All-In with Chamath, Jason, Sacks & Friedberg: E135: Wagner rebels, SCOTUS ends AA, AI M&A, startups gone bad, spacetime warps & more

This is going to be a feisty episode.

Is it?

Two of us are on Greenwich Mean Time.

Two of us are in Pacific.

J. Cal still asleep in his head.

I'm good, actually.

You good?

I'm good.

All right. Well, great to be back.

Welcome to the All Conspiracy Podcast,

where we repeat false statements

and help spin them into tales of struggling

against the establishment,

the elite, and the mainstream media.

We will deliver to you the people,

the revolution,

against the powers that be.

Unless it offends.

Still trying to get my invite for next week.

We also enjoy Friedberg.

Mom's the word.

We'll also enjoy sharing with you

fantastic stories of opulence.

Let's be neutral.

Opulence, leisure, and benevolent greed.

Here we go.

Joining me today are my co-hosts,

General David Sacks,

commander of the Fourth Battalion

of the Internet Tweet Brigade.

General, welcome.

Joining us from a remote location.

In Moscow.

Has there been like an establishment

takeover of the pod?

I mean, what's up with this intro?

Yeah.

Every argument they make against us

you're basically just conceding.

It's true.

I know.

Exactly.

From his 12th century Mediterranean castle,

Il Duce,

Chamath Palihapatia.

Welcome, Chamath.

How is the Mediterranean diet treating you?

Blue.

Blue?

Blue.

And Emperor Nero Callicanus,

ruler over podcasts, paid events,

entrepreneurial universities,

and dental SPVs.

Emperor, thank you

for letting me sit in your throne today.

It's good to be here.

Thank you.

Dental SPVs.

Shout out to my dentists.

Well, you say King of STDs?

SPVs.

Oh, SPVs.

Dental SPVs.

Yeah.

That's the thing with certain STDs

where once you are King,

you're going to be King for life.

Absolutely.

And it said we open sources to the fans

and they've just gone crazy.

Love you guys.

I'm Queen of King.

Love.

I'm going all in.

TheSyndicate.com.

Yeah, thank you.

You've been doing,

you said five shows a week lately.

Your voice is shot.

My voice is starting to go.

So I asked you if you'd moderate

and you thankfully said yes.

I've got the energy.

I missed last week.

I enjoyed listening to you guys

with VG, great episode.

Sorry I couldn't join.

But let's kick it off.

That's funny.

I saw them and watched the episode

that I missed.

He's not interested, huh?

He's like, I'm not on the show.

I'm not interested.

If I didn't have time to participate,

I don't really have time to watch it.

The truth is, Saks,

why don't you admit to everyone

that when you're in a show,

you probably watch it four or five times?

All right.

So let's kick this off.

Obviously, you guys recorded

right before the Wagner group

attempted coup or potential coup

or theorized coup began last week.

So Saks, you kind of sent out a text

saying the show is already stale

because you kind of missed that

that news cycle by publishing

right after it started,

but you recorded right before.

So let's do just a quick recap

of what happened with Russia,

Ukraine and particularly its Wagner

Wagner group rebellion.

Last Friday, the Wagner group,

which is a Russian paramilitary organization

led by Evgeny Krogosian,

launched what seemed like

an armed insurrection against Russia.

Wagner had occupied portions of Rostov-on-Don,

a city of over a million people,

a regional capital and headquarters

of Russia's southern military district

before setting off towards Moscow

and then abruptly stopping,

I think about 200 kilometers

before reaching Moscow City.

At that point,

there was supposedly a negotiation.

The president of Belarus got involved

and Krogosian decided to step down.

Putin said,

I'm not going to prosecute

or I'm not going to prosecute you

for these crimes.

He was given immunity

and it was announced

that all the members of the Wagner group

were given the option of returning home

or joining the Russian military

and the Wagner group

was going to be dissolved.

Saks, maybe you can kind of give us

your summary of the events

that took place

and then we'll talk a little bit

about the interpretation

of what we think this means

for the conflict in Ukraine.

Well, you're right

that this rebellion took place

just after we dropped our last episode.

And so everybody,

both on Twitter

and in the comments

was dunking on me

for my take on last week's episode

that the much hyped Ukrainian counteroffensive

was not succeeding

that it was in fact failing.

I think there's abundant evidence for that

which hasn't changed.

Even CNN had written an article

basically supporting the idea

that the counteroffensive

was not living up to

what had been promised.

And so everyone was in the comments

saying that my take

had basically aged like milk

and this arm rebellion

or mutiny by Progosian

was evidence that the Russian regime

was about to collapse.

That Russia was in fact

on the verge of civil war

and you saw the exact same people

who had oversold the counteroffensive

now overselling this mutiny

as something that would bring down

the Russian regime

and the war.

And of course

that that did not happen.

It was certainly a highly unusual event

and I've read takes now

from every different corner of the internet

about what it was

and what took place.

You have people speculating

that this was all staged.

I do not believe that.

I do believe that it was

insurrection or mutiny by Progosian.

I think the trigger for it

was the fact that

his Wagner organization

was being merged in

with the Ministry of Defense

and the regular Russian army

and his men were all being made

to sign contracts

with the Ministry of Defense.

That would have resulted

in a giant loss of income

and status for Progosian.

Simultaneously for months now

he's been criticizing

the Ministry of Defense

specifically the Minister of Defense

Shoigu

and the Chief General

of the General Staff

Jarasimov.

So he's been vocally critical of them

and I think that

this basically erupted into

a mutiny by him

where he basically

tried to leverage his position

like you said.

He marched

what they now think

are about 8,000 men

which is about a quarter

of Wagner into Rostov-on-Don.

He then took the Ministry headquarters

and sent about 3,000 of his men

on a convoy to Moscow.

I think that

although this is probably best described

as a mutiny

I think that it did have

coup optionality to it.

I think that Progosian

was seeking to find out

how much support Putin had

and who might

join him and he had put out

a number of statements

that I think from the Russian regime's point of view

could be described as seditious

that morning and

there's a lot of evidence that he staged

this attack on his base.

He claimed

that there was a missile attack

by the Ministry of Defense

and that's what launched this

March for Justice

and in his comments

he was careful

not to criticize Putin directly

but he had a lot to say

about the Ministry of Defense

and the overall conduct of the war

and it was I think

harshly critical

indirectly of Putin

and I think he was looking to see

who might support him

and what happened is that

on the way to Moscow

during this convoy

nobody supported him.

In fact, all the statements came out

from the other generals

including Sir Vekin

including all the regional governors

of members of the Duma

and other important figures

in Russian society

and there wasn't a single person

willing to publicly support

Progosian

and that's when

Putin went on TV

called this basically an act of treason

and a stab in the back

and at that point I think

Progosian's options were pretty limited

and he basically took a deal

that was broker by Lukashenko

in which he would go into exile

in Belarus

in exchange for basically being allowed to live.

That was basically the deal

that was ultimately cut

and so I think where things stand today

is that although I think this was an embarrassment

and a black eye for the Russian regime

it never looks good

for a regime to have any kind of mutiny

or insurrection

and I think that it does raise questions

that Putin's now going to have to answer

to his various allies

and supporters

about how stable his regime is.

I think ultimately

Putin has ended up

in a place of consolidating

Russian society behind him.

Like I said, there were no power centers

that supported this mutiny.

They all rallied to Putin's defense

and the people of Russia

even though Progosian is a popular figure

being kind of a war hero

from the Battle of Bakhmut

the Russian society supported Putin.

I think he's at something like 80%

poll numbers.

So I think where things stand to...

Who's poll?

Well, like Lovato Center

which is an independent polling agency

for example

these are not the Russian regime's own numbers

and when they're poll numbers...

Would you say in a poll

that you don't support Putin?

Yeah.

Well, I don't know how Lovato Center

what their methodology is

but these numbers

when the numbers are bad

are cited by Western sources.

But there are other forms of evidence too.

You may have seen this video

that went viral over the past few days

of this song

that's now the number one chart buster

in Russia

where it's this very patriotic Russian song

where they're basically singing

I am Russian

that's sort of the main chorus.

Nick, can you pull up the song?

I'd like to see this, please.

Coming at ya, 95.5

I love Russia.

Oh my God, this is some serious propaganda.

Wow, yeah.

I mean, that looks like a pretty good party.

If you look up the lyrics to the song

the English translation of the lyrics

that just of it is

I'm basically proud to be Russian

and I don't care

who doesn't like it.

That's basically the lyrics of it.

How do you get invited to that party?

I got so many jokes.

I'm not going to make it.

I know you got to be careful.

Be careful here, folks.

You got to be careful here.

It looks like a fun party.

It's a catchy song.

I mean, I love to dress up and show up.

Tell me where to show up, Putin.

I think the point here is

that Russian society is united behind the state

in wanting to fight this war.

And I think that part of the reason

why progosians mutiny was so oversold

as an imminent coup

that would bring about the collapse of the Putin regime

and of the Russian war effort

and of their frontline

is because that we since the beginning of those war

we've had this narrative

that if we applied enough pressure to Russia

that there'd be a palace intrigue

and a palace coup

and that liberal forces inside of Russia

would rise up and topple the dictator Putin

and basically get them out of this war.

And I think what's happened is fairly predictable

but it's the opposite of that

which is the Russian people

are rallying around the flag

and rallying around Putin the war leader

and they are a patriotic people just like the Ukrainians

and I think both these countries

that both the Russians and the Ukrainians

are proud people

and I think they're in a fight to the death

and I think that both countries

regard this as existential

and we have basically stuck ourselves in the middle

of this fight to the death between these two countries

and I don't see this working out very well.

Okay, so look, I will make an admission.

I consider myself a modestly well-read person

modestly well-informed.

I had never heard of the Wagner group

or Progosian prior to this coup attempt last week.

Chamath, J. Cal had you guys heard of this person before

and the Wagner group?

Yeah, yeah.

Oh, well, maybe I'm an idiot

or that just not interested.

I think what was so surprising

was like how out of the blue

the story seemed to be last week

that there was this disagreement

between this person that commanded

this paramilitary organization

who then turned around against Putin

and stood up against him

and marched back towards Moscow

and it felt to me like it came a little bit

out of the blue

and was such like a weird kind of shocking event.

Did it feel kind of like that to you guys

that there was surprising instability

and the surprising potential revolution

happening locally?

I think stepping back here

and just looking at the news cycle

obviously I don't think many people expected this.

This was a wild card

and so people could be humble in, you know,

their belief of like how much they actually understand

about what's going on there.

The Russian soldiers are not in favor of this war.

This is a war that's very unpopular in Russia actually

and for the Ukraine,

having been invaded by Russia,

they're fighting for their land

and they're gonna they are much more motivated.

I wouldn't believe any of this propaganda,

but this is a bit of a Russia test.

Everybody on the left got on Twitter

and said this is the end of Putin.

Everybody's gonna rise up in the streets

and they overplayed that, you know,

angle of the story.

And then of course the right

or people who are pro-Russian

or anti the West backing this war

are gonna take the other side, Preberg.

They're gonna take the side of, you know,

oh, everybody loves Russia.

80% of people are voting for this.

It's ridiculous to think that anybody in Russia

is gonna answer, do you like Putin?

Do you support Putin on a survey?

Can you imagine a Putin's a murderous dictator

who kills all of his enemies

and he controls through violence?

Nobody's answering a survey correctly.

This, you know, top song is complete propaganda.

Putin has control of the entire media apparatus there.

What this showed actually, if you step back

and you look at-

Did you go to the party though if you were invited?

Well, I mean, are there gonna be potential LPs there?

Last week, but I think, that's just a joke folks.

But stepping back, if you look at modern day dictators,

they tend to stay in power for about three decades.

Putin's in his third.

And I think we're gonna see in the next 10 years,

Putin lose power and he's going to be out of power.

And when we look back on it,

it's gonna be one of two causes.

It's gonna be either cancer,

which, you know, the speculation is he's had cancer

and that's why he disappears from view

because he might be getting treatment.

And we'll look back on us that the end of his power

will be his control of Russia,

which he controlling these,

controlling through violence and fear of violence

and threat of violence is exhausting.

You have to be paranoid.

And that's why it generally doesn't last that long,

especially compared to the West

where we have a democracy and people last about a half decade.

He will look back on his end,

which will be in the next 10 years,

either through cancer or through his invasion of Ukraine.

This is the biggest blender he's ever made.

And this is a really crazy sign

that somebody would actually attempt

or even float a coup is insane.

He's murdered every single person

who has ever even challenged his authority in a minor way.

The fact that his, one of his right hand men,

this is one of his tight inner circle.

The fact that one of the people in his tight inner circle

would actually start heading towards Moscow is insane.

So to say this wasn't a big deal and Putin's, you know,

now consolidated power and everybody's in the street dancing.

It was almost as bad as January 6th.

This is just simply not true.

I never said it wasn't a big deal.

I wasn't talking about you.

I was talking about the Mids on Twitter.

I never mentioned your name.

I think that your point, Jay Cal at the beginning,

that this doesn't really seem to change anyone's point of view

on the outlook.

Your point of view sounds like it's the same

as it was a week ago.

Saks, your point of views,

probably the same as it was a week ago.

I think there are a couple of takeaways here.

First of all, they've had polling of opinion in Russia

for a long time.

And like I said, when the polls go the way that the Western

sources want, no one questions their accuracy.

Again, I don't know exactly the methodology,

but Lovato Center is an independent pollster

that Western publications do trust.

I hear them repeat it over and over again.

And, you know, by their methodology,

which I assume hasn't changed,

I think Putin's popularity before the war is around 65%.

Now they're showing it at about 83%.

Jason, you may not like the war.

And, you know, I certainly don't like the war.

Nobody likes the war, yeah.

Nobody likes the war, but I think it is simply a fact

that the Russian people have rallied around the flag

and they do support this war and Putin as the leader.

Now, I do think he has egg on his face here

from this Progosian uprising.

In terms of, did I see this coming?

No, I didn't have this on my bingo card.

I don't think anybody else did either.

However, did I know who Progosian is?

Certainly.

I mean, I've been tracking Progosian statements since

around February.

He's been vocally criticizing the Ministry of Defense,

specifically Shoryug and Jerasimov in increasingly

insubordinate and you could argue even seditious ways.

I'm really kind of surprised in a way

that he wasn't dealt with before this.

And I'm sure that the Kremlin is kicking itself

for probably not dealing with it sooner.

But in terms of why he's still alive,

I think that Putin had a really tough decision to make

about you quash this rebellion completely,

which would have led to horrific images of, you know,

violence potentially in Moscow or Russians, Russians,

Russians killing Russians.

That might have actually led the Russian front to question

itself or collapse.

So I think he did the expedient thing,

which is he cut a deal.

He got Lukashenko to help broker it and he cut a deal.

And I think at the end of the day,

I think that he made the cool headed decision that was in his

and in Russian interest,

which was to avoid this to getting to the point of a

bloody violent insurrection.

Okay, Chumov, any, any point of view shift for you coming

out of the precocious event of the last week on Russia,

Ukraine?

I mean, I want to know how much he got paid to stop

marching towards Moscow.

Yeah.

I mean, it is like a mob.

It must have been.

It must have been a lot.

Not bad for a guy that was what Putin's caterer,

a few years ago, right?

He started a catering business.

I spent nine years in jail.

This guy's like nine years in jail.

It's like the sopranos.

He went to jail for nine years for selling illegal hot dogs

or something and all of a sudden 30 years later,

the guy just paid billions of dollars to basically stop

his paramilitary group from taking over one of the

largest countries in the world.

It's not largest.

I mean, you're clear arsenal in the world.

Yeah.

It's just so you know who this guy is.

I mean, he really is the street thug that Putin is always

accused of being.

He was a street thug.

He did go to jail.

He was one of these guys who came up in Russia as a

businessman when to be a businessman.

You had to be so tough.

Businessmen were getting murdered left and right by

gangsters.

You almost had to be a gangster yourself.

Apparently he made some money in the supermarket chain

business and that led him to create a catering business

which brought him to Putin's attention and he started

catering for the Kremlin.

He's sometimes called Putin's chef.

I don't think he was a chef himself.

He was the guy who owned the business.

And then from there, he was given the license to create

this PMC, this private military corporation, Wagner group.

He wasn't the only founder of it.

He had a co-founder who was actually the military man

behind it.

But Wagner became this group of mercenaries who do all

sorts of business in Africa mainly where they are working

on behalf of governments there to protect mineral resources

or oil wells.

If he was a Sopranos captain, who would he be like Filiotardo?

Does like 20 years in jail comes out?

I think it's sort of like John Gotti going against

Michael Corleone.

I think that Putin is sort of the very cold, rational guy

with everything in his head who's very calculated.

It doesn't reveal much, more like a Michael Corleone.

Whereas I think that he's emotional erratic.

He's been saying these statements for months here,

which I don't see how they possibly lose cannon.

And the crazy thing though is, is that what you saw on

Twitter and social media was unrestrained glee, really

delirium over the idea that Progosian might topple

Putin and become the custodian of Russia's thousands

of nuclear weapons.

And so my comment on this whole thing is be careful

what you wish for.

Why in the world would Americans want that?

We'd be jumping out of the frying pan and into the fire.

I've been saying since the beginning of the war that

there's this fantasy that Putin's going to be toppled

by a palace coup and you're going to replace him

with a Navalny or something like that.

We're going to get Gorbachev 2.0.

I said that was always unrealistic and what you're

much more likely to end up with is an even worse dictator

or possible or a hardliner.

And I think that is what would happen if Progosian had

taken over.

I think it would have been much worse for the West.

The final point is what's the takeaway from here is I think

this is going to put more pressure on Putin to conduct

the war in a more violent way.

I know that people already think that the war is horrible

and violent.

But Putin has been criticized by hardliners on his right

for basically making the war a special military operation

instead of an all out war.

And Progosian I think expected to find more support among

the sort of ultra nationalists in Russia and among the military

who have been critical of Putin for waging the war

in what they consider to be too half hearted

or an incomplete way.

They would like to see this declared to be a war.

They would like to see the full mobilization of Russian

society.

And this is the problem that I see now is that I think Putin

already knew but this has to underscore for him that this war

is existential for him personally.

If he loses at the end of not only his regime but probably

his life in Russia and I think he's going to do whatever it

takes to win this war.

And I think you could see now over the next few months a full

mobilization in Russia.

And I think that this could lead us to the next point of

escalation in this war.

That is if this Ukrainian counter offensive actually successful

on some level right now it is it is not succeeding.

So there's no reason there's no reason for Putin to do that

but if if this counter offensive succeeds you will see the next

level of escalation.

So Saks you did a great job stringing six points together.

I think my key takeaway is which is now 18 points you've made.

So you can retire for the rest of the show.

My key takeaway from your series of statements however is

an important one which is to watch the potential escalation

driven by Putin here.

Any wrap up otherwise I'm going to move forward with

I just have one statement you know just thinking about this

like as a famous Sun Tzu quote the supreme order for us to

subdue the enemy without fighting.

This is a big mistake and we need to make sure that we don't

get into a war with Taiwan and China and China over Taiwan.

So okay we have to avoid these things and then that's what

Saks and I are in alignment.

Sun Tzu Callicanus we heard it here first let's move forward

with peace I can only hope that the conflict and soon as I've

always said I realized over the last week how little I know

about the Russian military conflict with Ukraine and I

appreciate Saks's contributions super helpful.

I went to Cal UC Berkeley 1997 fall of 97 and it was the last

year that Cal had affirmative action admissions and I

remember at that time there was a big case a guy named Baki

was rejected by the University of California Davis Medical

School and he alleged reverse discrimination in 1974 and

sued the University of California and eventually became

a landmark US Supreme Court case Regents of the University

of California versus Baki and in 1995 the UC Regents voted to

eliminate affirmative action.

So the year that I was at Cal I think was the last year of

affirmative action admissions and it's obviously been a pretty

hot topic.

Here in California.

For the past you know 25 30 years this morning the Supreme

Court ruled on two separate cases regarding using race as

an admissions criteria in college admissions and the votes

were six to three against affirmative action in the

University of North Carolina case and six to two against

affirmative action in the Harvard case Katanji Brown Jackson

recused herself because she previously served on Harvard's

board of overseers all the conservative as their you know

kind of characterized judges voted to strike down affirmative

action and all the as their characterized liberal judges

voted to keep it both of these cases were filed in 2014 by a

group called students for fair admissions and effectively the

court said that at Harvard at UNC the schools were systematically

discriminating against Asian Americans and violation of

civil rights laws by using their race as a as a system for

for profiling excluding and trying to be more inclusive of

a more diverse and racially diverse set of applicants.

So I'd love your read I guess on the surprise or this was an

except expected case.

I think Saxon I mentioned this before but I think we both

expected this to happen.

I think it's probably important to maybe set up a more practical

explainer Friedberg so Nick if you want to just throw up that

image that I just sent you we can sort of explain the genesis

of the lawsuit.

So what you can see here is admit rates into Harvard by

race, ethnicity, but also by academic decile.

Yeah.

And so what it basically shows in a nutshell is an African

American student in the 40th percentile of the academic

index is actually more likely to get in than an Asian student

at the 100th percentile.

And so that at the core is sort of what was being that means

that means that the Asian American student had better scores

than 99% of other applicants and still didn't get in.

Right.

Right.

So you have to go back I think to 2003 when essentially what

the Supreme Court said is like look we're going to allow this

affirmative action stuff to last roughly for another 25 years

but by that point we expect that the work that needed to be

done will have been done.

Again this is them saying this not me.

And so I think what today does is actually quite important not

just for what it means for universities but also what it

means for private enterprises.

So just to take a second on this.

I think what happens today is the pretty obvious stuff which

is that you have to change university applications.

You have to change all of the admissions profiling all of

the stuff that you would normally do.

You probably I'm not even sure if you can even have a box

where you can declare race maybe you can or cannot I don't

even know but all of that changes today.

So then the question is well what's the first order derivative

what changes next and I called someone who's a pretty well

known constitutional Supreme Court lawyer on this and the next

step is probably going to be around athletics based and

legacy based admissions.

So athletics based admissions are pretty obvious which is you

don't really have great grades but you're really stupendous

at a sport that's important to that school so then they let

you in because they want to compete in said sport for whatever

reason the legacy one is even more prickly which is not you're

kind of a dummy but your parents are rich and or went to the

school before and so then they let you in as well and his

thought on this is that those things will go away because if

you can't use race based admissions to kind of balance

the scales then it'll become pretty quick where somebody

launches a legacy based lawsuit or an athletic based bias

lawsuit and wins that as well.

So that's the first order derivative so you know the

thought are those because those aren't constitutionally protected

whereas equality based on race but it becomes a huge headache

for these schools right and so you're going to be fighting

these admission standards constantly changing and so

if you're not going to let you know a bunch of poor minority

black and brown kids in but you're letting in the sons and

daughters of rich important people.

I think that that's going to paint that school in a very bad

light and I think that's important.

White typically white typically way is although one would

say the great thing over the last couple of decades is there

have been a lot of minorities that have gotten into these

very elite schools which means this their kids would be the

first generation that's eligible for legacy but you're

going to wipe that away.

So I think from a just a social stigma perspective and I

have a solution for this which I'll get to at the end for

those people but so I think that's the first order derivative

the second order derivative is now what lawsuits get launched

and what are the implications for private companies right

so right now this affects any institution that receives

federal funding and that includes all the universities

so there's no private or public university really except

for a handful that don't take this money so they'll all have

to do this but the really important question after

that will be what happens to companies like Apple or Facebook

or Exxon who have race based programs to try to attract

African-American engineers or Hispanic chemists whatever

the program is that you want to come up with will those get

challenged and will those companies have to change and

my friend's thoughts on that were that yes that those would

also change and that's going to have a really important impact

on private enterprise and how they approach this stuff and

how DEI stuff works and frankly downstream how ESG works

because all these ESG checkboxes now some of them will

actually become illegal right so I think the importance of

decision can't be really understated it's going to the

changes will be slow and then they'll be fast they'll first

touch higher ed but then I think they'll touch private

enterprise and so I think it was a it was a very important

decision in America that just happened.

Jamath what is what is the right ethics and values I mean

what do you guys I guess we could just do this around the

table jcal maybe you kick it off should we I mean from your

point of view do you think that values should include racial

diversity in admissions and universities.

Yeah this is like the ultimate or is the values about

equality of opportunity for everyone regardless of race

right you're asking the exact right question I think that's

because I'm the world's greatest moderator but yeah doing

a solid job so far and this creates a lot of cognitive

dissonance for people right because you really want to

believe that the world is a meritocracy and you know if

you were to take other pursuits in the world you'd never say

like we should let race gender.

Age affect people's performance in the hundred yard dash or

their their compensation at a company right all of that should

be based on achievement.

And so there is a question on what achievements should be

taken into account when you apply to a school.

And it's pretty obvious the legacy thing you know is you

know a backdoor into these schools.

But we want to feel like we're also making progress because

listen the world has been unfair the world was built on

slavery and our country has you know is only 150 years past

that and so rights act was what 1964 or 65 like we've we've

really want to see everybody achieve here so I think you

have to pause for a second and say well if the goal is you

want to see you know black Americans perform better and

I think that's the the underlying concern here and it is

based on the legacy of America.

Well how do you do that and I think we're looking way too far

down in the educational pipeline.

The solution here is really childcare the solution here is

nursery schools pre-K elementary school education and those

things need competition and that's where people fall behind

to be looking at this at the end of the academic journey is

I think crazy so you know when I'm president I'm going to

have 365 day a year you know childcare and pre-K and that's

where we should if we really want to try to make up for

some wrongs in the history of this country and try to have

better outcomes we need competition in schools which

means probably breaking some of these unions and giving

people vouchers in choice and then we have to invest more in

the earliest stages of education.

And I think everybody wants to see a better system here DEI

to Chimatz point is it is illegal to hire people based

on race gender any of those criteria obviously and the

DEI programs are trying to fill more applicants so their

goal typically in the way they don't break the law is to

just try to in their best cases find more applicants.

But even that does feel like there's many times in life

when people will say things in corporate America like we have

too many white guys in these positions we need we cannot

hire another white guy.

So the reality of DEI that I've seen up close and personal

when I was at AOL I've told the story before.

Somebody said to me there's no way for us to make you an EVP

you have to stay at SVP and I said why is that like I'm doing

all this EVP level work and they said because you're a white

guy and the entire company is white guys at EVP and we cannot

add another white guy there but we'll just give you the same

bonus compensation so don't worry about it.

And so there's all kinds of games being played here but I

think it's great that we're having this conversation right

it's a hard conversation for America to have for me the

I've talked about this in the past I've always had concern

when we make the shift away from equality of opportunity to

equality of outcome because we all have this objective that

we want to see everyone have equal rights to success in

some way in the United States.

The question is at what point do you move beyond opportunity

where everyone is given an equal opportunity in this country

to invest themselves in transforming their own lives

versus a quality of outcome where regardless of how much

you do how much effort or your trials you are given the same

as everyone else and that ends up looking a lot like socialism

and it's very concerning because I think it limits progress

and opportunity for everyone.

The real challenge with this particular topic is college

admissions about outcome or is about opportunity it's outcome

in the sense that you spend 12 years going to elementary

school and high school and working hard to get yourself

into college so it's the outcome of all of that effort

and some people aren't given the opportunity to have success

during those 12 years and you know and it is an outcome

what do you think we should do and it's an opportunity

because it's about going to college because without having

a great college cycle you may have a more tougher time

getting into into the workforce so that is why it's a hard

value question for me I don't have a great answer on this

but I'm just pointing out it's a lot like the abortion argument

where both sides have some value oriented point of view

that feels like it's negating the other person's point of view

but at the end of the day they're both coming from either

this is an opportunity or it's an outcome decision

and that's what makes it so challenging the National Bureau

of Economic Research did a study in 2019 that they published

and what they found was that 43% so 43 43% of white students

admitted to Harvard were athletes or legacy students or

children of faculty and staff or had a relative that were

donors to the school 43% wait it's rigged and then they found

on top of that that 75% of those white students admitted

from those four categories would have been rejected

if they had been treated as a normal applicant so I think

for all the people that are looking at all the black

and brown kids that may not get into a place like Harvard

if you don't look at these other categories

it is a it's a bit of a gross injustice quite honestly

so I think that these institutions have to evolve

and if you're going to be forced to be meritocratic

then actually be meritocratic and by the way I actually am

fine with legacies and donors but I think what should happen

is you should just publish a rate card and you should make

it hyper transparent and so I love it for the rich guy

who's got an idiot son or daughter let's just be upfront

and honest with everybody it costs $50 million to get into

Stanford it costs $80 million to get into Harvard we all

know these numbers so we should just publish them you should

pay the price and be done with it and for Harvard and

Stanford and Yale and all these schools having an extra 10

or 20 dummies but an extra 2 or 3 billion may be a reasonable

trade-off but at least it would be transparent and fair

right this is an important free market question as well

because these are private institutions they're privately

funded not if they take federal dollars are agreed yes

but if they take federal dollars they're not and then it

becomes a government process it's government influence

it's a state school all those is there a separate category

here just like country clubs or any private membership

club where the members of the club get to decide who they

want to admit to the club and is that un-American and should

the Supreme Court and should our constitution have a role

in defining how private institutions make decisions

about who gets it no Harvard could absolutely return all

the federal funding the billions of dollars a year

they get that's totally reasonable than they can decide

to just focus on legacy admits that's totally reasonable

it's within their rights sacks like we gotta hear I know

that I know that you used up your court your speaking quota

already well yeah I didn't want to I didn't want to buy

I'm gonna give him for my give him for my points I want to hear

I talked about in the last second you get four of Jake

Healthman it's go ahead I give you for a minute so yeah two

points I guess so on the legacy thing I agree with Jamath

that we should get rid of it it's not meritocratic I think

that if they did publish a rate card that would be more

honest but they'd be too embarrassed and ashamed to do

that but I think making that argument exposes the hypocrisy

of it I already told my kids is not helping them get into

college so they're gonna do it on their own and so look I think

by the way that's the best if you can give kids yeah that

perspective sorry go ahead so that's that's my number one

fully agreed on the legacy thing with respect to the

decision itself that can I just clarify that do you believe

that the legacy thing should be like in federal law I mean

is that a government thing or do you think that that's how

those institutions should behave because those are different

I mean I'm asking are you suggesting that the law should

be involved that the government should be involved I don't

know if it's illegal thing because I don't know how to

implement that law but I think it's somebody they should

stop doing one way or another maybe it should be a law but

I think it should stop so I think that's my legacy thing

for private private membership so just let me just double

click on that you think that should extend to private

membership clubs like country clubs as well that they shouldn't

be allowed to decide who they let in and don't let in what

makes it different that it's Harvard is it because it's

education versus any other private because it takes federal

funding it takes that I should not pay for some person

to be able to get into a school they don't deserve to get

into just because their parent went there or just because

their parent wrote a check that's unreasonable and if they

don't take federal funding these schools take so much federal

funding that they're quasi public institutions even the

private ones so that's the distinction that's the

distinction for you just to be clear and also there is a

strong meritocracy opportunity argument on this and I think

it's why that whole parents college admissions scandal

was was such a big deal is that for a lot of people in this

country the ability to have your kids advance themselves by

being the first to get into college or going to college

or going to a better college that is a big part of creating

opportunity in this country so for people to try and defraud

that I think created a huge backlash so look I think that

the legacy thing this needs to end one way or another I don't

know exactly what the right legal implementation is.

I have two questions for the panel number one should you be

able to say by geography hey listen we're Harvard or we're

Stanford we want to have a representation of people from

around the world so we're going to you know have the top three

students from each country or you know or by population however

you do it you know mathematically come in so a little bit

of geography because I did hear from one of these coaches

that cost like six figures to get your kids into the college

they said the best thing you can do is like move to Kentucky

you know and then Harvard and Stanford are looking to get a

certain number of students from each state I don't know how

true that is but they said that's like one of the top ways

to do it and then do you remember Jason just to build on

your point I don't know if you guys remember but a few years

ago the the in fashion thing to do was to learn to play squash

and I remember all these parents telling me that and they had

kids that were older than my kids and they were they were

hiring full-time squash coaches because apparently squash was

like yes angle angle shots yeah I think like stop with the

angle shooting guys yes the gun should go off you should run

the race and your time is your time and you should go to

whatever the best school is that you deserve to get into

based on your academic ability now going back the big problem

and I think Jason you really nailed it on the head trying

to fix it with affirmative action at the university is

still quite unfair in the sense that there are so many black

and brown kids I think with tons of potential that don't

even get there and so the real question is what are you doing

at the great school and at the high school and at the

preschool so that you actually get more of these kids to the

starting line because fixing it when they're 18 I think is a

little too late yeah right fixing it for sure three four

and five years old that's when they deserve and need all the

help in the world to yourself that's why we need school

choice we need charter schools we need to break the monopoly

that the unions have over the schools running it running

for their own benefit and not fight the enemy if you define

institutional racism as conditions that trap people

in conditions of poverty across generations I'd say the

abysmal quality of our public schools are number one number

one two and three and the reason is because there's no

competition and the unions running for their own benefit

they shut down these schools for in California because they

didn't want to work as they're afraid to don't know don't

see the sea where we just got a label God be better we're

going to be but that was not for the benefit of kids and it

wasn't medically necessary that was a benefit they saw for

themselves. Yeah, you come you come from a family that were

members of unions because they worked for fire for police.

Is that right? Yeah.

We speak negatively about the effects of the teachers unions

on our public education system and I think it's absolutely

correct.

But how do you share the point of view from the other side

if you're a teacher and you're a member of the union and the

union takes care of you what's the argument? Yeah, sure.

To say this union is damaging public education and the

teacher that's working in the union and a member of the union

says this is necessary for my livelihood to protect me for

my benefit.

Help us share the point of view because we all have the

strongly held point of view that the unions are destroying

and eroding public education.

People have the right to form unions.

But what we all do is we are forced to be consumers of one

educational product because of how we pay taxes. We pay taxes

in I think in my in California we each pay $16,000 into the

educational system and so if you're a parent you should get

that 16k back and be able to choose what you do with it.

So there's competition so the unions can have protection but

there still should be competition for these services.

And I think there are two separate issues. Yeah, there's

one other thing which is I just want to give a shout out to

a non-profit that I support called smashacademy smash.org.

It's done by Mitch and Freda Kapoor. Mitch Kapoor

founded Lotus 123 if you're under the age of 40 you might

not know him.

And what they do is they realize that a lot of the students

who do get into good colleges, it turns out a lot of the

black and brown students, they get accepted and they're

behind in math. And so what smash is done is they have a

three-year program and I go speak at it sometimes and I

donate money to it and I encourage you to do the same.

They have this intensive summer program. So before you go

to college, Jamath, if you were one of those students, you

know, you might get into college and then they drop out or

even worse, they switch from a STEM degree to a non-STEM

degree because they're two years behind on STEM or a year

behind on STEM. And so the Kapoor has found this like

little opportunity to kind of catch people up. And I think

that's what we have to do. We have to address this much

earlier and not put a Band-Aid on it. Yeah, in the system,

the Ivy League system, you know, needs to...

Well, it's not just Ivy's, right?

Well, sure, sure.

That's not just pick on Harvard, but it's like all the

state schools.

The elite institutions, which we talk about.

All institutions, all institutions that receive federal

funding.

They need to take a deep look in the mirror and say, are we

doing the best thing for society?

The second question I had for the panel was...

Well, I'm not getting a point of view by the way, but yeah.

But are pure academics the best way to accept people into

a college or should there be some blend of it?

Like putting sports aside, because that's an obvious

one, but you know, is there's academics, but then there's

also creativity.

You know, if you, you might be terrible on your SATs or

standardized tests and you might be an incredible

virtuoso pianist.

So I think what is the criteria and making that criteria

fair is what we all want.

And it feels tremendously unfair.

My point of view is if the government is funding these

schools, then the government certainly has to have a point

of view on what's the reasonable model for admissions.

The government's not funding the schools.

I love a diversity in a marketplace.

I love having different schools, having different admissions

criteria that allow different people to find their path

through different institutions.

To your point, Juilliard does not care perhaps as much what

you did on, you know, your SAT in chemistry.

And art schools do not care as much how well you did in math

and STEM schools don't care whether or not you want an

art competition.

And I think that that's the important thing that we need

to preserve.

We need to preserve optionality for institutions to define

what sorts of individuals they want to try and recruit and

progress and train and get ready for the workforce and the

path in life that they then choose versus trying to create

a cookie cutter model for what the government says it's fair

for everyone.

And as much as we can take government funding out of

these institutions and out of these systems and give them the

freedom to set their own admissions criteria and create

differential educational systems, I think that's going to

create the best diversity of a workforce.

And I'm I would kind of be more excited about that sort of

institutional system than one that is standardized by the

government.

You know why that'll never happen?

Because the profit motive of these universities is really to

be shadow organizations for their endowments.

And the thing with endowments is that the people that work

there very much want to get paid and behave like profit

generating organizations.

And I think the issue is that if their sole job was to really

fund the operational expenses of the university, then the

endowments would be run very differently, right?

Like take again, I just looked up on the Internet, but Harvard

has about the operating expenses are roughly five and a

half billion dollars a year, but the revenues are about five

and a half billion dollars a year, right?

So if instead you had to basically fund, you know,

there was essentially no revenue per se, right?

There's there was very little tuition and you didn't take

any federal funding, you'd have to come up with five billion

dollars a year.

So you just basically take that as a draw from your endowment.

The endowment would be run very differently.

It would be a don't lose money endowment that would generate

very low vol returns.

I think the problem with that is that that's not how the

endowment at Harvard works.

They wouldn't necessarily make risk seeking investments in

things like private equity and hedge funds and venture

capital and to the extent they did, they would just make much

fewer, much, much smaller or both.

So I think what you're saying could be possible, but the

problem are probably the endowments at these universities.

Okay.

Well, 53 billion dollars by Harvard's endowment now.

So yeah, it would be 10%.

Can anyone tell me who the largest real estate owner is in

San Francisco?

Without looking it on the Internet.

Oh, no, I know, I know.

It's that our Institute.

The Academy of Art University.

I knew this because they kept buying things and using them,

I think she used all the profit over the years to buy more

real estate and she accumulated the largest real estate

portfolio in San Francisco anyway.

Sorry, who is she?

The founder, I forgot her name.

This is a for-profit university or private?

Or I mean a nonprofit university.

Yeah, there's a lot of artists that come out of Academy Art

and they work in a lot of different industries, including

industrial design, including animation.

That's what I'm saying.

Is it like RISD or is it like actually an art school?

Oh, no, it's a great art school.

Yeah.

Academy of Art.

Anyway, let's keep going.

So look, speaking of STEM, making a big pivot away from art to AI.

Couple big news items, you know, the AI frenzy continues here

in Silicon Valley all the way from early to growth stage funding

through to M&A events.

We saw this week Databricks, which is a privately held data

infrastructure company announced that they were acquiring Mosaic

ML for $1.3 billion.

That headline number is based on a cash and stock purchase price

where the value of the stock that was being used to acquire

Mosaic ML was based off of the last round's valuation for Databricks,

which was $38 billion from a fundraising that they did in 2021.

So arguably the valuation should be lower and the overall purchase

price could be considered lower.

But that's besides the point Mosaic ML, as you guys may remember

as a company.

I mentioned a number of episodes ago led by the founder of Nirvana,

which was an early AI business that was acquired by Intel.

And then he started Mosaic ML and he offers open source models

and I shared the performance data of their most recent announcement

on the show a few weeks ago.

You know, there's rumors.

I don't have any confirmed reports, but there's rumors

that Mosaic ML saw their ARR grow from $1 million to $20 million

since January.

There was other rumors that said they were only at $6 million

of revenue, regardless Databricks is paying a pretty hefty premium.

And I think it begs the question, what do data infrastructure

database companies end up looking like in the future?

If AI has to become part of the core infrastructure of every

enterprise and this is creating a big shift.

So sacks as our enterprise software investor expert.

Maybe you can share with us what this means for the sector.

Does this buoy excitement for AI infrastructure startups?

Does this change the investing landscape?

Is it just reinforcing what folks are already doing?

I think it's a reinforcement.

I mean, the space is probably the hottest space.

We're talking about like AI infrastructure for enterprises.

I think it's probably the hottest space right now in Ventureland.

We actually looked at this deal.

We had a small allocation in their next round.

They had a term sheet for a series B.

Emergence was actually an elite.

And this is Mosaic ML.

Yeah.

Yeah.

I don't know if I'm supposed to be telling you all this, but.

Yeah, go ahead.

Yeah, this is great.

This is why people sign in breaking news.

Break news.

They had a term sheet from emergence to raise 50 million at 400 posts.

Wow.

And yeah.

And we were going to have a small allocation in that.

And as I recall, the valuation was somewhere around 30 to 35 times ARR,

which actually is not that insane for a very fast growing company in a hot space.

So that implies about 10 million of ARR.

I don't remember the exact figure, but I think that's sort of the ballpark.

But growing very, very quickly.

I mean, up from like one or two at the beginning of the year.

Right.

So I actually understand why someone would want to acquire or invest in this company.

Like I said, I think we wanted to invest.

And while we were sort of, you know, trying our best.

You didn't say anything when I talked about them on the show a few weeks ago.

You were just sitting there mums a word or.

Actually, I knew that this deal was, was basically in the works because the

founder called us up and he had already promised us a small allocation in the round.

Naveen did.

And he called up and said, actually, I've got this deal.

So we're putting the round on hold.

And so I didn't think I should say anything because obviously it was still ongoing.

But yeah, we knew about this deal that was kind of coming down the pipe.

I didn't know for sure that it would happen.

But but yeah, we heard it was in the ballpark of this like 1.2 1.3 billion

dollar number, which like you said, because Databricks is a private stock.

Maybe it's only 50% or 750 or something like that.

Who knows? It's still a great deal.

But you know, a lot of you are saying it's a crazy deal.

I don't think it's a crazy deal because before this happened after Naveen signed

the term sheet for the Series B, an investor came over the top to invest

at a 700 million dollar valuation.

So people were kind of going crazy.

Now, I don't think that's necessarily a rational behavior.

I think that's more of evidence of a maniac going on.

But I think that what he got offered is obviously a fantastic deal.

And I think what it's evidence of is that these big enterprise

infra companies are going to try and build an end to end tool chain here.

And I think Mosaic ML had a very, very important part of the tool set,

which is training up these models, basically maximizing GPU efficiency

because GPUs are basically the scarce item right now.

We have a GPU shortage and it's probably not going to get better for a year or

two if that.

So this is a very important part of the stack.

And I think it's probably a smart acquisition for both Databricks.

Yeah, it seems to me, remember Snowflake, which competes with Databricks,

also acquired Neva, which was founded by one of my colleagues,

a guy I work with, a new really great guy, Shridhar.

For $150 million last month, that deal was announced.

And the pattern recognition that seems to emerge here is that if you're

in the data infrastructure business, it seems like it's becoming

critical to level up.

That it's not just about storing and moving and manipulating data,

but the interpretation of data through models and the tooling to build

those models becomes a critical component of all of these toolkits

that these software companies have to provide to their enterprise software

companies.

And it's a big leveling up that's necessary, which seems to me,

there's other companies out there like them that are also going to need

to strap on tools like this to make themselves competitive in this

market scape, which means that there are more acquisitions still to come.

Yeah.

Chumak, J.Kal, you guys agree or have a different point of view?

Yeah, I mean, looking at it, it's a big number, the headline number,

but I agree with Saks that the actual number is half the number.

So if you look at the number of engineers they had, based on LinkedIn

data and Pitchbook data, probably 60, 70 employees, 80 employees,

and then 40, 50 of them are engineers.

So that puts it at $30 million per engineer.

And that's one way to look at these acquisitions.

And I think, you know, probably $3 to $10 million per engineer for like

really high-end engineers is more of the going price.

But if this is half that amount because they bought it with monopoly

money, in other words, their 2021 price for their company, it's great.

And then they get nailed it.

Freeberg, what's happening is this layer of natural language on top of

any service, whether it's something as simple as Yelp or something as

complicated as a giant financial company with tons of transaction data,

being able to talk to it and understand it and then have your machine

learning team build tools so business owners don't have to hire data

scientists.

The actual business leaders can talk to the data and get back answers

or just say, hey, tell me about our customers.

How have they changed over the year?

And then, hey, that's pretty interesting.

Tell me more about our customers.

And, you know, how are they reacting to these three new products?

And you will get back intelligence that previously was unable to be accessed.

And so I was just at Sequoia yesterday with or two days ago with the latest

seven graduates from our accelerator.

We bring them to meet with Saks and his team.

We bring them to meet with Sequoia.

And when we were at Sequoia, I realized that of the seven companies,

four of them would not have been possible before these machine learning

APIs were available and OpenAI is but one.

There are now in the companies I'm talking to, they're trialing

FreeBurg on average, six, seven, eight language models before they pick one

and they're not picking OpenAI every time.

Putting that aside, these businesses were not possible before this technology

was introduced and available via API in the last six to 12 months.

And I think there's a bunch of businesses that economically would not work

that now work.

I can give one example.

There are countless meetings that are recorded over Zoom, right?

Think like a local school board meeting.

Well, nobody could ever make a database of all the discussions going on

at local school boards and then analyze all of them.

But now, because all of those are saved on Zoom and they occur on Zoom

and they're available for public record, you can ingest every single one of those

and then build a Bloomberg terminal of every discussion happening

at every school board everywhere in the United States.

And do that with ChatGPT or any of the language models

and then get really great insights from it.

That would be too costly to transcribe at $100 every hour or two

and normalize, let alone to analyze.

And so I'm looking at businesses as an investor.

What I'm looking at right now is businesses that were previously

not economically viable before this technology and then that are now

economically viable, if that makes sense.

And I'm just looking at each company under that lens right now

and I'm finding a lot of interesting startups.

They seem to have that in common.

Chumath, similar news supporting this very quick evolution further up the value

stack. So we were just talking about these companies that are providing

effectively tooling as infrastructure.

A little bit more up the value stack is Inflection AI,

which was started by Mustafa Suleiman and Reid Hoffman,

who was a co-founder while Mustafa was working with him as a venture partner

at Greylock.

But Mustafa, as you guys know, was the co-founder of DeepMind,

which Google bought for $400 million.

He really created the core of Google's AI capability and is considered one

of the kind of preeminent thought leaders and entrepreneurs that

has built in this space.

He started Inflection and the business just announced today that

they've just closed a $1.3 billion funding round led by Microsoft,

Reid Hoffman, Bill Gates, Eric Schmidt, NVIDIA with an intention of building

the largest AI cluster in the world, 22,000 NVIDIA H100s as part of the build

out. But I think you've shared, Chamath, historically, that these big funding

rounds for these AI businesses that haven't necessarily even launched

product yet don't make sense.

Is this still kind of reinforce your point?

And what's your read on the Inflection funding?

Well, the list price of an H100 is about $38,000, but the street price,

so it's very hard to get it.

So if you go to eBay and try to buy an H100, it's like $40,000 or $45,000.

So if you have a 22,000 cluster of H100s, that's about $900 million of

capex, just that.

And then, you know, all the sundry stuff around it, call it roughly

plus or minus a billion dollars.

And so of the one and a half billion they've raised, let's say a billion goes

into building this 22,000 node cluster.

You have 500 million for SG&A.

And so what that leaves behind is basically two and a half billion

of enterprise value for their chatbot.

So I don't know.

I mean, I've never used Pi.

Has any of you guys used it?

Do you guys know if it's good?

Jason, I'm sure you've experimented with it.

Have you experimented with it or not really?

Which one?

Pi.

That's what their chatbot is called, Pi.

I think it's like api.com or something.

I think I did try it once and it was not memorable.

Oh, Po.

You mean Po?

No, not Po.

No, no, no.

That's Quora.

That's Quora.

This is Pi.

This is your personal one where you talk to it and say, hey, how are you doing?

And their concept is like you have this one relationship.

So it's like one chat thread.

It's not kind of how I like to work with the, I use threads and I share threads

with my team.

So I'm not a fan of this.

Like you have one relationship with one assistant.

I think the thing is it's interesting to note that very rarely when you invest

money in the billions of dollars does the capex or purchase of one specific

form of equipment take up literally 25% of the enterprise value.

That's atypical, at least for a startup.

Here, if you're buying a fixed plant of a slow cashflow generating business,

then maybe, you know, a bunch of that has some value.

So that's what stood out to me in all of these things.

This is all just a pass through to NVIDIA.

It's probably in some ways a pass through to the big cloud providers.

So whenever I see a chip maker and a cloud provider come together to put in a lot of money,

it's essentially round tripping cash.

They're giving them money, which then they use to buy their services.

And then, you know, you just, you're just pumping revenue.

So I hope it works.

I wish in the best, but you know, that's the.

We just talked about where the infrastructure companies that are increasing

increasingly looking like more commodity service providers.

If they don't up level with AI tooling, acquiring Mosaic ML and acquiring Niva.

Do you think that that's an indication of more M&A to come?

And if so, doesn't that justify the increased funding, the increased valuation and the

activity that we're seeing in the early stage with some of these businesses?

I think for sure there's going to be more M&A.

And I think the valuations will be high.

Not because these companies have a lot of revenue yet, but because it's very strategic

for these big infra companies to assemble the end to end tool chain.

I think we should explain to folks what that means.

Enterprise software companies provide software to businesses that are not

traditionally technology companies.

They also provide software to other businesses to help them build new tools,

to help them build out their business.

So an enterprise software company consult the United Airlines or consult a Visa

or consult a Ford.

And that software can then be used by that company to build tools that are powered

by the database or powered by the data analytics or increasingly powered by AI tools.

And so they can build AI applications and AI capabilities into their business,

whether it's United Airlines or Expedia or Visa or whomever.

And that's why these companies are so critical in terms of enabling the

transformation of industries with AI tooling and why getting AI tooling

into their capability set is so critical right now.

It's important to note, though, guys, that whenever you have the emergence of a new sector,

SACs, I think you are right that M&A goes up, but it tends to be that the valuations go down.

Peak M&A froth happens at the beginning of the cycle when hype is at maximum

and facts are at the minimum.

And that's okay.

That's good for the startup.

It's marginally negative for the existing shareholder of a large company.

And then over time, it gets itself sorted out when the facts are more obvious.

So, you know, it's kind of like, you guys remember when the optical networking craze hit

and you had these multi-billion dollar acquisitions.

Totally.

And where did they go?

They went, they went nowhere.

They just disappeared.

We actually have like a market map that we did that I think can explain this concept

of a end-to-end tool chain.

So, this is a slide that our growth team, shout out to Mike Robinson and Kevin Cabura.

They put this together in preparation and part of the investment memo for Mosaic.

And I think to explain the point, you were kind of making free bird.

Like, why do enterprises need the services?

One really simple way of thinking about it right now is that every enterprise would like

to roll out its own chat GPT.

They would all like to have their own internal version of chat GPT where the employees, for

example, could ask questions and get answers.

That's where all the action is right now.

Every enterprise would buy that tomorrow if it existed in the way that they want.

Give an example of what that is, Saks.

Yeah, give an example.

The idea would be that, you know, any employee in the company could ask questions to the

AI model the way you can ask chat GPT questions and would have all the enterprise's data and

it would also understand their permissions and have all the security settings so that

only the right field could get the right information.

That's the kind of intelligence they want to unlock.

I mean, there are lots of other use cases as well.

But that's a really simple one.

A corporate oracle.

So I can, if I'm in HR, I can ask, hey, tell me about our, you know, compensation.

Yeah.

Totally.

Co-pilot for the CEO.

I think there's going to be lots of these.

I think the sales team is going to have their own co-pilot.

I think the marketing team is going to have their own co-pilot.

Customer support has it already.

Customer support will have it.

Engineers will have their own co-pilot.

So there's going to be a lot of these.

I think enterprises want one at the level of the, call it the company intranet where

employees could just ask it questions.

And, but they do not want to share their data with open AI.

That's like very clear.

They want to roll out their own models.

So the question is, well, how do you roll out your own model?

And what this shows here is the different piece of the stack that you have to have.

So first you capture all of your data.

You got to label it to be classified right for the model.

You got to store it somewhere.

Then you need to get one of these open source AI models off the shelf.

And there's probably the most prominent site for this called a hugging face,

which already has something like, I think a $2 billion valuation.

That's another like really crazy valuation to ARR multiple.

But hugging face has kind of all the open source models.

It's very active.

And so people grab the latest open source model.

That's the best fit for them.

And then they need to train that model.

And that's really where mosaic played.

And there's a ton of activity right now in this last mile problem of how do you

customize a model to make it suitable for your use, whether you're an enterprise,

whether you're a customer service team, whether you're a SAS app that wants to

incorporate AI capabilities into your app.

That's where all the action is right now is customizing these open source models.

That then leads to basically being able to get the right inferences.

And there's a sort of separate category around hardware that is, you know,

we don't play there.

But this is kind of the end-to-end tool chain.

And I think these big tech companies are going to be racing to put this whole thing together.

To fill it out, yeah.

Yeah.

And that's, so there'll be more M&A as your prediction, which means more start-up valuation

boom, a more capital deploying.

There was a couple of articles this week.

And Chamath, this is your red meat as much as Ukraine is.

Saxes, because you've talked about this at length.

Social messaging startup IRL is shutting down after a board investigation found 95%

of its customers claimed 20 million users were actually fake.

This is a company that in June of 2021 raised $170 million series C at a valuation of over

a billion dollars, making it one of the many proclaimed unicorns of Silicon Valley,

led by SoftBank's Vision Fund.

The investor who was sitting on the board said that they didn't know if we've ever

given an investment term sheet to a startup faster than SoftBank gave to IRL at the time.

At the same time, a different story.

But in the same week, a company called Baiju, which you have talked about in the past, was

once valued at $22 billion and claimed to be India's most valuable startup is in turmoil

as shareholders and creditors are seeking to dilute the founder and he's rushing to find

capital and raise a billion dollars to try and buoy the company, process one of the investors,

mark the company's valuation down to 5.1 billion, so down 75%.

I guess the question is overall, are we still seeing this kind of turmoil in Silicon Valley

from the Zerp era funding of startups in stark juxtaposition to the excitement and the frenzy around AI?

It's a characteristic of the exact same thing, meaning if you replaced AI with crypto,

it's the exact same thing.

If you replaced AI with co-working, if you replaced AI with, I don't know, synthetic biology,

if you replaced AI with SaaS, this has all happened before.

I think it's important to identify what this is.

What this is, is that there aren't enough checks and balances and there are fundamentally

people who are deeply inexperienced, who are in the wrong job and in the few key moments

where the venture capitalist is supposed to add value, that person is ill-equipped and unprepared.

Why? Because they were the VP of X, Y, and Z at some startup and they got hired through no fault of their own

into a dynamic because these venture funds wanted to raise larger and larger amounts of money.

So what happens? You don't even know how to ask the basic questions or even more insidiously,

you don't have the courage to say the hard thing.

And so these things happen that are frankly inexcusable, right?

So in the case of one of these companies, and I've mentioned this before, they approached us for financing

and when we asked for a data room, we got a Google Doc link to a spreadsheet.

Now there's no reasonable world in which a company is that unsophisticated when it comes to understanding their business, right?

A data room should include an enormous amount of operational and financial metrics that you can use to come to your own conclusion

so that you can present it transparently to the investor.

The idea that boards wouldn't even hold these companies accountable is just a sign that the board members themselves are

pretty fundamentally inexperienced people.

And I think the thing that we do, which is a mistake, is we say, oh, well, X, Y, and Z firm led this deal.

Yeah, that may be true.

But really what it means is that firm, in a grab to get the money, hired some person that checks some boxes,

put them in the job, that person led around, and there just wasn't any infrastructure to either teach that person

or then that person to have the courage to hold the founder responsible.

That will play out in AI as well.

It's just that we're at the beginning of the hype cycle, right?

Because we replace AI, again, as I said, with any of these other things, we sat here a little bit hand-wringing

when we saw these crazy valuations for these NFT projects.

Where are those now, right?

So you name it.

They're out.

This is about fundamentally inexperienced people doing a job that seems pretty easy from the outside.

But in practical reality, there are only a few legends in our business.

Most people, and I think it was Shy Goldman that did the math on this, most people do not know how to run these businesses well.

Nick will find that tweet you can show.

I think it's like 2.5% of all of the funds that are in Pitchbooks or over 800 of them have ever generated more than 3X in two funds.

So this is a hard business, it turns out.

You can't just wake up and be an investor, it turns out.

And that's what we're finding.

So I don't know.

It's not very surprising in the end.

None of this is surprising.

Starting, Chamath had a really good point in the middle there is that there is a generation of venture capitalists who were added during the boom,

who were operators, but they've never been taught to have the discipline of capital allocators.

And one of those key pieces of discipline is asking uncomfortable questions and doing uncomfortable diligence.

And you can trust people, but you need to verify.

That is a key part of the job.

You can trust the founders, but you have to verify that the data you have is correct.

The fact that SoftBank did this at an incredible valuation and the person who did this deal never checked that the customers were real,

makes you unfit to serve in the job.

And I will do diligence.

And during that time period, Freberg, I had many founders say to me,

you're asking for more diligence than the lead.

And this deal is closing.

And we are oversubscribed.

And I said, OK.

And they said, OK, so you're not going to require this?

And I said, oh, no, we require this diligence.

We want to see your very basic stuff, your bank statement, your P&L.

We want to talk to you.

Why don't you give us a list of your first thousand?

Give us a list of 500 customers from last month.

We'll give you five numbers.

We're going to talk to five random customers.

People did not want to do this stuff.

We do this work at our firm when we start to own 5%, 10% of this.

And we train our founders to be ready for proper diligence.

All that diligence is happening now.

In the early stages, there's not much to go on.

But you can check stuff.

During this period, founders used the hot market

to not participate in the due diligence process.

And when you look at companies,

a lot of times people will suspend disbelief.

This company by Joe, I don't know a ton about it,

but it seems to have like an educational app,

like a company Brilliant.org that Chamath and I are early investors in.

And Chamath, thank you, David.

Great, great business.

But then their business and their revenue

seems to be based on a series of like Kuman-like in-person instruction.

Oh, that's not a high-gross margin business.

Sorry, if you have to have a storefront,

you're not a software business anymore.

And so people started giving valuations,

and this is the second part, and I'll just wrap on this.

People started giving valuations to these companies

that were real-world businesses, that were low-margin businesses,

direct to consumer, whatever it was.

They suspended disbelief and they gave them valuations

for high-growth, high-gross margin businesses.

And that was another mistake.

And you put those two things together,

not doing diligence and then just misvaluing of actual assets,

that's the cleanup work that's going on right now.

And it takes years.

I mean, it took decades for them to pinch Bernie Madoff.

It can take 10 years for these frauds to come out.

There was a guy who kept telling the SEC about Bernie Madoff.

I think he was like nine years since the first time he let them know

that the perfect returns were just not possible statistically.

So it takes time, but they're picking these folks up everywhere.

Doc Juan got picked up at Montenegro, the guy from Luna.

And it's going to take a decade to clean up all of the fraud in our space.

I think this was sort of mentioned by Jamath,

but I think it needs to be a bigger point,

which is the influence of fun size on these decisions.

I mean, crash funds are in the six to seven hundred million range.

So when we write a check, it's usually 10, 15, 20 million dollar check

in a series A company.

That's like a big check for us.

We're really going to sweat that decision.

For Softbank, a 10 to 20 million dollar check in a hundred billion dollar fund,

which is what they had, it doesn't even make sense.

It's a waste of their time.

It's not even a rounding error.

For them to basically make a decision.

It's like a two thousand dollar check for you.

Yeah, exactly.

So for them, they had to write 200 million dollar checks

to justify their time managing a hundred billion dollars.

And so the mistake when they make a mistake

is 20 times bigger than it should be.

That should have been maybe a 10 million dollar mistake,

not a 200 million dollar mistake,

but their fund size forced them to basically write these gigantic checks

and they were writing them into companies

that were effectively seed stage or series A companies.

If it was into a growth stage company, I think that's fine.

There's a lot more data and there's a lot more customer references

that you can check at a later stage company.

By the way, the number one part of diligence, I'd say for us,

other than looking at metrics, which is anyone can do,

is the off sheet references.

Talking to customers from a list that you figured out yourself,

not from the company itself,

is probably the single most important qualitative part of diligence.

So I don't know what happened here, but...

It's not stated explicitly, but I think it's important.

David, you have credibility.

So when you say something sucks, people listen,

because you have bona fides that are undeniable.

Same thing with J. Cal, same thing with you, Freedberg.

I think, you know, and this may sound mean,

but it's like most of these people are just XYZ mid-level VPs from a startup.

And that's a great thing,

but it's not necessarily going to give you the gravitas,

especially if that's not what you are forced to do to help build that company.

And when push comes to shove inside of a boardroom or in the middle of diligence,

there has to be conflict.

I think it's a necessary feature of good decisions.

And that conflict arises internally within your investment team,

but it also has to come externally with the executives of the startup

and with the CEO themselves,

because when you're prosecuting a good decision,

it's unbelievable that you agree on 100% of things,

and there has to be certain things that are controversial.

Otherwise, by definition, that company isn't really even pushing the boundary.

So, I just think that these are all skills that are poorly taught

while you are building a business.

It is not the reason why you should have been in charge of allocating

50 and 100 million dollar checks into companies.

That is just crazy town.

I love your point, Sax, though, about fun size dynamics.

Fun size dynamics are destiny, right?

It really is.

And the optimal fun size for venture is somewhere between 250 and 600 million,

to everybody who's been doing this for more than a decade or two,

and who's successful, whether it's...

And the costs are coming down.

So, as the input costs come down, whether it's for engineers and co-pilots

and hardware and abstraction layers,

then theoretically, greater outcomes should be generated with fewer dollars in,

which would, again, tell you that fun sizes should actually go down, not up.

The reason they go up is because you get paid an annual management fee.

And so, obviously, the way to make more money

is to get 2% on a larger fixed number every year versus 2% on a smaller number.

Or, you know, for example, what we did was we were like,

we're going to go and hit grand slams.

And so, I traded off management fee in return for 30% carry,

and that turned out to be literally a multi-billion dollar smart decision

because I gave up tens of millions of dollars up front for backend.

Now, the backend could have gone to zero, and maybe it still can, so who knows.

But, you know, most folks wouldn't do that.

Most folks take the sort of risk-adjusted bet and say,

you know what, I'll just take the 2% and I'll raise a $200 million,

then a $500 million, then a billion, then a $2 billion.

And they overlap.

Yeah, and they stack them all, and they get the 2%,

and all of a sudden, the profits don't matter,

which means the outcomes don't matter, which means the diligence is perfunctory.

And it becomes a theatrical expose that you can use, you know,

this sort of thin fig leaf you can point to LPs

and say, we did our work here.

Give us more money for this next fund.

That's the rat race that the venture community is in,

and it's going to get played out in companies like IRL and Byjuus,

and a lot of these AI companies, quite honestly.

Well, and the chickens have come home tourists for all the crypto investments.

This time is not different is, I think, what I'm trying to say.

This time is not different.

Did you guys see, there was some article that reported

that fundraising for late-stage funds is just like cratered.

Dead.

So Insight was trying to raise a $10 billion fund,

and they've only been able to raise two according to this article.

No, no, no, it was 22 down to 10, and of which they've raised two.

Okay, so 10%.

And then Tiger was trying to raise 12.

They cut it to six, and then they can only raise two.

Makes sense.

Yeah.

So basically, that's like, whatever,

80 to 90% reduction in the size of these funds.

Yeah, I mean, the sovereigns where they were going for this money

are buying sports teams.

They're like, you know what, instead of tech, let's just buy sports teams.

And they're buying Series A.

And they're buying Manchester United, and they're buying Distress Portfolios.

Yeah.

And the sovereigns.

But there's a huge crunch.

We've talked about it before, but there's a huge crunch in late-stage financing.

It's only going to get worse over the next 18 months.

I asked Brad last week, like, how many of these zombie corns do you think there are

out of the 1,400?

He said 30% to 40%.

I think he might be, you know, it could be, look, out of 1,400,

I think it could be 700 zombie corns.

I think it's at least 700.

I think it's probably 60%.

Yeah.

And then the other 40%, let's say, how many of them have a down round coming?

I think 60% go to zero.

Of the remaining 40%, half of them probably return money.

And then of the remaining half, half of those maybe get 1.5x.

And then you get a geometric distribution from there, which means the blended return

of that entire stream of unicorns will be about 1.1x,

but it will be very massively distributed.

I think that is exactly right, Tamar.

Yeah.

Everybody's getting their money back, except if you don't have diversification.

Yeah.

I think the market is sending a very clear message, which is these...

Are you saying everybody's getting...

No, no, no.

Most people won't get their money back.

Most people won't get their money back, but on average, it's going to be 1x return.

Yes.

It's not going to even be distributed correctly.

Well, I'm glad that the term zombie corn has held.

Guys, we are coming up on our time.

Do you guys want to do science corner or do you want to wrap?

Yeah, the three of us need to use the bathroom break.

So go ahead and just...

If you could just go do it, we're going to go and take a leak,

and we'll come back and make a urinage joke.

You know, I'm okay.

I'm going to wrap.

So look, it's been great.

It's been great being your host.

Be Christ yourself.

Give us a science corner.

Give us a quick...

You don't hug me.

You don't embrace me.

You don't love my contributions.

Freeberg, I actually, I posted a clip of RFK talking about vaccines.

I'd love for you to listen to it and actually give us the critique.

Yes.

I will.

Can we do a next one?

That's going viral right now.

He did such a good job explaining his position on that.

He did such a good job.

Yeah.

Look, did you guys read the outfit piece?

I forwarded to you and I said, please read this.

If you guys read that piece, I'll watch this clip and let's talk about it next week.

Is that cool?

Can you re-send that?

Yeah.

He is a vaccine scientist who RFK Junior references often as someone that he met with and spoke

with and says, I caught him in a lie and often basically said, here's exactly what happened.

Here's the conversation.

Here's the data.

Here's the facts.

Here's the science.

And I would really, really, really encourage you guys to read that, please.

And then I'll watch this clip and like, let's have a real kind of analytical conversation

about statements that are good questions to ask and good things to interrogate and things

that are being said that maybe aren't factually correct.

And I think that we need to kind of really, as a service to ourselves and to people that

listen to us, really do that work.

So let's do that and come back and talk about it next week if that's cool.

But I'd encourage everyone to read off it.

He put it on Substack.

Nick, we'll put the link in the notes here.

Let the dialogue continue.

Let the dialogue continue.

Yeah.

Let the dialogue continue.

Exactly.

I think that's the most important.

You want to talk about that certain senator that all of a sudden just basically gave us

the heisman?

No, we've had a lot of those, by the way.

So let me just be clear.

That's not the only heisman we've received on the all-in summit.

I will say that the speaker list for the all-in summit is looking fantastic.

We're going to have a great time.

And I'm really excited for the conversation.

But you're saying some folks, Heisman does because of our support of RFK?

That did happen.

And specifically the fact that you actually open-minded.

Yeah.

And then there were other folks who were insulted by things that were said about them by people

on the show.

So soft.

Do you guys want to hear about the NanoGrav release that came out yesterday?

Yes.

Okay, I'll cover this one real quick.

What about this slow Hummer that we're all getting?

What is that all about?

That's it.

It's a slow Hummer, exactly.

Okay, go.

Tell us.

Are you talking about the new H3 EV, but it only goes up to 50 miles per hour?

What is that?

The new Hummer.

The new HV.

They have an EV.

They're coming out with an EV of that.

Oh, you're kidding.

Yeah.

It's like a great troll.

I remember when Schwarzenegger got the Hummer back in the 90s and everyone was like, Oh

my God, he's amazing.

I can drive all of York.

And then the Hummer was the cool car to drive.

You've got the Mini Koopa.

Yeah.

And then it became my car.

It's Mini Koopa.

It's in that America.

Okay.

So yesterday, a paper was published by an international scientific consortium.

This group is called NanoGrav.

And they've been using a series of instruments to measure pulsars.

Using a 500-meter radio telescope array, which allows them to see what's so funny.

No, I just, oh, I'm like, three-year-old, what sentence did I have to stop myself?

All right.

Get them out now.

Go ahead.

I'm muting.

The NanoGrav data that was released is 15 years of data from pulsars.

And pulsars are neutron stars, which are stars that have collapsed on themselves and

are basically super dense and start spinning.

And then these pulsars, you know, you basically like a lighthouse.

You can see the light.

It looks like a, almost like a strobe light.

And we can see thousands of these across the universe, and we can observe them.

And the rate at which the pulsing is coming out of these pulsars tells us a lot about

what is happening in the space between Earth and those pulsars.

And when you collect enough data over a long enough period of time, which is what these

folks have just released as 15 years' worth of this data, you can start to see really

interesting patterns in the data that support the theory that space time itself is slowly

vibrating, being stretched, being compressed, being pulled apart, being pushed back together

because of very large gravitational events happening around the universe.

And what that means is that you guys have all seen, you know, that kind of two-dimensional

image of a black hole.

And Nick, if you could find one online and pull it up, where it looks like, hey, at the

middle of a black hole, space itself collapses in and it collapses down.

And what happens is space and time get significantly elongated when they're really close to gravity.

Gravity actually pulls space, sucks it in, sucks in time, and it becomes distorted.

And so when you have large black holes around the universe spinning and running past each

other, they're actually pulling and stretching space time itself.

And that sends out ripples throughout the universe.

Ripples that are slowly undulating space and time itself.

So by observing all of these pulsars around the universe and the rate at which these pulsars

are pulsing and seeing slight variations, we can start to measure and actually see those

waves, those very slow waves of space time itself undulating and being pushed and compressed.

And so it supports Einstein's general theory of relativity, which indicated that space time

itself can be warped by gravity.

And it provides a really interesting picture on the universe itself that all around us,

we have large masses that are many, many millions or billions of light years away that are creating

waves in space and time itself that we as humans will never kind of observe, realize

or feel ourselves, but as part of the fabric and the underlying nature of our universe.

With space and time being slowly warped and slowly elongated, slowly compressed, and it's

a really fascinating picture of the universe.

Over time, as scientists gather more and more of this data, it will provide insights into

where in the universe these massive black hole events may be occurring and also provide

insights into the early picture and the large scale structure of the universe, which helps

us better understand how everything started and where we're all coming from.

So it was a really fascinating data release.

I think it's a really kind of profound thing if you take a little time and think about

it.

It's super exciting.

We're getting a lot of press coverage today and encourage us all to pull our heads out

of the Ukraine war and Silicon Valley and money and all this stuff and realize that

there are things of extraordinary scale and structure that are happening around us.

Let me ask you two questions.

Number one, why does it matter?

And number two, any theories here of what we might discover if this goes 10x or 100x

in terms of the information we're getting?

Many years ago, it was theorized that there's what's called a cosmic microwave background

radiation, the CMB.

And what that is, it's the leftover heat from the formation of the universe, from the universe

when the Big Bang happened.

And the scientists figured out how to create really sensitive radio telescopes and put

them in orbit and they started to observe the background radiation.

And what that showed us was the fingerprint of the universe, the original structure of

the universe that created ultimately all the galaxies, super galaxies, and then ultimately

all the stars and then the planets and everything that came from that.

This could be the beginning of seeing a gravitational background of the universe where we could actually

start to see perhaps the fingerprint of the space time of the whole universe, of what

the actual structure of space itself and time itself looks like throughout the universe

with the perturbations being driven by some very large massive, supermassive black holes.

There was a black hole discovered this week that's 30 billion times the mass of our sun.

There are these massive objects out there that are actively distorting space time and

we're going to start to get a fingerprint of that with this sort of data.

And over time, that just gives us a better sense of what the overall structure of the

universe looks like, not just from the heat energy that we're collecting, but also the

gravitational waves that we're now able to observe through the inference of this data

collection.

This just deepens our understanding of the universe, but there's not much of the universe.

Which is amazing and interesting.

And it validates and proves the general theory of relativity, which if you think about the

application of that down the road, that may lead to things like close to or as fast as

light travel or things related to time travel, there's a lot of things that people have theorized

for decades about, you know, black holes and the warping of space time itself.

I'm not saying that any of this stuff is...

Did you see the three-body problem trailer?

Yeah, it looks amazing.

It looks amazing.

It looks amazing.

What a great...

What a great...

What a great...

I can't believe we have to wait so long.

I hate it when they put out trailers so early.

How long...

When is it coming out?

Like next year.

Oh, wow.

Yeah.

Oh, I still haven't seen your movie.

These are guys...

Your movie that you wanted me to see.

Which movie is this?

We're going to try.

We're going to try everything everywhere all at once.

I got a better movie for you.

I got a great poll for you.

It's on pay-per-view right now.

A movie about Blackberry.

It tells the story of Blackberry.

Oh, I heard it's a good...

It's like an independent film.

It is awesome.

I just reviewed it on this week in startups.

It's called...

It's actually just on his Blackberry.

Called Blackberry.

Yeah.

I think it's called Blackberry.

Okay, well guys, this has been episode 135 of The All In Pod.

I really appreciate...

Huh?

Our...

My God, live time together.

Just enough time to get you back to your nirvana concert.

Yo.

What's the background on this one?

Is that a rival?

What is that?

What's the background?

What movie?

That's a Black Hole.

That's a Black Hole.

Just a Black Hole.

Okay.

I think that that's from...

Might be a...

What's going on with Saxe's hair?

Because he looks like...

Did you get it cut, Saxe?

He got it cut.

He did.

Did you cut it?

No.

You broke our heart, Saxe?

I got a mild slushing.

Show us.

Show us the fluff.

Let's see.

Oh, boo.

I mean, it's still crazy.

That's too short.

It looks good.

You got to just keep growing it out, man.

Jake, how you want to take us out?

You do a better outro.

All right, everybody.

We're David Saxe, the architect coming at you, Z100 boarding zoo, Chaboth polyhoppatea,

two for Tuesdays, Tears for Fierce coming up, and Friedberg with the science project.

All right, traveling back in time with David Friedberg, two for Tuesday, Jackson Brown.

The loadout.

Here we go.

Jackson Brown.

Gotcha.

That makes Z100.

That makes Z100.

That makes Z100.

That's the world's greatest moderator.

Jason Kelkin.

I'm the world's greatest moderator.

I can do my NPR voice if you like.

Do it.

All right.

Closing us out here, Episode 135, PCRW 92.3, the sound of Santa Monica this Sunday at

the Venice Farmers Market, two for one on the organic mill.

Go check it out.

And we'll see you all later on the politics of culture, David Saxe chiming in on the Republican

GOP position, which we did consider Friedberg deeply going into science and Chaboth polyhoppatea

on wealth disparity for everybody.

I am your host here at KCRW.

Jason Kelkin is the world's most moderate moderator.

We'll see you next time, KCRW.

I can do any of these radio bits.

Bye-bye.

Love you guys.

Love you guys.

We'll let your winners ride.

Rainman, David Saxe.

I'm going all in.

And it said we open source it to the fans and they've just gone crazy with it.

I'm going all in.

I'm going all in.

I'm going all in.

I'm going all in.

I'm going all in.

I'm going all in.

Besties are gone.

I'm going all in.

I'm going all in.

Besties are gone.

I'm going all in.

I'm going all in.

This is my dog taking an odyssey drive.

Wait a sec.

Wait a sec.

Oh, man.

My avid dancer will meet me at Blitz.

We should all just get a room and just have one big huge orgy because they're all just

useless.

It's like this sexual tension that we just need to release somehow.

Let your feet be.

Let your feet be.

Let your feet be.

Let your feet be.

We need to get merch.

Besties are gone.

I'm going all in.

I'm going all in.

Machine-generated transcript that may contain inaccuracies.