrication so expensive. I mean,

how could we compete? I was watching an interview where I believe it was someone from Ford. One of the engineers from Ford made a visit to China. It was the CEO of Ford even, even better. And he went with his whole engineering team. Yeah, and was humbled. That's right. Just like, oh, no. Well, I think he said when he came back, he said, I wanted to take the SUV. I was driving back home with me. I mean, that's like he said, it's that good. I didn't want to stop driving. it. That seems kind of fucked. I mean, that's very anti-competitive of us. You mean that we're locking the Chinese out? It's kind of a bitch-ass move. Look, so like I lean libertarian

and in general I'm a fan of free markets. There is something that makes us tricky, though. You tank the economy. Well, there's tanking the economy and there's also, it isn't actually free. So we do need to do a better job on the basics, but China is also subsidizing these. Right? So they're actually putting money from other industries to prop up these other industries. And so even if you let them freely compete, like if you let them go toe to toe,

China would be thrilled if they could subsidize their way into destroying the American automotive apparatus. Partly for economic reasons, but there's another reason that I don't know if you've thought of. How did the United States win World War II? I know that's a big picture question. A lot of it was manufacturing. Exactly.

And that manufacturing, some of it was new factories, but most of it was taking over old factories. So we took all of our farm implement factories, you know, like John Deere and Caterpillar, they were building tanks and guns. We took all our automotive factories. We had them building aircraft. We had them building weapons.

We had them building missiles. In fact, we even designed those weapons so they could be manufactured by those plants. But like to literally the specifics of how thick of a gauge of metal you could bend to a certain radius. We were limited by the automotive manufacturer. machines as to what we could do in aircraft. And so we won because we had all of this

automotive and other industrial capacity. China would love to wipe out the American automotive industry, partly for economic reasons, because it also means we will never be able to fight a war against them. Imagine in America with not, like we've lost a lot of manufacturing. You're probably familiar with that. I mean, like we don't make nearly as much as we used to, but we still make a few things. We still have some things that we do. And cars is one of them. export those cars. We're doing okay on cars. If China could wipe out our industrial

capacity entirely, they never need to worry about fighting a war with the U.S. again because they know that we wouldn't be able to get back in the game fast enough to matter. And so that's China's aim there. And it gets back to what you talked about earlier. It's the civil military fusion. So this is a

there's the economic war and the kinetic war that they could win with one move, which is out competing our automotive industry. That's interesting. I never did think of that. Well, and like, and Ross to think about this all the time, because unlike a lot of these other defense companies that are designing weapons that can only be made by really fancy high-end bespoke factories, we're designing weapons that can be made in existing American industrial capacity. So, like, we make this line of cruise missiles, the barracuda. We make three different barracuda missiles. It has 90% fewer parts than legacy cruise missiles. It can be made with 10 tools that all exist in every automotive place. So you could make this missile at mass scale in any GM facility, in any Ford facility.

And that's really important for us because if you can only make your missiles in this specialized factory that took you 10 years to set up, well, what in the world do you do when you need a hundred times more of those missiles made every day? You're just kind of screwed. And so the United States has been doing better at this. I think like the Air Force is doing better, the Navy is doing better, the Army is doing better. The Army has a whole transformation initiative where they want all. all of their new weapon systems

to be highly manufacturable at scale using real industrial capacity and working with private companies from the beginning to make sure that any... They want to make sure that any new system that they are building can be built by the American industrial economy. Not only these specialized,

you know, specialized aerospace technicians of which they're just not that many. That's very smart. How... And China does this, by the way. Like, this is China, China, China, have you seen the automated cruise missile factories that China has? I haven't. Oh, man, you've got to look this up at some point.

There's some videos that they put out there and they have this totally robotic line just churning out. I've seen their shipping ports. It's bananas. Oh, well, I mean, so China has 300 times more naval shipbuilding capacity in the United States. The time that it takes us to build one aircraft carrier, they could build 300. Now, they're not building a bunch of aircraft carriers. They're mostly focusing on other things that are more relevant. relevant to what they want to do, which is invade Taiwan.

So amphibious landing craft primarily. But another thing China does is they actually require many of their commercial vessels that have nothing to do with the military to build to military standards for two reasons. One, because it means that all the shipyards are being built to handle military standards. Two, they plan on basically they're going to press all of these civilian vessels into service. So they're saying, hey, you have this roll-on, roll-off car ferry that's used for moving cars around, for delivering cars to the United States. You have to build it to deck plate pressures that allow us to roll a bunch of tanks onto it so that we can then use it to deliver tanks to Taiwan from the Chinese mainland. And they're just requiring people to do that.

And so even their civilian shipping fleet is actually this kind of military ghost fleet just sitting in the open, pretending to be civilian. But the moment the shit hits the fan, it becomes part of the war machine. And so they've done a great job integrating in a way the United States is not. Do you think that an invasion of Taiwan is imminent? It's not imminent, but it's coming. So Andrel has an internal policy called China 27. The idea is that anything we're working on, anything that we're investing in needs to be built with the assumption that sometime in 27, China is going to move on Taiwan. And I might be wrong on this, right?

It might be never. it might be a longer term thing, but in general, like imagine how stupid I'll feel if I spend hundreds of millions of dollars building some new weapon system that I know is not going to come into service until the 2030s, which is what most experts say is outside of the window of when this invasion would happen. Wouldn't I feel pretty stupid if there's a gigantic fight and I've spent all my money on something that wasn't ready in time? I think that it is very likely that China moves on Taiwan for a variety of political reasons. So like Xi Jinping has this window politically where he can show that he's reunified China.

He's got a lot of demographic problems that are going to go out of control as he waits and people age. He's got a lot of economic problems where they're propping up their economy with a lot of kind of fake GDP, fake growth, fake demand, fake construction. And he's doing that, I think, to help build up his war machine. but it's not sustainable in the long run. So I think there's a window where they can do this. If you had to ask me, it's more likely that they don't do a full-scale invasion to start. It's much more likely that they do something like a blockade. So they'll come up with some pretense.

They'll say, oh, Taiwan is exporting goods that say made in Taiwan. And our position is that Taiwan is part of China. And therefore, they need to pay Chinese taxes on those made-in-China goods. So we're going to blockade their port and not let them export anything until they resolve this. And I worry, I worry about them kind of boiling the frog. You know, they blockade one port and then two ports and then the airports. And then the people of Taiwan are running out of money, running out of food, but you've boiled the frog enough where there's never a point where Taiwan really wants to fire the first shot and actually start a war. And certainly, like, I don't, I think you know I would agree here.

The U.S. probably should not start World War III. over a blockade of a port, right? That's a lot of... Boiling the frog is a great analogy. Boiling the frog, I think, is what China will do. And so what we need to do, and this is just my opinion, which is definitely biased. So to be clear, just so people know, nobody's going to dig it up and say, but Palmer, Palmer's obviously only saying this because he's got money in the game.

I will first say, I have plenty of money. I sold my first company for billions of dollars. I don't need to work. I could retire. I'm not doing any of this for the money. Defense, you make a lot less money for each. hour work you put in than you can make in tech or media or elsewhere. But I do a lot of work with Taiwan. So I just went to Taiwan a few weeks ago to personally deliver a bunch of missiles

and weapon systems that are specifically to counter a Chinese invasion. My opinion is that the United States, we don't want to get to a shooting war ourselves, right? Like, we want to avoid that. The United States needs to stop being the world police, stop sending our people overseas to die for other countries. And instead, we need to become the world's gun store. We need to say, hey, look, and, and, and, what do you need to do to be a good gun store, right? You got to keep stuff in stock. You got to keep things on the shelves. You need to be reasonably priced. You need to not arbitrarily cut off allies. Could you imagine if you went to a gun store and, and they told you, Joe, we're going to sell you this gun, but you can't use it over in, in that county. You can only use it in this one. And we're going to

tell you exactly how you can use it. We're going to be micromanaging you. And, we're going to be taking responsibility for how you use your gun. I mean, that would never work. You would never want to work with them. You'd say, I'm going to go to a different store. I'm going to go buy something. And that's what some nations are doing. Like, they're going to Russia.

They're going to China. They're going to India and buying systems because we're going in and telling them our weapons are expensive. They're never in stock. We never deliver them to you. And also, we're going to tell you what to do with them if we ever do give you to them. Like, did you know that Taiwan is $20 billion behind on arms delivery? from the United States.

They have $20 billion in orders that have not been delivered. And they're just, and they're, these are not like, these are not things they would maybe like to have. They need these yesterday. China could move in tomorrow. And the thing is, even a blockade, the best way to deter that is for Taiwan

to have the things that make them a very prickly porcupine, right? You want to have things like sea mining capabilities that make a blockade basically impossible to affect without destroying the entire fleet. You want things like missiles and counter missile systems. that make it impossible to lock in the country.

But we're $20 billion dollars behind. And, I mean, you've seen what's happened with Ukraine, where, I mean, like, there's an argument as to, you know, how we should arm them. Separate from that argument, you've probably seen, I mean, we can't even give them what they're asking for, even if we want to give it to them, because we don't have enough to even cover ourselves, right? Like, we can't just give them all of our Patriot missiles. We can't give them even purely defensive tools to protect.

their capital because we don't make enough of them. We don't have enough of them. They're too expensive. That's crazy to me. That is crazy. It is crazy. So I think the best way for the United States to contribute to world stability, again, stop being in the world police, start being in the world gun store, and get serious about it.

Instead of saying, well, it's okay that we're kind of are a crappy gun store because we're going to come and save your ass when shit hits the fan. We need, we're going to say, no, no, no, we're going to give everything you need to fight for your own freedom. Look, you're our friend, you're our ally. We'll give you everything you need. We'll give you support. We'll give you intelligence.

But we're not going to fight your wars for you. Because I don't think the American people have it in us to go do another two decades of adventures in the Middle East or adventures in Europe or adventures in Asia. We don't have it in us. Well, we're too informed now, too. The internet fucked all that game up. Oh, and I mean, arguably Vietnam, right? I mean, Vietnam, I think, was the war that changed everything there. because you had, I mean, you had war on TV.

You could see what was really happening. And we now know, with the benefit of hindsight, that it was all false flag that got us into it in the first place. That's right. I don't trust you anymore, you know, so. Well, you remember what George Bush said. He said, fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice.

Can't get fooled again. I remember that. Yeah, that was a good. That's one of my favorite George Bushism. I hear the theory I've heard is that he realized he was about to say, shame on me on camera and then the press would have obviously said George Bush

admits he got fooled quote shame on me I think he just forgot it maybe there's that one I think I think Bush was a pretty I think he was a sharper guy I think he was maybe not well spoken but I think he's actually pretty sharp

I think he just stumbled on his words Well what's stunning is you ever see his speeches when he was running for governor Texas I have not actually gone back and look at those No smooth as butter really smooth as butter super articulate you know different guy

it's weird I think it gets to a certain point with the pressure and the chaos and being the president and all the madness of the cameras in your face the magnitude of it all wears on people which is why they get so old I mean there's the I mean even you know the pictures

of Obama you've seen them you know he looks like a college student on his first inauguration and eight years later he looks like he's 50 years older yeah it's nuts but it's just the pressure the only one who's ever handled is Trump Trump looks young

It really is astounding how that's worked out. He's a freak. He's a genuine freak. Like there's no one like that guy. Which is the only reason why he survived all the shit they tried to put him through. It's the same reason why he can go through being president and it doesn't freak him out. Oh yeah. I think he's, it's like the Bruce Banner Hulk thing.

You know, that's my secret. I'm always angry. Right, right, right. I think what, it's, that's how it was for Trump. Trump was already living at the red line, nonstop, you know, getting like what, like four hours asleep? Yeah. about the sleep thing is that

I have it personally on good authority from a lot of people that it is true and nobody really disputes it except from time to time people

like people say the same thing about like Kim Jong-un they're like oh the glorious leader doesn't even need to sleep but with Trump's case it seems to somehow

actually be the case he has he got that old man no sleep power without getting all of the downside well some people just don't need

like Jock you know Jock willing Yeah. He sleeps four hours a night. Really? So same same thing. He works out like an animal. That's so interesting. It's just genetic, I think. I think there's, I think actually Huberman has identified what is the actual genetic component of it.

But there's some particular type of people that don't need, I'm not one of them, man. I'm not either. I need seven. I like six. If I could tolerate six, eight is, oh, I'm so good today. But if I can, if I get less than six, I'm a mess. Yeah. I need my sleep.

Significantly dumber. Like, if you've ever listened to a podcast and I'm stumbling, guaranteed I'm working on four. Oh, yeah? Yeah. I'm working on less than I wanted to because I got to bed at around two and then I was up at 6.30. But I can do that from today? Today? It was just, there's a lot going on.

It seemed fine. I'm not worried at all. The good news is it's the first day, right? The first day of sleep, you're okay. You're pulling on your reserves. Right. And then the second and the third day, then you start to get destroyed, at least for me. Uh-huh.

Me too. But then when I get behind, my wife gives me a hard time because I'll, I'll do what I call a mega sleep and I will sleep if I get way behind I'll sleep for 10, 11 hours straight and then that usually recharge It's a renewable resource That's the beautiful thing about sleep

I wonder what would happen if Trump slept for 11 hours Would it be like the most incredible version of Trump We've ever seen or would it throw him off? I mean he's set in his ways You're not going to change anything about that guy now Especially at 80 years old That's probably true I don't know if you know this but I was actually

one of the true Trump OGs. I wrote a letter to Donald Trump when I was 15 telling him that he should run for president. This was when he was considering running against Obama. Really? And how old are you now? I'm 33. Just turned 33.

Wow. So this was a long time. And actually, I not only, luckily, I sent a letter and I posted about it on Facebook, which I'm really happy about it. No, this wasn't, no, it wasn't 2015. No, this was when I was 15. I'm sorry.

I meant to say when I was 15. So, I mean, this is way back. This is like back in like 2009, 2010. So way before anyone else. And best friends, I posted it out on Facebook and I said, I think Donald Trump would be a better choice for president than any of these other guys. I want to see a businessman who signed both sides of a check before. And you look at the people who are running kind of the, you know, the modern parties, arguably the uniparty. And he's clearly not part of that.

And it was so, it was, it was, it's so wild. And people later, they're like, oh, Palmer, you know, Palmer was an early Trump supporter. You know, he supported him in 2016 because he probably because he loved Trump's, you know, extremist rhetoric. I'm like, oh, no, you don't even know. I loved his extremist rhetoric going back to 2009. But wasn't even that extremist then. It wasn't then.

This is the thing we played. He's been so, I mean, you've probably seen these interviews from the 80s where he says, we're getting rift off on trade. It's ridiculous. When he was talking to Oprah back when everybody loved him. That's right. Exactly. He's saying the exact same words.

Yeah. And today they say, oh, it's it. You remember when he was running and he was saying we were going to have over 3% GDP growth? And Obama said, there's no magic wand. There's like you can't, there's no magic wand. You can wave that gets you to 3% to 3%. And then Trump said in one of his speeches, he said, they told me not to say this. And they told me I can't.

He said, it's going to be 3%. And they told me not to say this, but it's actually going to be a more, a lot more. And of course, it ended up being far in excess of three. I think it was like four and a half percent GDP increased that year. And it's what year was this? I think this was his first year in office, so 2017. It was, yeah, that was 2017, right? Yeah, he was when he was inaugurated.

And the, it's one of those things, right? The easiest argument for Trump in those days was just, look, you don't have to agree with the guy on everything. But the real question is, do you believe that either party outside of Trump is going to, like, are they going to do well? Like you have the Democrat saying there's no magic wand to get growth and you have everyone else attacking Trump and saying, oh, you know, we're just going to do everything the same way the Republicans have always done it. By the strongest argument for Trump is that anybody would have been better than what the establishment was pushing in 2016. I think that's the best argument. Yeah. For me, one of the big ones was, you know, and I mean, I got in a lot of shit for this.

I gave $9,000 to a pro-Trump group that ran a single anti-Clinton billboard. It was a picture of her face that said too big to jail. And this was right after it had come out that she had been mishandling classified information, running an email server out of her own home. You probably remember the famous phrase where they asked her, you know, are you aware that your staff was directed to wipe that server? And she said, like with a cloth? Do you remember like with a cloth? I mean, it was just, it was, it was so, it was so absurd. But for me, one of the red lines was when Hillary and, and, and, you know, it's not really Hillary.

It's kind of, you know, the political machine of which she is just the face said that she would enforce a strict no-fly zone in Syria. And it's easy to say, oh, yeah, I would enforce a no-fly zone. And that sounds, oh, yeah, yeah, you know, keep, keep these bombers out of the air, keep these fighters out of the air. But what does that really mean? That means that you're saying you're going to shoot down Russian aircraft if they cross into airspace that doesn't even belong in the United States. It's like, I mean, it's practically an announcement that you're starting a world war to say, I am going to shoot. That is what enforcement of No Fly Zone is. And it was crazy to me.

Everyone says, oh, you know, it's Hillary. You know, Trump is an isolationist. And Hillary is the only one who understands what we need to do in Syria. I'm like, are you kidding me? Like, I'm not, without even taking a position on what we are doing in Syria or we're doing in Syria, I know better than to commit that we are going to shoot down Russian aircraft because they decide to fly in Syria. Syrian airspace. Like, we should not care about almost anything that much. And by the way, if we didn't do it, that's almost as bad.

Because now we've drawn a red line in the sand and we've let them cross it and we've shown that we're not actually serious. So, like, you shouldn't say that. You shouldn't act on it and you shouldn't not act on it. It's a lose, lose, lose every step of the way. And it's just politics is normal. That's right. And so, I mean, I would explain this to friends of mine and say, guys, I mean,

they say, oh my God, Trump's a warmonger. I was like, but Trump, you know, because I cared out this national security stuff pretty deeply then. I know, this was right when I was starting Andrew eight years ago. And so I was like dedicating my career to these national security problems. I was like, guys, how can Trump be the warmonger when he's the guy saying we need to stop fighting these wars, get out of these other countries, get our boots back in the U.S., and not get in a fight with Russia, China, or any other country that we don't have to get

into. And like, how can you say Trump's a warmonger and then support someone who says, we're going to enforce a no-fly zone in Syria? And I think a lot of people that was just really emotional. It was, it was, you can't reason people out of an opinion. They didn't reason themselves into. Well, one of the things that rocks people's world is you show them past videos of Hillary from 2008. You remember that video where she was more MAGA than MAGA. She's talking about the border. Talking about it. I think one of the phrases was, we have to send them back. Can you imagine? Can you imagine that day? We have to send them back. I mean, imagine it was her. I mean, this was her position. And she sounds like a hard-line Republican now.

Well, I mean, let's, another one to bring up is, uh, is also, like, gay marriage. Oh, yeah. I mean, I'll tell you, my personal view is that the state shouldn't be involved in marriage at all. It's actually a very recent invention. I don't know if you've ever dug into this. No. So state marriage licensure is a very recent development. There are people alive today who got married when you were not required of a marriage. marriage license. It was primarily a kind of a race-driven thing. States didn't want black men to marry white women. And they got terrified of that in the civil rights era. And so they all passed these rules about marriage licensure, many of them prohibiting interracial marriage. So basically,

marriage licenses were a way to enforce against interracial marriage. Because if marriage was a purely religious thing where you could just go to a pastor, get married, sign it in a Bible, the state had no power over it. And so they wanted to enforce their will on people. So marriage licensers very recent. My personal opinion is the state has no legitimate authority, constitutional or otherwise, to regulate marriage at all. Like, gay marriage is not even a question. It's, like, this is a religious, cultural, social ceremony witnessed before, and before your friends and your family. It is not something the state should be, they shouldn't have the right to give you a marriage license, nor to deny you one. Like, why do, like, are they getting done? How, what?

When did I give the state the ability to say it's illegal for me to get married without their permission? That's crazy to me. Anyway, so Hillary, you might remember, I mean, even in 2008, she was against gay marriage. And she was out there. She says, I believe that marriage is between a man and a woman. So here's someone who, like, I was on the state shouldn't be involved in it at all side. Hillary's on the, no, we should use state power to enforce what marriage is between a man and a woman. And then you have Donald Trump, who he's asked.

about it. He said, do you remember his quote on this? So, I mean, he had been to gay weddings. He had gay friends. And he was asked about it. And he said, well, look, marriage, okay? It's like a restaurant. You've got steak. You've got burgers and different people like different things. And that's okay. I mean, like, it was actually the most progressive. Yeah. The most progressive view you could ever have. And then, so Obama, by the way, same thing. Obama was against gay marriage. Hillary was against gay marriage. And then you fast forward just three short years. And you have people like Brendan Ike, the CEO of Mozilla, getting fired by his board of directors because he supported Prop 8, which said that marriage is between a man and a woman in California,

which, by the way, even then passed in California. So the majority of Californians agreed with him. But I mean, you're right. Like Hillary was, Hillary was the thing, the views she had when she was running for president. You're right. Today, she would be a hard line. Hard line. Certainly on the cultural side alone. She'd be on the right of Marjorie Taylor Green. No, that's a great point. Marjorie Taylor Green. You're right.

She's very pro-LGBT. She certainly is not for intervention in the Middle East. Right. Yody, you're right. I never thought about it that way. Marjorie Taylor Green would be far, far left of a Hillary Clinton running again today. You know, I'm going to, I want to tell a story that I've never told publicly. Okay.

But enough time has passed that I should just, we're bringing up since we're talking about Hillary. So when I was in Silicon Valley, this is after Facebook bought Oculus. And so I'm up there. And I was actually pro-immigration, even more than than than I am now. So I was thinking about supporting this group called forward. Which was trying to lead to immigration reform in the United States. And I've since evolved on this issue. I think that immigration can help depress U.S. wages in ways I didn't understand then.

I hadn't observed a lot of the H-1B visa abuse that I have now observed. having spent years in the Valley. So cut me a little slack if anyone thinks I shouldn't have worked with Forward.U.S. But I ended up with this invitation to go to an event, a Hillary Clinton event in Silicon Valley. It was very, very hush, hush. No media. Nobody was saying anything. And this was before she had officially announced she was running.

So you know when a politician is going to run and everybody knows, but technically they haven't announced it. So Hillary was going to come out and she was there with her, John Podesta was her. cTO at the time or was it chief of staff something like that one of those yeah so joke it was going to be her and podesta at the last second Hillary ends up bailing but I end up going anyway and I had a couple prepared questions for Hillary and so it was me and about 15 other billionaires in Silicon Valley who went to this kind of real really really intimate gathering and they wanted to sell us on why we should support Hillary in this upcoming run when she ran and first of all I thought it was kind of shitty that she just didn't show up at the last second and like didn't say

to basically till we were already on the way like whatever she had some legitimate health issues right and still does I she might have in general but I don't think that was the problem at this point um and so there there were two issues that I brought up to to Podesta and I said hey I wanted to ask these of Hillary by the way I note that in this story I hadn't decided who I was going to support so a lot of people think I'm like this hard political guy I was a VR guy I was a computer politics was something I cared about but like I was reasonable I could I was not I was not I was not I had not yet

been um what do they call it radicalized I had not yet been radicalized it was after they fired me for giving $9,000 to Trump that I got radicalized but pre-radicalized Palmer okay so I go to this meeting and I had two questions for Hillary I said one in the past Hillary

you've supported a 55 mile per hour federal speed limit you were one of the original proponents you were one of the people who support it in the Senate. You wrote an open letter with a lot of other wives of politicians saying that the blood would run red with the streets would run red with the blood of children if we got rid of this of this of the speed limit. And then in 2008 when you last ran for president, you said on, I think it was the view actually, which is it's so funny because the view is turned

into like almost a parody of itself. But as you said on the view that when you were asked about the speed limit, you said that whenever and however we can make it happen, happen, we should have a 55 mile per hour speed limit. Now, given that you've never driven a car in the last 20 years, have you reconsidered this rule, or would you be supported this in this campaign? And Podesta said, oh, we don't really have a position on that issue. I said, but like, could you make up one right now? Like, most Americans don't want a 55 mile per hour speed limit. I think that was really dumb of Hillary to say she supported one last time. I think it might be why she lost. Would you agree that probably it's not a winning issue? And he said, oh, we can't, we can't take a position. on that at this time, which was crazy to me. Shouldn't that be just so easy to be like, yeah? Yeah, like, this is clearly like a thing, it's a fight she lost, you know, half a century ago and she's still worked up about it. Just give up.

People don't want to drive 55. You remember when Tommy Hager, I wrote a song about it. Well, you know, Tom Cruise had a can't drive 55 decal on his motorcycle and top gun. And I mean, like, it's like, I mean, the cultural battle's been, been won. Then my second question was, hey, we're a bunch of techno bros up here in the valley. We all believe in battery electric hybrid vehicles and electric vehicles in general. But Hillary's been a huge supporter of, oh, no, it was the other way. I'm sorry, this has been so long.

I haven't thought about this. No, I said, Hillary actually was against corn subsidies at one point. She called them at one point. You know, like the ethanol blending mandates. They were making corn at a loss, paid for with tax pay dollars, and then mandating that it go into gasoline, which hurts car performance. It's got lots of fuel storage problem. and it's just a waste of money

and there's less energy in it too so you get actually worse mileage anyway I said hey in the past Hillary has come out and she wrote this open letter that called ethanol blending mandates the quote

most astonishingly anti-consumer mandate in the history of the American government is she does she still believe that does she want money to go away from biofuels and more towards actual cutting edge technology or is she going to support corn subsidies

to win votes in Iowa. And Fidesse says, oh, we don't have a position on that at this time. I said, I just got to press you there. You don't have a position or you don't want to tell us the answer. Because none of us here think that the future is biofuels.

It's a failed experiment. It's a failed mandate. Hillary used to agree. Is she going to flip on us? He said, I'm honestly, genuinely telling you, we do not have a position on this. That's a good impression. Not that bad, right?

That's not bad. And so, three days later, Hillary announces officially she's running her first ads start running and what do you think the first series of ads are? It's Hillary in a corn field talking about how she's going to boost corn subsidies and she's going to lead a clean energy revolution

and she's going to give them so much corn money and I like setting aside the fact that I think biofuel subsidies are dumb she lost so much trust of people in that room because her answer wasn't here's why I support them and deal with it and it wasn't I don't support it technologically, but I support it politically, which I think people could have

respected. It was, oh, we don't have a position. But she did. They had already paid for the ads. They'd already made the ads. They were probably sitting on a tape in the TV studio ready to run as we're meeting with her chief of staff. And honestly, I know I said that like the Syria thing was a red line.

That was actually the moment where I decided that I couldn't vote for Hillary. It wasn't about any particular issue. I was like, it's just how can you vote for someone who's willing to just lie that way to manipulate, and she was trying to manipulate me and a bunch of other rich guys. And there were a bunch of other guys in that room who said the same thing. We all were in a group chat. We're like, we're not going to, we're not going to, like, like

by the way, my questions weren't the only ones like this. There were like another dozen questions. Did Podesta answer any of them with like meaningful? He did. There were some that they answered meaningful. Like I'd say actually on the immigration side, there were some real ones. There were questions about policy for dreamers in particular. And like

he had, he had his talking points. He didn't expect anyone to come out of, you know, to come off the top rope with 55 mile per hour speed limits. But there were a few other things. I'm trying to remember. What were the other ones that I think he misled people on? There was something in there around, there was something around there around content, like, like for social media platforms.

You know, in Silicon Valley, people care about this stuff. It was like, hey, like, do you agree that the government shouldn't be moderating content, that they shouldn't be censoring? Because this was kind of the very early days of the government interfering with this stuff. It was. When did the government first start interfering? with social media content. Do you know what the initial issues were?

So I don't know the initial issues, but like, let's look at this from first principles. Ignoring the social media part, when did the government start intervening in media? From the beginning. From the beginning. You know, one of the reasons, everyone loves Alexander Hamilton. He's really popular founding father. I have to admit, he's actually my least favorite founding father, partly because he supported central banking. I'm just not really a gigantic fan of it

and how it's turned out. By the way, he was also very anti-immigrant, which is so funny because look up the interview with the directors of Hamilton the musical when they were asked, why did you make Hamilton in the musical super pro-immigrant when in reality he was very, I mean, very anti-immigrant.

I mean, he literally said immigrants are a poison to our nation. I mean, he was really against it, which is funny because he was himself an immigrant. And I mean, he was like, Like, you know, blood and soil all the way. I mean, he was, he was really into it. And their answer was, we wanted to represent Hamilton as we think he would have existed in the climate of today, not with the information he had at the time. Anyway.

It made a fake person. But one of the other things about Hamilton is that he did not support the First Amendment. He actually thought that the government should be able to criminalize speech that lied about the government in a critical way. Now, to be clear, he didn't think they should be able to regulate everything. But his point was, if someone's lying about the government or what it's doing or its authority, we have to be able to stop that. You actually had a counterpoint in people like Benjamin Franklin, who of course had done like letters pretending to be the king of Prussia and lots of satirical stuff pretending to be the king of England. He said, no, you can't because if you say that we can't make up lies about the government, then the government just needs to make anything that's critical about them a lie. Because if it's a so-called lie, now they can stop it.

And so he said, we can't give the government the power to do this. So Alexander Hamilton was not a fan, and I think that that thread has been there through the history of our government. There's always been people from literally before the founding who believed the state should have a role in influencing the media. I mean, you're familiar with all of the stuff that came out post-JFK about the media influence operations. What was it? Like 55 or 60 different media assets were activated for the JFK messaging campaign in national media. And so I guess getting back to your question of when did they get into social media, I think it was probably content. The moment that it was of any importance, the moment that it was being paid attention to, I'm certain that the people who were running these media influence operations immediately jumped into that new sphere. I can't prove it. That's just my, I think before social media, though, like, I wonder if they were preparing for something like that or if it started to happen and they didn't recognize what an impact it was going to happen. I think they understood the impact of the internet before social media. So even

before social media, you had people writing blogs. You had people doing, you know, you had these bulletin board systems. And it's well known that the CIA was active on early bulletin board systems pushing the government perspective. Of course. And so I think that I think they've been continuously involved in every internet platform, even before social media, as we call it today now, was popular. I was watching a particular political debate on YouTube. And occasionally when I see something that's very I'm like, let me go to the comments and see what it is. And it was all bots. It was wild. You know, the real obvious, a bunch of zeros and numbers after named John's six zeros. Yep. No profile picture or some ridiculous AI generated thing. And then like a very hardline stance one way or the other, very inflammatory, causing arguments.

I was like, this is wild. This is all bots. Well, you're familiar with dead internet theory, right? Yes. Yeah. Explain that to people. So dead internet theory has been around. for quite a long time, probably long before the internet was actually dead.

And it's this theory that over time, there will be increasing amounts of literal robotic content and then also kind of like astroturfed fake content, you know, like one guy running 100 accounts. And the theory is that eventually there will be almost no real human back and forth on the internet. That it's actually kind of just propaganda and counter propaganda playing out on a stage for our benefit by moneyed interests, whether it's corporations, the government, foreign adversaries, and there might be a few people in the mix, but it's primarily going to be

just robots arguing with each other. And I think that more and more it's becoming true. Well, it's getting close. Like that FBI analyst, when Elon was in the middle of buying Twitter, who looked at all the different bots and, you know, they were trying to say it was 5%. He said, no, I think it's 80. Yep. 80%. So when you're on Twitter and you see people arguing and making points and even posting things. Yep. Well, and there was, you might remember there was the time where a bunch of the

stats for Wikipedia editors came out and it was some, like, enormous fraction of edits coming out of one location in Arlington, Virginia. And it's like, oh, wow. Arlington, Virginia, you know, famously the center of academic rigor and excellence.

There's supposed to be a lot of people living there who they just really care about making sure Wikipedia is accurate. How odd. How odd. Could I take a quick break and you get a little bit of water? Yeah, yeah, let's do it. Well, there's water right there. There we go.

Thank you. I missed that's all you need. Yeah, we have filtered water in that jug. I need a, I need to. Okay. I need to, I need to. Pause, ladies and gentlemen, we'll be right back. I need to take off my jacket too.

It's good when you're walking around and there's air moving on it because the copper conducts heat away really well, but just sitting in here. It's actually copper? Yeah, here. Check it out. Wait, I want to do this on camera. Are we still rolling? Yeah. Oh, look.

You keep rolling here you guys. That's a copper jacket. It's from this company called Volubach. It's actually made out of copper. It's actually made out of copper. Oh, my God, it's so heavy. Yeah, it weighs like four and a half pounds. This is nuts.

It's something like 3,000 miles of copper, of ultra-fine copper thread. Does this protect you from EMF or maybe some Russian signals? And if you put your phones into that pocket, then no signals go out whatsoever. Oh, so it's like a Faraday cage. Yeah, it's a little wearable Faraday cage. So it's actually got some use beyond being cool. But the company makes use? Yeah, so the company Volubox really.

interesting. So they may... Can I try this song? Yeah, of course. They make a bunch of really cool clothes out of very novel materials. Some of them very futuristic. Like, they make a jacket out of the material that the

Mars rover parachute was made. So it's like a supersonic parachute material made on a Kevlar. It is pretty weird. It would make me feel very restricted. Well, you're also a lot bigger than me. So I'm a little... So you can... So, though... Yeah. But it seems to fit in most... But it just seems

heavy and restrictive. you do have to make sure you size it where there's plenty of room to move around inside of it because it does not stretch at all it's made of tightly wood so there's a few benefits the first is that it looks sweet Jamie's ordering one right now look at them

the other is that the other is that coppers in anti-microbial material so you never get mildew on it you never get mold like it magically kills all of that stuff also I mentioned earlier the pockets are basically a Faraday cage so if you want like if I want my phone to get calls

I keep it in my pants pocket If I want to disappear If there was a jacket that Palmer Lucky was wearing I would hope it would be this Like when you showed up in this crazy jacket I'm like that's what I would hope you'd like. They've got a new one that's a T-shirt that's made out of carbon nanotubes

So you should check that out They're working on some wild next gen stuff Whoa Sorry give me just a second I just got to take a I actually just need to take a mental A mental break Is that okay? Yeah, take a break I'll take a leak

All right thank you I appreciate it So there's a place called Commando Store. You're talking about these pants that I have. Well, yeah, we're just talking about your Tiger Stripe, your Tiger Stripe Ranger panties. And Commando Store is doing these reproductions of vintage gear, like Vietnam era, U.S. gear, Russian gear, using modern materials, but old camo prints. And they're super authentic. But the problem is a lot of this actual gear. It's all mildewed.

It's destroyed. The thread is all crusty and busting apart. Right. And so if you actually want to be authentic, like the guys in the Vietnamese jungle did not look like they were wearing old crappy busted apart gear. Their gear was fresh. And so if you want to look just like they did, you actually have to buy newly manufactured gear. But I'll send you some links. They have a lot of really cool Tiger Stripe stuff that's very, very cool and authentic. Nice. When you were a kid, did you ever imagine you'd be selling weapons?

Does that ever seem surreal to you that you go from being this guy who's really into VR to weapons manufacturing? It seems a little bit. surreal, but only a little bit. Growing up, I always would be the guy who identified with the guy in the story who was making the tools. So, like, when I would watch James Bond, I never thought I'm James Bond. It was like, oh, I want to be Q.

Like, I want to be the guy making the tools. Or Tony Stark. Exactly. And Tony did it all. And so I have to admit, like, it certainly thought it occurred to me, like one of my favorite anime characters was a character anti-hero named Seto Kaiba who ran a weapons company that was also a virtual reality company and like they built they built like virtual reality gaming simulator pods and also weapons and so it's really weird like you start to ponder are you really making decisions with free will or are you actually just like enacting the programming of when you're a kid. Like, like, it's hard to really know, but like, when people like, oh, you know, Palmer, how'd you get into this stuff?

It's like, I mean, I remember being like seven years old and, and thinking about the stuff. Or like, you watch, you watch, like, power, like, I was, I grew up watching Power Rangers when I was a really little kid, you know, reruns of the first season of Power Rangers. And the character I most identified was, like, the techno wizard of the group, Billy, who was building, like, flying cars and upgrading their robot suits. And I don't know, it's really weird when you end up as an adult just doing exactly what you were fascinated with when you're a kid. Because what you're fascinated with when you're a kid is really it's just, it's a function of what's put in front of you. Right. Like, what if I would have had different things put in front of me? What if you lived in Montana?

Yeah. What if I lived in Montana? What if, you know, what if I, you know, what if, what if? Like, is there a world where? Is there a world like I grew up in Nashville? Right. And I would have inevitably been a musician. and like almost without even being able to choose it

even if I went in one direction when I've ended up coming back to it. Probably look all those things are interesting and you're a guy who's into interesting things it's just finding whatever the path is that you think is interesting and just going in that direction your direction was kind of established

by your interest when you were younger so it probably seems surreal just in the fact that you've gone so far with it to the point where you're actually making weapons to defend other countries Well, that's the crazy thing is I think part of the reason it's so wild my progression is it only happens if it's successful continuously. Right. So like a world where I don't basically figure out how to build good virtual reality technology is one where Oculus doesn't exist.

If Oculus doesn't exist, I don't get bought by Facebook. I don't go to Silicon Valley. I don't become kind of one of the leading tech figures in that industry up there. You have to hit every green light. You have to hit every green light. And, like, I, like, you know who funded Anderall when I started it? Like, yes, me, I put a lot of my money into it. But it was all of these same investors who had invested in an Oculus.

I mean, literally the same people. So, like, Brian Singerman is a good example. He was a partner at Founders Fund, which was Peter Teal's Investment Fund. They decided to put $1 million into Oculus before any other fund was willing to give us money. So they were the first institutional money into Oculus VR. And then he ended up. being our first investor also in Anderil. So, like, you're talking about, like, the same people, even,

like these relationships come back around. And then that turns into running a weapons company. And then that turns into building more efficient weapons. And then, like, one of our recent wins, we were competing Anderol with Boeing and Lockheed Martin and Northrop Grumman to build the Air Force's first AI-powered fighter jet. So the first fighter jet with no human pilot, not limited by human ability

instead limited by the ability of this robot brain making the whole thing go and we beat them I mean how crazy is that to like for for that's what's crazy to me like it's not sitting here crazy

like oh is it crazy and building weapons for me it's crazy like it's not that hard to imagine you end up building you know guns for you know the Marines like but like what's really nothing against the Marines

or the people who build guns for them I love those guys the crazy part to me is that all these things have gone right over and over to the point where I can literally have billions of dollars at my disposal from my investors to build multi-million square foot factories to build act like the Air Force's first AI fighter jet, which is the official designation they just gave it as the FQ 44, F for fighter, Q for unmanned, and then 44 is the number designation.

Whoa. Yeah. So that's the crazy thing. When I lay awake at night, that's what I'm thinking about. It's not so much that I am building weapons. It's that we're like actually pulling off. things that make a difference. And by the way, AI fighter jets.

There it is. There it is. So that was a wind tunnel test. And you'll notice there's no protrusion for a cockpit. The whole, so it's a stealth aircraft, low signature, uses the same weapon systems that are real fighter jet uses. That's what it looks like in the front. Yep.

So this was a, that was a very early, very, very early propulsion system test. And one of the crazy things. What's the, is that what they look like? Yep. Yep. So one of the crazy things about this is that the United States, so the idea is you have a bunch of these for every manned fighter. Because they're cheaper, they are more expendable, you can take more risk with them. So imagine this.

I've got an F-35 flying with five of these things. The original name of the program was loyal wingman. The idea is that I have a loyal wingman, does whatever I tell them, I can talk to it like I would, any human. you know, co-worker, and it's going to go in and do what I tell it. But it's never going to question my orders. It's never going to try to save itself if it means ruining the mission. And one of the craziest things about autonomous aircraft is that the United States has spent basically a century figuring out what works in air combat.

I mean, you've seen Top Gun, right? You know, they have this book of tactics that they need to learn to stay alive, how you measure, how you manage your energy and your altitude and your position so that that you destroy the enemy and you don't get destroyed yourself. There's another book of tactics that will allow you to destroy the enemy, but will probably get you killed in the process. We don't teach those generally. Or if we do, it's in the context of don't do this.

All of those tactics are on the table when it comes to AI powered fighter jets. I can now have it doing things that are so risky that a human pilot would never even try the maneuver. Because let's say it's a coin flip. It's a 50-50 chance that you're going to die, but a 100% chance that I'm going to be able to take out the enemy target. Imagine going after something where I know I am probably going to get shot down at the end of that maneuver, but I definitely take out all of the surface-to-air missile launchers on the shore,

which then allow everything else to come in through the gap that you just cleared. You'll make that trade every day. You'll trade a cheap AI fighter jet to blow up a bunch of really expensive manned or autonomous systems. in the air or on the ground every time if it allows you to accomplish that mission. And so autonomy, it really changes the game on this stuff. It's not it's not an incremental change in tactics. It's a complete revolution. What do you think that New Jersey shit was all about?

Like the unidentified era of the aeronomenon? What was that all about? Well, what's so interesting about the New Jersey stuff, and you're probably tracking this as well or better than me, but it is so perfectly aligned. with things that we've seen in the past. Like you're familiar with all the over flights and hovering over nuclear facilities and military bases in the past.

Here's what I think happened. I think that there was something really weird that was going on. I think briefly there was something that was really unexplained. And then what happened unfortunately is everyone found out about it online. Everybody got their drones, put them in their cars,

drove out there to go out and try and fly it. And then I think that the next three weeks, were a bunch of idiots with drones flying in circles looking at each other. I've seen all these videos. 99% of them, it's pretty obvious that the thing they're looking at is another DGI drone that is also looking at them and saying

oh dude, oh shit, there it is. It was kind of this crazy media circus. I think there was something that was real. And then very, very quickly it evolved into being just kind of a flash mob social media circus. I think that's probably accurate because

a lot of it was in Austin as well. It was like these enthusiasts were getting their drones out everywhere. That's right. It was like, it's drone time. Have you heard the, what do they call it? There's a theory that someone's come up with. I forget what it is. It's like proliferation masking or something.

Have you heard the theory that modern drone technology was seated by aliens so that we would create a bunch of things that would be up in the sky that look kind of like their aircraft so that they would basically act as cover for the real activity. Have you heard this theory? I don't really believe it because I actually have met with the people who kind of invented modern quadcopters and flight controllers. Like there's there's there it's but the idea is very interesting. And it makes me wonder if there might be some truth to it, you know, elsewhere in the world. Like it sure is convenient. Imagine that you're an alien. You're a regular operating around military bases, nuclear infrastructure. Wouldn't it be convenient if there was something else

that people could explain away as, like, wouldn't it be great if there was something that also darted around and hovered in place and was very quiet and just a little tiny flashing lights? Like, wouldn't that be really convenient as a cover for what you are doing? Because these same activities in like the 50s and the 60s,

there was nothing like that, right? Like back then, if you said, oh yeah, I saw 100 red lights orbiting around that nuclear facility. All you could say was, holy shit, what in the world could that be? And today, so he's say, oh, it's just some drones. Right. And so unfortunately, it's a lot harder to know what's real.

And I wish I could travel back in time even just, you know, 10 or 20 years to, you know, do the Molder and Scully thing I talked about earlier. Be the billionaire, you know, the billionaire James Bond X-Files guy with a badge and a checkbook. I feel like you could really find some interesting stuff. When you say that something weird was happening in New Jersey, what do you, what are you saying? So something that was observable by some sensors and not by other sensors. And that's really the common thread between a lot of these things. Like it'll show up on a visual, like a guy sees it with his eyes and he sees it with a thermal sensor, but it isn't showing up on radar. Or something will they'll see it on radar, but they can't pick it up on other sensors.

And of course, there are some things where it's multi-sensor. In general, when I say something weird, it's not obviously just drawn. Or weird and that it's acting in ways we don't expect. Like, how does something move so quickly and not have any skin heating? Why isn't it white hot if it's moving that fast to the air? How can it change direction so quickly without the airframe tearing apart? That's what I mean by weird. And look, I don't know what this stuff is.

When you say, but weird, like what was observed? So the weird thing that was observed was primarily that there was something there in an area that it shouldn't have been and that there shouldn't have been anything, there should not have been anything that was able to endure for that long in that area with those characteristics. Like, little tiny drones that cannot show up on radar

and that can kind of hide in place like that. They don't have hours and hours and hours of endurance, right? They fly for 25, 30 minutes tops. And then also they typically would need to be launched by something right close to there. And the particular area it was in, it would have been really hard to launch from one of the nearby areas,

get over the water, to there and then stay there as long as it did. It's not the weirdest thing that people have seen, though. Like the hellfire thing recently with the missile. That was some of the weirdest stuff that I've seen. That's so weird because it got hit and it just shook it off and kept moving. And it's almost like there were like pieces. It's like someone reconstituted.

Right. Like it took pieces of it. So one of, I don't know if you've done, everyone wants to believe that it's aliens. And like that's what I want to believe. Of course. I don't think that it is a foreign adversary. Like, I don't buy into the idea that the Chinese or the Russians have secretly figured this out. But then the question is, okay, well, what does that leave?

And I feel like my gut is that it's something that is weirder than anything that anyone has made popular. Like, just as an example, it's literally bleeding in from some parallel dimension. It's an energy signature, and it's co-aligned by accident. rather than intent, right? Like, it's there because there's something in its parallel universe is similar to what we're doing, and that's why they're co-aligned. Like, I know this sounds like weirdo mumbo-jumbo, but you just, it seems like something like that even would be more likely.

Did you ever read Michael, Michael, Michael, Michael, Michael Critchin's novel, The Sphere? Or was just Sphere? No. All right. You might if I spoil Sphere for you? So there was a movie. It was not nearly as good as the book. So in Sphere, without spoiling.

the ending. The very beginning of it is you have this researcher who is brought out to this secret naval research facility in the Pacific Ocean because the Navy has discovered a massive object, multiple kilometers long, lying on top of a shallow coral reef on some atoll covered in coral that appears to be a spacecraft, an alien spacecraft. And they figured out that when it crashed thousands of years ago there, it probably crashed onto an island, which then, then sea levels rose, and then it became covered. So by this, they basically figure out it must have been there for about three or four thousand years, this spaceship. And so the Navy is going, and they're trying to figure out what it is.

They're scraping coral off this ship. They bring in this researcher. And as the researcher is being brought to the site, they discover for the first time what they've been looking for, a door into the air. They were scraping the crawf, looking for some way in through this ultra-tuff, metallic alloy that had never been observed ever in nature. or science. And then the big reveal of like the first arc of the book is they scrape off the coral, they look at the door. Incredible.

It's a door. But then they look next to the door and there's a marking. And what does the marking say on this 3,000-year-old spaceship? United States Navy and an American flag. And, you know, what's interesting is they never actually fully explain it. But the implication is, and what they believe. happened is that this was a time-traveling craft that somehow went back in time, or alternately, that it's actually from some distant past civilization that traveled forward in time,

like maybe went to space, did some exploring and came back. Maybe the United States is actually a purpose reconstitution of the branding and social structures of some long-loss society from 500 million years ago. I'm not saying that's necessarily what's happening, but I think. I think that that's actually more likely than it being aliens from another galaxy coming to where we are. It's just that is actually harder for me to believe than something that is of our own little local solar sphere and just really truly bizarre and not being taken seriously. Why is that harder to believe? Why is space travel harder to believe than time travel?

It's mostly all of the... Or dimension travel. So dimensional travel like that that's totally believable. It's, yeah, specifically the thing I think is least likely is that using normal conventional physics that we understand, it's people coming from another place that's many light years away coming to where we are. It's just, it's a matter of, we haven't observed anything that could do that. We haven't seen any synthetic material that could that. We haven't seen any natural phenomenon. Right.

But if you just go back 200 years ago, cell phone's impossible. But the difference here is that we're able to see millions of years of history of the universe coming into us, right? We're observing things that happened hundreds of years ago, thousands of years ago, millions of years ago from all over our galaxy and other galaxies. And there's a lot of markers that you would expect to see that would line up with how we understand intelligent life. And we're just not seeing them. And you're familiar with like dark forest theory. You know, maybe maybe the civilizations that emanate those signals get whacked down before they become a threat to the dominant powers. Maybe everyone's hiding, right?

There are these theories as to why this is the case. And maybe we're being idiot, you know, you've heard probably the theory about us being idiots for transvaid. Like Stephen Hawking was of this opinion. He thought it was really stupid for us to try and make first context. His point was not just that it's probably a bad idea in general. His point was the fact that we haven't observed it from anyone else suggests a lot of danger in doing so. Like it could mean that nobody's doing it. It could mean that anyone who does it gets wiped out.

If you stand up, you get knocked down. And so it's just I have a hard time believing that it's conventional, conventional thing on another planet that comes to see us. That's not to say there isn't life out there in the universe. I think it's out there. But for whatever reason, it doesn't seem to be life that's capable of inter-solar system or inter-galactic travel. But what do you think of people that talk about some sort of a potential science that eventually gets cracked where it's, gravity drive like something that folds space time in that case and so what this is one of my favorite favorite favorite theories about this like people talk about about that there's a question like

if you're actually folding space time or breaking space time uh there's a question as to are you going to see visitors from another part of your plane of existence that are just using that technology to you know jump a few miles over to you or are you more likely that that level of technology is one that allows people to come from in completely different planes of existence different dimensions, different types of universes we don't even begin to understand. Like, if we can prove that we can manipulate space time like that, to me, that's an indicator that you can do even more than that. Again, I'm not saying it's impossible.

I'm putting my chips on the table as the things that I've seen, I'm more likely to believe that it is time travelers, unknown residents of Earth, people from another dimension, energy signals from another dimension, bleed through of our own past, present, and future. I put all those at a higher likelihood than they came from Andromeda, and now they're flying around our military bases. Did you see that guy representative, what's his name, Tim Burchett, is that his name, who was talking about there's five specific areas where these things seem to be emanating from the ocean? I'm generally familiar. I'm not, I don't remember what those areas are. I know that one of them is very near me.

It's the, it's the Channel Islands corridor. Right. I tracked down this book that's out of print now called the unidentified, no, it's the UFOs and U.S.Os, unidentified submersible objects of the Santa Catalina Channel. This guy went around. Oh, it's that common. Well, in this one area, tons of bizarre activity. This guy went around and he interviewed everybody who had a weird story. And he just basically compiled them.

He said, what do you see? Describe it in detail. And he went back, like these are like fishermen had stories from the 80s. And he talked to naval aviators and he talked to, you know, local yachtsmen. And he talked to all these people. And he points out in his prologue, these are all just the stories I've collected. I have not edited these stories. I have not modified these stories.

And the people have verified that they are correct. And they are all on the record. This is their name. He didn't include anybody who was anonymous. Because his point was, if it's anonymous, you could just claim I made it up. It has to be a real person who stands behind it. And he said, you'll notice that across about 50 years of stories I've collected, that there's extraordinary commonality

between these stories. People who have never met have no reason to work together, have no reason to have a common story, and yet they all observe very similar things. And that, when you see a one-off, it's hard to draw a conclusion.

When you see a pattern, what are they observing specifically? So specifically, the Santa Catalina Channel. So you have basically Catalina Island off the coast of California, and you have a few more channel islands that are stretched out on either end of it.

The things that they were seeing were vehicles that were in the sky and then going into the water at high speed and appearing to, like not hitting them and slamming and exploding like you'd expect, but instead, you know, still a huge flash, but just seamlessly transitioning into the water. Lots of noise, lots of splash, but not like destroying themselves. And then similarly, objects coming out of the water in the same way. And so they all describe these very, very steep approach paths. So, like, not coming in like an aircraft landing on the water, but almost like coming out of the sky, these very steep angles.

And then just smashing into the water in a way you would expect would destroy anything. But then instead, the vehicles are apparently fine. And the water just parts around them as they rocket in. Really, really, really bizarre stuff. And it makes you wonder, could that be related, the same technology or process that allows the air? because you've seen these systems they're not creating sonic booms you don't see shock waves

coming off of them and they're not heated by the movement through the air they're not really really high I mean you've heard the stories about the SR 71 I mean it would get literally red hot on its leading edges

you know the you know glowing titanium but these things are cold and so is there some technology that can displace air around you that can also displace water around you is kind of the interesting theory there

but yeah that that particular I've dug into because it's only about 20 miles away from my house. The weird one is the breakaway civilization thing. Yes. That's the weird one because that's the most ridiculous until you start thinking about it. And then you start looking back at past civilizations like ancient Egypt and some of the monolithic construction around the world. You've read chariots of the gods.

I talked to Van Danikin once. Oh, really? He went to Peter Thiel's house and Peter Thiel and Eric Weinstein brought me over for lunch. Oh, that must have been so cool. It was so cool to just question him about stuff. I read Chariots of the Gods when I was I don't know probably like seven or eight It was a fun movie too

Oh I haven't seen the movie I didn't even know It's an old ass movie It was an old ass book It was in the movie theaters So the interesting thing about it is like I've dug into a lot of that as I've gotten older And yes there are things in there where like We've now learned that they weren't true

But some of it holds up There's still really bizarre stuff That was happening in ancient civilizations That's common between civilizations and it doesn't really make sense it doesn't really make sense when you think about it conventionally. Well, Ben Van Kirkwick, who runs

Uncharted X, he was on the podcast recently and he was describing how there's specific hieroglyphs that indicate some sort of a star portal. Yep. That's what the hieroglyphs are saying. Like this is a star gate.

And it shows stars, it shows this portal and gate. And this is, it's written. multiple times, and they're trying to figure out, well, what is this trying to say? Like, what is this? What do you think about the theory that there's other sentient, that the other sentient species of Earth might have better, better lore on this than us?

Have you heard of this theory? No. I don't want to, so this is going to make me sound a bit like a, a little bit like a nutter, but I'm pretty deep on, I'm, we're pretty deep down the rabbit hole. Yeah, we're on another territory right now. So people have oral traditions that have passed down pretty well. But we've also observed that stories can pass down in other sentient species like whales, like dolphins. They have these whale calls that have been constant for a long time.

They communicate with each other. One of the theories, and by the way, this was explored in like some of the old Star Trek movies. They explored this idea that the whales actually had better and more stable oral history than humanity. And it's not that crazy of an idea. And so you wonder, for example, if we could understand them, what would they have to say about any of this stuff? Like, maybe they're not smart enough to have anything to say. But, you know, do they have anything to say about for, like, it may not be obvious. It may not be, we know about star people who are going through star gates.

But for example, what if there's oral tradition or even genetic, you know, programming around, oh, we never go to this area, never go to this place? or never eat the food from this place. You know, could there be interesting leads that are buried in cultures that are not human? But we were talking about that before, that you're working on interspecies communication. That's right. So this hasn't actually officially launched yet. Hopefully they won't mind me talking about it. Are you feeling with the XPRIZ Foundation?

Yes, we were just talking about it. So, like, if people aren't familiar, XPRIZE is basically this group that makes these big, significant, monetary prizes for teams to compete against each other to do. things that seem crazy. So, like, there was an XPRIZE for going to space on a reusable rocket. John Carmack was competing for that. Did you know that? Yes, I did. So, like, you inspired him. They're doing some cancer XPRIzes. There's one that's going on right now called the Wildfire XPRIZE, which is basically challenging companies to build a system that can detect wildfires anywhere on the planet in less than a minute from space and then deploy autonomous drones to extinguish them

before they get large enough that they turn into a real wildfire. It is like, instead of responding to fires once they're too big to control, you're able to stop them in their tracks. And I mean, I mean, just like the Palisades fire created $20 billion in damage. It's actually very cheap to do this

relative to the damage that wildfires cause. Anyway, the X-Prize guys came to me a while back and we we were jamming on we were jamming on a few ideas for their next X-Prize. And hopefully they don't mind me saying this.

But initially I said you guys should do an uplift X-Prize. Even with Uplift, the science fiction concept, it's fallen out of favor. It was really popular for a while. There was an uplift trilogy written by, I can't remember the guy's name. But he wrote a whole book about non-human consciousnesses. In his book, there's like plasma consciousnesses in the sun. Like you've probably heard these crazy ideas and intelligent beings that live in the sun. But one of it, the main thrust of uplift is taking species that are not sentient and lifting them up to the level of sentience and beyond.

So, like, can you take a dog and teach it to talk by genetically modifying it to make it smarter? Can you take whales and pass them up? And by the way, the Uplift trilogy, they also explored this idea like Star Trek, of the whales having an oral tradition that was more stable than humanities and actually having like a lot of infrared. that was concealed by, from man, until they uplifted those species. And I've always thought that was really interesting. And so I went to the XPRIZE, said, I want you guys to an uplift X-Prize. First person to modify an animal to be smarter than a person. And they actually said, that's too crazy.

That's X-Prizes, you know, X-Prizes is trying to push the future, but for, you know, for a variety of, honestly, quite good reasons. They said, this is not quite our jam. But one we are working towards is an interspecies communication XPRIZE. And it's a prize to, and I think that with modern AI advances, this is going to be a lot more possible to gather large amounts of data, reason about it, and figure out the vocabulary and grammar of these species. The idea is it's the first team that can meet species where they are and communicate with them in a repeatable, verifiable way. This isn't teaching a dog to, you know, say yes, when you. say go. Do you want to eat? Exactly. No, this is this is bi-directional communication, objective, verifiable, deterministic, predictable. And it's a really hard one, but I think a good

XPRIZE should be. You shouldn't be picking things that are easy. You're picking things that they seem like they're just out of reach and you just need to stretch for it. But there's been talk and if we do that, I'm going to be asking the whales. Whales and dolphins, they have a language, but we don't know what it is. That's right. So the ideas that you of AI, if you get to super general intelligence and AI can run all the patterns through some sort of a program and determine what is being expressed. We've learned some things. Like we've learned how a lot of cetaceans can call names and, you know, very, very, very

unique IDs. They have dialects. Yep, they do. But we are so far away from cracking the code, right? Not nuts. I mean, like, isn't it crazy that we can crack basically? any cipher, any crypto code. We can translate

languages basically from scratch if we get a few words. Right. Rose out of stone. Exactly. And we have no idea how it works. And I don't mean like we don't know the words, but we know there are words. It's like there's weird things where they're like communicating via ultrasound with each other. And we

think that like one is emitting and another is receiving and emitting. And maybe there's information in the phase difference between those two, right? Like they might be in co. This is where theory of acoustic holograms as a primary means of cetacea community came from. I don't believe in that anymore. I think that wasn't quite right.

But like differences in phase between simultaneous transmit and receive ultrasonic communication, it seems to be that's part of it. So you can't just like listen for words. You're actually looking for differences in how these waves are interacting. And those are distance dependent, direction dependent. We've got a lot of work cut out for us to understand, to understand animals. That is so wild. You're familiar with Alex, the African gray parrot?

No. Oh, you've got to look into this. I mean, maybe you could even get one of his trainers on the show. So Alex, the African gray parrots are probably the smartest bird. Definitely one of the smartest animals. Right up there with crows or ravens? Smarter. They're very, very smart.

They can talk. They can reason. Alex, the parrot was a uniquely smart African gray parrot. By the way, African grays are usually not kept in captivity just because they're such a handful. There's Alex. There's Alex. They're a handful because they're so intelligent? It's like dogs that need to be exercised. They need to be intellectually stimulated. And most people just don't have the time to keep an African gray properly stimulated.

So they get depressed. They self-harm. They're not recommended as a beginner parrot by any means. Now, Alex was interesting because he had a vocabulary. he understood grammar and he is one of the I think the only animal who asked an existential question

and he actually did it right before he died if I remember correctly like he wasn't just saying give me food he could say like tomorrow I want this food he could be but the existential question he asked was what's happening and where am I going

which is and he had never asked those questions before they were brand new formulated questions that he asked very shortly before he passed And so there's a lot of... Now, here's the other cool part. He's got a bird brain. He has a tiny little brain, and yet it has all that capacity.

You've probably heard of people who have lost huge chunks of their brain and they reprogram and they seem to get by. Parents like Alex suggest that you can get by with very little brain if it's oriented correctly. So imagine if I took a species like an African gray, and I modified certain elements of genetic code to cause its brain to be somewhat larger, somewhat more glucose consuming, so it has more energy, and then also to have more folds. They're very smooth brain. What if I could have, we know that folded brain tissue and the high density that it creates

on the neuronal surface is very good for intelligence. Like, could you make an African gray that is able to have a normal human level conversation? I think, I think it's actually very close to that. Wow. So this is one of those. How many? Come on. Can you tell me how many?

Two. Very good. What? Two. We keep going. Can you tell me what's different? What's different? Cool.

Come on. What number is gray? Don't want to tell them? Well, tell me what number is gray? What number is gray? What number is gray? Oh. Very good.

Holy shit, man. Right. And I mean, you're looking at intelligence that's on par by all of the traditional metrics with a human toddler, but with radically less brain tissue. But also radically less body to control. That's true. And also a lot of like semi-autonomy.

Like you know how some animals have more of their nervous system distributed? Like, you know, octopuses have, you know, autonomy in their muscles. It's actually similar for a lot of animals. And so one of the reasons I've always found AI so interesting is not just what we can do with AI, but learning how, like building a, building a thinking system from scratch, I'm thinking will help us understand how other systems think. Like, we haven't, we, there's never been an economic motive to really dig into how to understand how the brain fundamentally works.

People, I know there's people who are listening who probably think that's crazy. They say, Palmer, people want to cure brain cancer. They want to help with Alzheimer's. There's a difference between preserving brain function and truly understanding how the brain works. And yes, there's research labs here and there. But Google's never been funding them to the tune of tens of billions, right? Meta's never been funding them to the tune of hundreds of billions. AI is the first time that humanity has ever dedicated a huge amount of resources to understanding what thought is how to make it synthetically and how to make it better.

And we're going to make a lot of mistakes along the way. But I think I think the understanding how to make synthetic brains via AI is going to teach us how to make parrots like Alex a lot smarter too. Well, when you start talking about stuff like this and you start talking about genetic. engineering an animal to be as intelligent or more intelligent than a human. It brings me to the weirder theory about human evolution, that we're a product of accelerated evolution and that some superior intelligence would do exactly what you're saying. That's my favorite part about uplift, is that if you can prove that it works, you open up a whole avenue of theories that have been treated as crazy.

Like right now, if you, if you, like what you just said about, you know, uh, you know, augmented evolution of humans.

Mm-hmm. It's a crazy person thing, right? Right. But if we are literally sitting there talking to our dogs and there, you're like, isn't it going to be like who could, who could think that's a crazy theory to say,

well, I mean, we did it. The moment that we had technology that was capable, we did it. Wouldn't probably any species do that? Like, doesn't that suggest that when you get smart enough?

if you want to make things somewhat in your own image. It gets back to Skynet earlier, you know? Right, right. Like, if we make animals more into our own image, is it really crazy to think that we are the result of something like that? And actually, so I'm a religious person. I'm a Christian. And I feel like what you see where God was created or man was created in God's image,

it's, I feel like it's reflected in our desire to create things in our own image. And so I think there's a certain beautiful symmetry there. It's where it's, if we're doing it, it's actually easier for people to believe, I think, that it happened to us. It's easier for people to believe that we have a creator who wanted to create something in his own image when we are doing the same. Well, also, just the sentiment that you were discussing of taking an animal and making it more intelligent, if we found a planet, if let's say we get to, you know, a couple thousand years of technological evolution past where we're at now, we can travel to. other galaxies, and we find primates. Yeah. And we're like, well, they're on the way.

They're on the way, but they need like 300 million years before they get to where we are. We wouldn't want to wait. Why would we wait? I mean, maybe that's just a seeding process. Maybe that's something that happens all throughout the universe where these, you know, intelligence farmers just drop seeds in various areas, just take animals, manipulate them, turn them into something that's superior, and that has a lust for innovation. Yep.

Which is one of the weirder things about us. We were talking about this last night at the mothership. We were on the green room. We were talking about one thing that human beings share in common with everything we do. Everyone's trying to make the best version of everything. Yes. And better versions, whether it's sports, the athletes of today are better than the athletes of 20 years ago, whether it's computers, whether it's televisions, any kind of technology, music, everything wants to be better than anything before. So we're constantly trying to make better stuff.

I would even go beyond. I think it's not even better. It's that we seek novel things. Yes. And humans are programmed to seek novelty. And I think it's clearly been an evolutionarily advantageous trait. Yes. Societies that foster seeking of novel experiences build stronger cultures, stronger technologies.

And then by the way, the groups that don't seek novelty end up becoming stagnant. Yes. You could even argue that many of the cultures that remain stagnant. Like you kind of saw plateauing happen with, for example, a lot of Native American tribes. I think that it was a loss of drive for novelty. And that's not to say that there are a lesser culture, but certainly they were not focused on seeking novel experiences. What's really fascinating when we think about human beings in particular is that people that lived in those tribes did not want to civilize. And that the people that were even captured by Indians, a lot of them wanted to stay.

Yep. Because they found that to resonate more with being a human being. Because we had lived so many thousands of years as hunter-gatherers that that resonated with your being. It seemed more spiritually in tune with being a human being than living in a city and wearing a suit and getting food from a store. Anyone who's ever been on a camping trip understands what you're talking about. But imagine that's your whole life. You can feel it. People were not met to live in urban jungles.

There's a great vice piece back when vice was really interesting. It's called Heinmeau's Arctic Adventure. And it's this guy who he lives north of the Arctic Circle or near the Arctic Circle. And he has a cabin up there. And he's grandfathered in and he's been there forever. I think he started working there in the 1970s. This guy, he didn't even know about 9-11 until way later. Someone showed him a picture of what happened.

He has a television and VHS tapes and a log cabin and powered by a generator and All he does is hunt caribou and fish. And he's very intelligent. And so this nerdy reporter from fucking Williamsburg is hanging out with this guy or wherever he's from. And this guy's explaining how this resonates with being a human being. Like this is a much more satisfying way of living. And I think that this is how people are supposed to live. That's so interesting.

On the one hand, I agree. But then I love, I mean, I love the human race is doing a pretty good job of seeking novelty. Because that's what we all hunt, if we all, I mean, maybe it's that, maybe it's that, you know, maybe hunting caribou is what makes us happy, but you still need the guy who wants to go for something else. But you also need a singer. You also need a guy who likes to be a carpenter. You need, you need all types of different human beings and different personality traits and different interests to make this whole experiment of civilization work. What do you think about nostalgia? Because I've been thinking about this a lot for variety of reasons. And it's kind of the opposite of what we're talking about. Like, novel experiences, new things, like driving towards the future. There's some people who I feel like look down on nostalgia, like, oh, you're obsessed with the past kind of needlessly.

It's feel good. I feel like obsessing over the past, I think is healthy in a lot of ways. And I think it's even good to look at the past with rose-tinted glasses because there's so much that we could learn from the past and should learn from the past. If we didn't look at things with rose-tinted glasses, my theory is that. Imagine you look at the future possibilities and the past, you know, teachings identically with no favoring. It feels like you're naturally going to prefer the new thing that hasn't really shown all the downfalls yet. I guess I'm getting out.

I'm a big fan of nostalgia. I'm a big fan of looking at the parts of the past that worked and then lionizing those and reminding people why they worked. Like there's a lot of people who actually say this is fascist now. Have you heard of this? The nostalgia is fascist? Nostalgia is fascist. If you Google it, you look up nostalgia. is fascist.

You will find, this is like a cutting edge theory of the last year. They're saying, oh, all this appeal to, you know, appeal to the 90s, it's pro-fascist because they're trying to make you believe that there was a better time. To believe that going backwards in society is, is a good thing, as if the 1990s were like some, like, hotbed of injustice and oppression. That's interesting. I think nostalgia is fun, but I don't spend a lot of time.

thinking about the past I do when it comes to art yeah I do when it comes to music and particularly the role of psychedelics mm-hmm in the influence of culture that happened in the 1960s which I think is the greatest cultural shift of change in in recorded history there's some the difference in the 50s and the 60s just this radical change in the way people saw life and how many people were just like exiting normal society and then how they threw water on that with the passing of the Psychedelics Act in 1970. But I think that...

Well, it seems like things are going in a different record. So, just, you know, I'm straight edge. I don't use any drugs. I didn't drink alcohol until very recently. I just had my first kid. He's a year old. And you started drinking? You said you had a kid? Yeah. It was like my whole life. No drinking, no nicotine, no caffeine, no alcohol, no drugs. Yeah, I had a kid. And I decided it was time to start drinking. Why is that? Why is that?

You have enough... You have enough hard nights and hard days taking care of the kid and you say, you know, I totally get it, man. I totally understand why everyone's, why everyone's having beers on the weekend? There's certainly a place for it. There's certainly a place for it. But I'm curious why, why nostalgia in art? I'm not disagreeing, actually. I think I mean, I showed you earlier. I'm a, I'm completely fascinated with the 1960s in terms of, I'm a huge fan of 1960s automobiles. What year were you born? 67. Okay, interesting. When I was a kid in high school, which is really, I was in high school. I was in high, school in the 1980s. So I went to high school. First year was 81, which is not that far away

from 1970, right? Right. That's 11 years. Like an 11-year-old car, if you had a 2016 Toyota, it looks exactly like a 2025 Toyota. There's not much difference at all. You would have to be like a car nut to notice the difference. But when I was a kid in 1981, if someone drove by in a 1970 Chavelle, everybody stopped and stared at it like, whoa. It was like that nostalgia was real because we recognized that something had happened to American manufacturing, particularly in automobile manufacturing, where they just lost the magic. Yep.

They had magic in the 1960s, the Corvette, the Camaro. Well, cars were art. Yes. Yeah, I mean, they were engineering. They were art. They were an expression of American culture. And it went away. Yep.

It went away in the 1970s. They'd turn in a dog shit. Well, see, this is kind of what I'm talking about where I said. talk about the importance of nostalgia because like you want to look back at the things that worked and like I think a lot of these companies they'd have they they would have you just forget that it ever was works of art these cars could be this way I think we need to learn from that and not let them because like now cars are turning into like subscriber based appliances get you like that's kind of gross I've heard that there's some cars that charge you money if you

want to use Apple Carplay that's right well there's some that are also charging you to use all of your your heating and cooling functionality there's ones they're adding like you can just fucking charge me more for your car and don't fuck me well some of them you're paying more it's paying more to unlock more horsepower it's like what you're making the car

it has the parts and you're not crazy you know a lot of these and then a lot of these business approaches are actually coming I think not from the car industry they're stealing them from the tech and also the gaming industry like there was a time when these things people were making video games they would make a game

you'd buy it you owned a video game and like and that was it and they made the best game they could to sell you at a store and these days they're making games and and and also a lot of apps into like these subscription experience you have to keep paying money they're making content that's just farm to keep you hooked on the drip continuously you don't see these masterpieces the way that you used to and uh that that's that's something i've been i've been super passionate about like it is gross that they do that, just hook you in because they know you're hooked already. That's right.

And so you want the new BMW or whatever the car is. And, you know, like, oh, I'll just pay the monthly, who gives a fuck? Just one more subscription that comes out of my auto pay. Yeah, I feel like there needs to be a bit of a concerted pushback

from people who remember before we're gone. Yes. Like, one of the things that's crazy to me, like, you know, for you, it's cars because, you know, that's, that's, you grew up during that shift as well the industry kind of to your point

lost something but like I grew up with like the Nintendo Gameboy and a lot of these things were like it was kind of like the early days of gaming where it was all these passionate people doing things because they really desperately wanted to it was before all the bean counters got in

it was before all the regulators got in it was before the people figured out how to turn it into this you used to be able to make a game with a dozen people and of course you could still do that today I don't want to remand aside too much but like you could make a best selling game

back then with, you know, a dozen people. And these were all crazy people who could be making more money working in, let's say, like, farming or industrial manufacturing. And instead, they decided to be game programmers. Today, you'll have game teams that are thousands of people. And it's all, you know, it's become a very high paying, high prestige job. It's just a, it's a totally different universe. And it's also a giant business now, right?

It's been proven that it's a huge moneymaker. It's purely, it's totally financialized now. Like, it's optimized by the bean counter. How are we going to make $5 billion in profit this year? And the video game industry is bigger than the movie industry, right? It is. And actually, and it has been even for a while. I think that happened like, I want to say it was like six or seven years ago that the games industry.

I showed you before we came on, I have this knockoff of the Nintendo Game Boy that I made. I remember I talked about that web forum. I started with a superior Game Boy. You could feel it just holding onto it. So actually, this one is even nicer than the ones that we normally. normally sell. This is my personal andrel edition one. So this is made with the same alloys we use in our attack drones and the coating on it is a is a wearproof syracote ceramic. It feels like very sturdy. Also that the screen lens instead of plastic

like on the original Game Boy it's actually lab grown sapphire crystal. It's the largest piece of sapphire crystal in any product ever in history. And then exactly. But then we made a new version of Tetris for it. That's incredible. Whoops. But the thing is interesting about this is like I turn it on that game is instantly going. Like there's no ads, there's no subscriptions. It doesn't say log in and download the updates. Let us show you the pre-roll ads. Now you need to make your user account and put in all your user preferences and give us access to your email and give us access to your social media.

If you want to have the extra booster packs. Like it's just access to your social media. Oh, that's a very common thing now. A lot of games, they are heavily incentivizing linking your social media accounts to your game accounts. them see your contacts, your friends list. Well, because they want all that data, they want to know who they can market to. They want to see what your demographics are. They want to say, what, what is this customer like?

Can you opt out? So there are some games that require you to have social media integration. There's other, you have people with dark patterns. No. So, like, there are these patterns that exist in social media design and app design that steer you down a particular direction. And so they don't force you to do it. But the average user, unless they're trying to fight their way out of it, is going to do it.

So, for example, I'll be logging into a game. I've just downloaded the Overwatch 2, and it says, you need to log in. You can either go through this extremely convoluted process of creating a new only Overwatch 2 Blizzard account, or you can click in with Google or log in with Facebook. And then you click it, and it says, to do this, you have to give us permission to see this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this. And look, you and I care about this stuff because I think we're relics who remember when privacy was a thing and when some things are for yourself. A lot of these kids, they just don't care. They just click it. You talk to the Gen Z kids and it's like, well, why do you want, are you going to give that away?

They say, well, they don't see value in it. And they grew up with that as the norm. And that's why I say it's important to remember when it wasn't the norm. Do people get dummy accounts so that they can give a dummy account just to that? There are people who do it. but most people don't and also like the thing is they make it where there's even reasons

where you want it to be tied to your social media so they want to gather lots of information and you know get you plugged into their marketing ecosystem and they say oh if you if you log in with this social media account then we can automatically add all of your friends to your in-game friends list

so you don't have to go and manually invite them so they they make it like it is a convenience feature but the thing is they could do that without storing all that data and giving them persistent access to all your social media accounts and seeing everything that you're posting. Some of these apps, even you give them permission to post on your behalf. Oh.

And what they do is like this was a, this was innovated kind of like the Farmville stuff. Do you remember Farmville? And you had to say, the reason it was so viral is when you would do stuff in Farmville, it would literally post on your wall and say, oh, Palmer just did this. Palmer just visited Joe's farm and helped him do this. Those tactics have evolved way beyond to make these things very sticky, very addictive. So, look, you can make a fake account. You can make a burner account.

And there's like 1% of people who will ever think of doing something like that. And so for them, it's just about mass. And I wouldn't mind so much if it was just about making money. Like, making money is fine. Like, I'm a believer in the free market generally. I'm a believer in capitalism strongly. But then the problem is you have this combination of capitalism-driven capture efforts combined with people who don't care about making money.

nearly so much as pushing their particular social ideals. Like, you've, you've probably seen this in Hollywood. You certainly see it in the games industry, where you have people who are joining the industry, not because they want to make great games, not even because they want to make money. And I say, like, making great games is the best reason. Making money is an acceptable reason. It's because they want to, you know, bring about greater equity and representation of people that look like them.

And, like, that's fine to have as a thing in the back of your mind, but there's people who are joining where that is what they want to do. And anyone who's against it, they're going to berate them. Anyone in the company who says, I actually think we should make games for our customers, not the people you wish were our customers. Like, let's make games for the guys who buy

our games, not the moms you wish were buying our games. And people like that are being ejected out of companies. I mean, it's very politically incorrect. There's a question. Well, that's the Bud Light dilemma. Right? Exactly. They tried to make Bud Light for people who don't want Bud Light.

And make fun of the Bud Light people. It's the mythical audience. It's a mystical mainstream audience. They say they, and you know, it's even worse in gaming because they'll say things like, oh, you know, 50% of gamers are, are, you know, stay at home moms. And you're like, what? That obviously isn't true. And what it is is it's something like there's a lot of stay-at-home homes who have played Candy Crush a few times. And like there's a lot of them.

And they're like, therefore we need to build to that market. Okay. Like, I don't want to get into a fight over like what. a gamer is. But what do you think sounds like a better business plan? To go after the young men, primarily, who buy a dozen $50 games a year or the mom who once spent $5 on Candy Crush. Like, you know, and there's kind of, and if you say that, if you put it the way I just put it, they're like, that's so sexist of you. Why don't you want to bring in new audiences? I saw this when I was in, I saw this when I was in Silicon Valley. What I called it was,

I said there's too many people who drink Starbucks and not enough who drink Mountain Dew. And you know exactly what I mean when I say that. It's just, it's, it's, it's been a really bizarre thing to watch in all of these different, in all of these different industries. Yeah, it's a mine virus. It's captured universities and then it bled out into corporations. One of my, one of my favorite questions to ask people is, you know, starting a company's hard. You can't, you'll fail most of the time, even when you, you'll fail most of the time, even when you, don't constrain yourself to trying to, you know, change, change the social system.

Like, look, if you could, if you could make it where there's, if you could make it where there's all those, like all those moms all get into games and it was free, like that would be great. But it's not. It's a tradeoff, right? You have to take resources you would have put on your customer, your real customers and put it towards them. One question I ask people is, just ideologically is, okay, imagine your job is to build, is to

build a corporate building for a company. And the company, you know exactly who they are, you know how many men there are, you know how many women there are. We don't have to say how many there are. Like, we're not, don't even, don't make it about one gender versus another. It's just there are lots of men. There's lots of women. I won't pick a number. When you're designing this building, should you have the number of bathrooms that would best serve the actual gender makeup of the company that would allow them to use the bathroom and get back to their desk without waiting in line?

or would you do anything else? Like, would you pursue a different strategy? And if it's different, like, what would your strategy be? And many people say, well, I would build it, you know, perfect 50-50. And if they say, well, I'm doing that because it's, you know, the easiest way to do it. And I'm like, okay, that's fine. But if they say, well, I would, you know, I would hope that I would start, I want to create an environment where it will, it should eventually be 50% men and 50% women.

I say, okay, so wait, you're going to, you have a company, 90% men, 10% women. You think the men should have to wait in line. five times as long at the bathroom because someday that might make more women want to work at this company. And it's one of those really interesting dividing questions where it's basically, do you want to solve the problem that allows your business to succeed? Or are you trying to achieve totally parallel social aims at the expense of the business? And companies are hiring a lot of people who think about it that way. They don't see their role as to come in and make the company better or to make a better product for their customer. They see it as to come in and

affect that change, even if it tanks the company of the process. Have you seen? How did that happen? Dude, I don't know. Or that's common. I think that probably you let, I mean, there's a lot of theories. I can give you mine. It was the zero interest rate phenomenon theory. Are you familiar with this? The zero interest rate phenomenon. ZERP, they call it. Some people call the zero interest rate period. So ZERP was this period of time that we've really seen over the last 15 years up until very recently, where money was basically free to borrow. That's where you've seen so much economic growth. You've seen a lot of it artificially propped up in the tech and the media industry.

I think a lot of like these streaming plays have been propped up by ZERP. When interest rates are extremely low and money is very cheap to borrow, people will spend tons and tons of tons of money. The economy appears to be doing very well. You have the growth that looks good on the stock market. And so companies don't need to ever tighten their belts. They can hire and higher and higher. They can become grossly inefficient.

They can pursue things that don't make money, and they're still doing okay. And so a lot of these companies, their employees were kind of out of control. You had people coming out of college who believe their job was to change the world by using the money of these corporations. And the corporations didn't push back on it because they would be accused of being bigots and committing hate crimes. And they said, you know what? The stock is going up. Everything's going well. we can just keep doing this.

My theory is actually that interest rates going up have been very good for solving this problem. You've seen a lot of layoffs in the tech industry. You've seen a lot of layoffs in the media industry. I think that a lot of those are driven by interest rates rising. Money's not free. And now companies have to actually make what people want.

Did you see, you probably didn't, but did you happen to see the first quarterly earnings call by the new CEO of Warner Brothers who came in a year or two? He came in a year or two ago. and it was incredible. He had this speech that was exactly what fans wanted to hear and what investors wanted to hear,

but his employees were furious. He came on and said, in my tenure, I'm going to pursue something that's a bit novel for Warner Brothers. Instead of making movies that people don't want to see, I'm going to make movies that people do want to see. Instead of making movies that don't make money, instead we will make movies

that do make money and to do that we are going to make products that people want like Batman and Lord of the Rings and Harry Potter and that is going to be the core of our market success

and like that's what fans want like oh my God this is great they're going to stop making these kind of social justice pieces and make us the things that we actually want the investors love it because he says they're going to make money but the people were angry were all of

the college students who joined thinking that they were going to use billions of dollars from Warner Brothers to make their pet art film projects about various oppressed groups. And I think that that is happening across the industry. I think that's a good thing. It's a good adjustment. That makes sense. So speaking to making things. Oh, yeah. Bust out the helmet, son. All right. So let me, I'm going to take this off. Okay. So I've been working on headmounted displays for a long time. I created the Oculus Rift when I was 19 years old, living in a camper trailer in my garage. And that was really the virtual reality headset that changed the industry, sold that company for billions of dollars. And now that I'm working in the national security space, I've continued to believe that virtual reality, augmented reality is going to be a critical part of our military. So the ability to have night vision, thermal vision, but also the ability to see where all the bad guys are, see where all the good guys are by fusing everyone's view together. Think of it almost like a hive mind. If I'm able to see something, you should be able to. to see it. If a drone can see it, you should be able to see it. Even if it's on the other side

of a building, you should be able to see it and effectively have X-ray vision. And I should be able to command and control all these other systems using this heads-up display interface. None of what I'm saying sounds that crazy, right? It just sounds like any science fiction film. These are ideas that have been around for 100 years, but only very recently has become possible. So this is a new product that we just announced at the Army's conference yesterday. We've been working on it for years using our own money. No taxpayer dollars were used to create it. It's called Eagle Eye.

And it is an integrated ballistics shell. So you've got a helmet. You've got hearing protection. You've got thermal sensors, night sensors, signals intelligence sensors that allow you to detect where cell phones are, where radios are, see that in your view. It even detects where gunshots are shows them exactly where they're placed and how far they are. So this is the, this is a recreation of it. So this is like, yeah, this is a, so this is a video feed of what it is like to use the system. So I've got the helmet on here.

And then what I have is this pair of augmented reality glasses. So basically, I can take these glasses and I put them on. These sync with the helmet and with these sensors. So I can, for example, see where my gun is pointing. I can see where every enemy is. I can see where all of my buddies are. I can see... So, like, there's a view that's coming up here

where you're going to notice a drone picks up a guy behind that container over there. And what's going to happen is when he walks behind that container, I'm able to continue to see where he is and what he's doing. So here's Ghost X is the drone that's watching. So just watch for a moment.

So the blue force is my friendlies. So see that little right-hand corner where it sees behind the containers? Uh-huh. They're tracking where the bad guy is. They're tracking where my guys are and then watch when they go behind the container so I can actually see

through it and watch. Now they're engaging the guy over there and he's down. Wow. Imagine the guy's coming over a hill and I want to engage him. So actually I'm going to pot on the mission shield. There we go. So this is a system that allows

everybody to basically be operating as one combined hive mind where you can all share a view of the world. And by the way, this view that I have it's shared now with all of the robots as well. So anything I see, like let's see I see someone inside of a building. Every drone and every person now sees that person where he is.

It's so crazy that I was born at the right time to actually get to build all this stuff. Because you know Robert Heinlein, the science fiction author who did Starship Troopers. He was literally writing about these ideas of mobile infantry that's wearing mech suits and below. Ballistics prediction, like helmets that show you the bad guys, give you radar feeds, give you night vision, give you thermal vision, the ability to do ballistics targeting, where it calculates where the wind is going to blow you around and where it's going to go. He was literally writing about this in the 1940s. I mean, we're talking about almost 100 years ago.

Wow. And we happen to be born in the right time. So, you know, too late to explore the seas, too early to explore the stars, but just in time. to build Eagle Eye. You're in the right timeline. I am in the right timeline. Do you ever feel like it's a simulation because of that? Do you ever feel like you're living in some sort of bizarre simulation?

Because otherwise, like, why you? Why do you have such a unique existence? Why are you so fortunate? Why are all these cool things happening for you? It's like I'm reliving my nights here in the room with you. Now, I ponder it a lot because, I mean, look, we talked earlier about how I would only be able to pull off these things I pulled off. I continuously succeeded.

A lot of green lights. And over and over again. And it does make you think, like, what are the odds of that? Is it more likely that the world is a simulation or not? And I think actually it just comes down to, it comes down to, I'm a spiritual person. I believe in the existence of a higher creator, of a higher power. And I feel like there's actually a lot of similarities between that and believing in simulation theory. I mean, like, when people say, oh, it's all a simulation, is that really so different from having a universe that was created by an all-powerful

being like you like it's almost i i often feel like simulation theory is just normal religion wrapped up in a package that a person who claims to be a religious can uh can partake in they're like no i would never believe in you know a sky daddy i just believe that we live in a world created by a higher being and that he's watching our every move and learning from it and helping us along the way i don't know man that's you're you're hitting on a lot of the tenets of Well, there's also, like, what were they trying to write down when they were writing the initial religious texts? Like, what were they actually describing? When you're talking about something that's an oral tradition for...

Let me pop up the... There we go. I can pop out this. Can I put that on? Yes, absolutely. What are you seeing right now? So, right now, nothing. Unfortunately, if I'm going to give you a good demo, we need to go to an area where it's synced up to all the other helmets.

Oh, okay. I want to show you the night. I like how the ears pop out, though. Yes, this is my doing. So I'm a huge weapons enthusiast. I own about 450 guns, huge number of, you know, I own basically everything that anyone's ever fought in. So ballistic vests, uniforms, boots, gloves, helmets. I just, I collect that stuff.

And so one of the cool parts about Eagle Eyes, I got to bring all my opinions on what things should be, and I can just jam them into the product. So, like, the cool thing about this is, like, if you've ever used earring protection, normally, you know, it pops up like this. And, you know, it's kind of dangling the way. Notice how it's really tightly integrated. Like it's not flopping around, but I can pop it open, and now I can hear you directly with my own two ears. I can pop that and clip it back in, and I'm able to hear with electronic pass-through, and it actually enhances my hearing.

So I can hear certain things better. And you'll notice this is ballistic ear protection. So have ever seen like a high-cut helmet where you can have low-cut helmets where they protect your ears more, high-cut helmets where there's no ballistic protection over your hearing protection? This is ballistic hearing protection. So when I put this on, everything is protected with armor, even over the soft tissue in my ears and around my upper neck. Is there any concern about the hinge or that during combat it would pop open? No, no, it's a super robust system. So here I'll actually show you.

Let me pull off. So these are modular sensor pods at the top. They call them wolf ears. But I can basically swap these even in the field. So I could carry, for example. But that seemed too easy to take off. Magnets, buddy. Right.

But I'm saying if you're in the middle of a scramble and you're, you're in the middle of a scramble and you're... Here, check this one out. This one has no connector on it. This is, this one is a, these are not actually real modules. These are based, these, this is a tricky one where we have real modules and show modules. The real modules, in general, the Army doesn't want to have them passed around and people taking pictures of them. Like at AUSA, there's people walking up, taking pictures of everything in the booth.

They don't want you to show off, for example, the size of the aperture of the thermal image you're using because then they can back reverse how far you can see what level of thermal radiation you can see. Let's see. So, yeah, these are fake. So these are dummies. Yeah, normally you actually, when it has a connector in there, you got to actually jam it in there and it's retained. And so, have you done tests where, like, people fall down off hills and go for a tumble? So this technology, the last revision of it is already with the Army. They're doing trials and tests of this literally right now.

But like, if you look here, it's basically a spring steel mechanism there. And so it's not just strong. It's also flexible. So it basically can bend and then snap back. And so you, it's very, very. very hard to over bend this, over extend this. And if you did, like, it's very hard. But if you did, you grab some pliers and you bend it back.

And notice how that's a replaceable module there. I can just unscrew this and replace it with a new part. Everything on here, I can repair in the field with a field repair kit as well. And does it have the same functionality as like Walker game ears where you can amplify outside noises, but then when a loud boom comes off your ears protected? Exactly. But it's even better. We're using an array of, so those ones, you have two microphones.

The walkers, they typically have one here, one here. What we're doing is a phased array of microphones so that I can actually steer the amplification beam. Whoa. I could say, hey, like, I could set in a... I hear footsteps over in this left direction. Let's point in that. Well, even crazier.

Imagine that I'm looking at a target with this. And I look at that target. It can cancel out all of the other sound that it knows is coming out of phase with that direction and distance, and it can give me just the sound there coming from that as best. its can. So it can give me, not just enhanced hearing, but directional enhanced hearing.

I can say, I want to listen to what that guy, 100 yards over there, is saying. I'm not promising you'll be able to hear, but you'll be able to hear it a lot better than you would than you would without it. So it's worth noting, like, the way this came together is crazy. There was a contract to do this, to build an infantry combat heads of display. In 2017 and 2018, it was awarded to Microsoft by the United States Army. It was $22 billion, $22 billion to develop this technology. And I actually wanted to compete in that competition back then, but at the time, Andrew was only about two dozen people.

And so it was a competition. Do you remember Magic Leap, the Ogling Real? Yeah. It was a competition between Magic Leap and Microsoft. Microsoft ended up winning. I think that's probably good because the guy who was running Magic Leap was not really a fan of the military, and I think it's dangerous to have. even if you don't, it's fine to not like the military,

but you shouldn't have people who don't like the military running the military, right? And I think you shouldn't have people who are in love with the military regulating the military, right? You know, everyone, everyone has their role. Anyway, I never, I never, I was very skeptical of their technology. You remember HoloLens? That was Microsoft's like consumer virtual reality, augmented reality effort. Their AR project was adapting that to, the military into this product called IVAS.

And to make a very, very long story short, it had a lot of problems. Their early hardware was making people sick. It had lag. The night vision wasn't working well. There were soldier evaluation touchpoints that came out where they were saying, hey, I'll get killed if I wear this. Microsoft invested a lot of money trying to make it better.

But eventually, they ended up killing even their Consumer Hall Lens division. They just shut everything down. And so the crazy part of this whole story is, Starting a few years ago, I started going to Microsoft and say, hey, will you guys just give me the I-VAS program? Like, will you just let me take over? You guys can keep building, you know, Microsoft applications, cloud computing, the stuff you're good at. Let me build the tactical heads-up display hardware. And when I first talked to them years ago, they thought I was nuts.

Like, they was almost like insulted. It was like when Microsoft tried to buy Nintendo and they got literally laughed out of the room. And then as time went on, they started to laugh less and less. Eventually, they said, hey, remember how you said you wanted to take over I-Bass? We would actually love to partner with you on this and let you bring your magic to bear on this problem. And I try to be a humble guy. I don't usually succeed, but I am not humble in this one regard. I believe that I am the world's best head-mounted display designer, bar none.

I took the crown with the Oculus Rift. I think I still hold it. And so I was able to kick the program into shape. We built our own hardware and we've built Eagle Eye over the last couple of years and it is it basically solves all the problems

that the program had it is the thing that I think is actually going to end up on the heads of every soldier. Here try to take these on and you'll feel they're a bit heavier than normal glasses

but the other thing about them is that they're also ballistic rated glasses so you see in the front and then also on the sides yeah so like these can take pieces of frag so if someone's attacking you with a drone and it blows up this is going to keep those

from going into your orbital which is a pretty important function for glasses. Yeah, I would say so. What is this outside piece for? So yeah, put the glass, try putting the glass back on, see if you can pop that off. You'll notice like that one is actually, yeah, there we go. Perfect. So that's a mission shield.

I like that you'd ask about it because actually nobody's even noticed really that it's two pieces. So the mission shield is a piece that allows you to reconfigure the glasses for different use cases. If you're using this, for example, to give you automated instructions on how to repair your Humvee, for example. example, I don't need to have that ballistic cover on the front, because I don't need that extra, like, I don't expect that I'm going to have an explosion happen and protect my eyes. But you can also do things like have different types of protection. For example, that's not, and that's just a normal ballistic mission shield. We have another mission shield that protects you from laser energy weapons.

So it's actually tuned where now it makes your vision turn. I probably shouldn't talk about exactly what color because it allows people to figure out what frequencies we're blocking, but there are mission shields that you can put on that will protect you from weapons that we know China has. China has a bunch of directed energy laser weapons. Some of them for taking out drones, others designed to blind human troops. Whoa. And so we're designing mission shields that protect you from those types of emissions. They're designed to blind human troops?

So are they employed from drones? I don't want to be, I don't want to be too, I don't want to be too aggressive here because I'll tell you the United States has weapons that are designed to temporarily blind people as well. Now, the thing is temporary blinding is very close to permanent blinding, and it's a thin line. It's dependent on the range. It's dependent on the power level. Any system that can temporarily blind people at long range is capable of blinding people permanently at long range. It's just that's the line you walk.

Like, if you want it to work in any fog, you need more power. If you want it to work at long ranges, you need more power. But, like, for example, imagine we deployed a bunch of these glasses and they had the laser filters built in from the start. Now imagine that China shifts their laser frequencies 10 nanometers so that it bypasses that filter. Imagine if I had to just replace all my AR glasses. That's not acceptable, right? So everything on this system is totally modular. So what would happen is if they shifted their laser weapons, we would just give people a new mission shield.

Now they're all set. That mission shield comes off very easy, though. So this comes, look, I got to admit, these are primarily for like showing off to the army. Got it. So it'll somehow know they're secure and deploy. place. It's actually still going to be magnets. It's just going to be a lot more forced to remove. I'm wondering how much I should get into the movie magic here. So look, I'll get a little bit into it. I'm mostly an engineer. I mostly build stuff. But a big part of what I do is

understanding what magicians think when they are drawing attention things, when they have patter, when you're going through a demo of something to somebody. Like I used to demo the Oculus Rift to thousands of people a year, high-powered executives, government people, CEOs of major game companies, people we were trying to hire. And you have to develop a pattern of how you talk about stuff. And you need to be able to go in any direction. If somebody says, well, what about this? You need to be able to show them that feature.

And you need to be ready for how you show the feature. I need to be intimately familiar with every part of it. The reason that the magnets are so weak on this is because we show this to people who are weak. I'm not kidding. If you actually have, like, because you're not swapping this like as you're running around, right? So like in the real one, you can have, you know, where you're like, uh, you know, and it busts off. Right. But imagine this.

Imagine we're sitting in a, in a demo room. And then you hand this to either a member of the press or even, let's say, a member of the armed forces. And I say, here you go. And your name is Ashley. Right. Take that, Ashley. Okay. Pull it off.

And you'll, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, that's the problem. Like, because you need some decent, you see those tabs on the end. You know, like the protrusions, yeah. That's to make it easier for your fingers to grab when you have way more force. There are people who have really weak fingers. They don't really know how to grab stuff. And then it's actually the same thing with. I understand.

I understand what you're saying. So I'm showing you a little bit of the movie, the movie magic behind, behind how I think of these. Here, if you want to take this, you can put it on. This is an actual weighted helmet. We've developed a bunch of novel technology makes it work. Oh, yeah, it actually fits on you. Oh, here, you're a little wrap, your chin straps wrapped around. Yeah, just sorry, I wrapped it around before you even had it.

Yep, there you go. But yeah, if you're familiar with walkers, very, very similar what we do on the hearing enhancement side. It's just a world even beyond that. It's too tight or you got it? And then this snaps, oh yeah. How's the snap? So here, I might have to come around.

There's a little bit of a trick that you learn it. What it does is it goes in, and then you're going to push it up and back diagonally. Oh, you did it. There you got. I'm so glad. See, that's just how intuitive it is. Yeah. But it's...

And the cool thing about this is you don't have these like mounts now that are snagging you. Here, well, you got to put on the glasses too. Oh, yeah. You don't have the mounts that are snagging you. You don't... Like, have you ever... You've used night vision? I have.

I mean, it's just, you know, you have this big giant unicorn horn, this thing pounding on your fest. Also, it's very unbalanced. Weight that's out here is torquing your neck continuously. Right, right. And it's annoying when you're... standing in place, but if you, let's say, hit a pothole in a Humvee with a big weight on the end of a lever, you destroy your neck. Right.

I think it's 20, oh my God, that can't even be right. I want to say, I want, I need to look this out. It might be, is it $200 million for the Air Force? And then I want to say it's $20 billion that the DOD spends on neck injuries. Whoa. Primarily through the VA, right? There's so many neck injuries that occur from spinal compression, people getting their heads whipped around. That's why helmets need to be extremely lightweight, tightly integrated, no snag hazards.

Like, it's important that you not have, you know, a big, giant, you know, bulky thing, where I'm going through a doorway, and it gets on there, and all of a sudden I go, in a weird angle, and I'm trying to run through a room. Or, like, someone's turning, and part of their rifle, you're right up on me, and it snags on my helmet and pulls me. You've probably seen a lot of people put, like, big battery packs for their night vision back here. Same thing. It creates a huge snaggazer, like you're sliding down something or sliding over an edge. You clear it, and then the back of your head hits that fence, and you go, boom.

What's the battery power of something like that? Okay. So this has a tiny battery pack on it. This has 30 minutes of battery life. So what is the lithium ion capacity? Is it lithium ion? Is it like a cell phone battery? So the battery on here is actually, the battery that is in here is basically an emergency reserve. It is not intended to power it most of the time. It is a primary cell chemistry that won't burst into flames. It's basically one-time use. So, think of it like an emergency battery that runs it when your helmet is disconnected from the main battery.

The main battery is this. So you ever used ballistic plates before? Yes. So this is a standard geometry, sappy geometry plate. This is good for rucking. Exactly. So the cool thing about this is it's a combination battery, computer, and ballistic plate. And so here's the craziest part about this.

Normally you would wear a plate, and then you would have to wear a battery and a computer. That's how everyone's always done heads-up displays before. And I realize that's crazy because you need that space for other stuff, right? You want to be carrying ammo. You want to be carrying equipment. You want to be carrying grenades or admin stuff. You can't use your most valuable real estate to just carry a battery brick. So what's in here is a battery technology that is an electrolyte-free.

solid-state ceramic battery. Now, ceramic batteries are not as high energy density as in terms of like they don't have as much energy per pound as the very, very best, like, let's say, car electric batteries. But they're pretty good ballistic material. And so what I realized is that you,

instead of having the weight of a ballistic plate and then the weight of a battery on top, you should combine those two functions. You should make your battery part of your ballistic material stack up so that, like is it the best ballistic material in the world? No. Is it the best battery material in the world?

No. But you can have enough of it that it's better than either of those things working separately. If I were to try to make a system that was a normal armor plate and then also this much battery, so like you notice we actually got all the power

actually labeled right here. So this is 900 watt hour battery. If we were to have a plate and then a battery, it would be like a plate this big and then like another big battery on top. By combining the two, I've made it where I've eliminated something like 10 pounds from the

soldier's ruck, which is a huge deal because that's weight I can either keep out of his ruck, or I can or I can just put more shit into it. Of course, what all my buddies in the army tell me is Palmer, don't let them take those 10 pounds and give me 10 pounds more shit.

These guys are already carrying an insane amount of stuff. This is only the start. We're building a bunch of other augments that combine multiple systems into one thing. In fact, this has also got a bunch of radio hardware in it as well.

So if you can replace a radio and your batteries and your ballistics and your onboard computer all in one thing, that's pretty cool. But I want to keep doing that. Dude. This is all so cool. In general, I would recommend using this as your rear

plate, not your front plate. So if you've got a rear and a front, the rear is probably the one that you want to put this in because if you do get shot in the plate you don't want it to you're more likely to get shot in the front than the back and you don't want to get shot and then you lose all of your energy to run all of your sensors

your night vision and everything else and if you get shot with a plate it's possible to take that plate and swap it with a fresh one. I mean look you're the world's biggest badass if you're able to do that in a firefight. I don't think most people are bad enough to take a hit

right in the chest and then pull out their plate and slap another win in, but it does happen. And so we're generally recommending that people use this as the rear plate to make it less likely to get shot. But fully capable of operating in front plate service. This is amazing stuff, man. Really fascinating. I love my job.

I get to work with just the coolest technology on the bleeding edge of all this. And the best part is that the gains, it's not so much in, some people, they see these gains and they get to make money off of it. But I do this, and I get to have end use. is telling me, Palmer, this is how you saved our unit's life. Palmer, this is how your technology protected our base. Palmer, people would be dead in this particular building if you had not developed the technology that you did.

That is the most rewarding thing that you can do. At least it's the most rewarding thing that I've ever done. It's a really cool set of problems. And I highly encourage people who are really smart to look at doing this stuff because some people, they say, well, I don't want to work on weapons. You know, it's ethically fraught. The point I make to them is that this is, whether you like it or not, we need some formal weapons, right? We're not going to disarm the entire world.

There are bad guys out there. We need to have something. And if you are worried about the ethics of weapons, it's actually even more important that you work on them because there's no moral high ground in outsourcing that work to people who are less ethical and less competent than you. If you think you're a competent person and you think you're an ethical person, you almost have a responsibility to care about these and arguably to work on them. So that's the way that I look at it. Well, it's cool as fuck. I'm glad you're making it, man. And I really enjoyed this conversation.

I'm really glad we did this. This is a lot of fun. So much fun. I've got to get you out sometime. I would love to. Because we've got a test range where we can actually put you in. We'll give you a rifle. You'll be able to mark targets.

Let's fucking go. That's awesome. Let's do it. Thank you very much. It's really fun. Thanks for being here. All right. Bye, everybody.

I don't know.