All-In with Chamath, Jason, Sacks & Friedberg

20 of 48 episodes indexed
Back to Search - All Episodes

E14: Salesforce acquires Slack, DeepMind’s AlphaFold breakthrough, Trust Fund Socialists & more

by Jason Calacanis
December 4th 2020
01:32:22
Okay. Besties air back. Besties air back going around the horn. Rain man David Sacks calling in from an undisclosed location suffering through to Code thirteen's in one lifetime. And David Freedberg is here. The queen of kin wah SPAC ing everything in sight living the life calling in from a nondescript Ritz Carlton room It's appears to be And, of course, the dictator himself. Mammoth Palihapitiya Tackling like a fool Welcome back, everybody. This is what you pay for with your subscription to the all in podcast brought to you by slack. Uh, if you didn't own slack shares Raise rant It's been an incredible week on a number of levels. We're gonna talk this week about Salesforce buying Slack Trump and Section 2 30 The coin base theon going

coin base saga Freeburg found some interesting science that could save humanity. And, of course, the trust fund Socialists in The New York Times who hate their parents for giving them money. Uh, let's start off. Start with off the most important thing. Well, what is that shirt undershirt combo you're wearing? I mean, look, you have buttons on buttons e break the layer. You can't you can't. You If you're gonna layer properly, you can have only one layer of buttons, but toe have two layers of buttons, if that's not how it works. J E don't know layers air for players. Not me, no, He's like an almond milk cappuccino, and he's like, I like how that barista dresses and I'm gonna wear that from now on. Wait a second. Can I ask a technical question? Can I have buttons? I can't have buttons on buttons but could have buttons and then a zipper up, like with the No, you can't do that, either. Listen to Martha A. Martha's had a weird aversion to buttons ever since he spent the time in Italy

. Did you? Was he button shamed in Italy? I wasn't. I was a little button shame, but I'm looking at. Saks has buttons on his collars, which just makes no sense. Sacks is wearing the same Brooks Brothers shirt that he graduated high school in at Brooks. He owned 17% of Brooks Brothers at this point from the number of blazers he's bought there. All right, let's get off to it. We've insulted each other. I don't think free birds taking the brunt of anything yet. Anybody have any, uh, chop busting they want to do with free burgers? I just sort of built in. No. Freeburg took the tablecloth that I used for a picnic in the summertime. You know, you have to be frugal at this time. And also Freeburg cares about the environment. He's not gonna just like a picnic. It was It was a hemp based tablecloth. And so I knew it was going to get taken and store. I love how I choose to spend my time with you guys. It just pays off. Here we go. Alright. Can we kick this off? All right, let's kick it off with our advertisement

for nobody, because tomorrow not let me make any money off of this podcast on Thanks again for the suggestion that we launch a syndicate with no carry now much of dipshits on Twitter. Or like, hey, when is the all in syndicate starting? I'm like, never I need to make a living. I need to get my beak wet. And this week I'm sorry, but I think an all in syndicate would be super, super disruptive and cool. I'm totally fine with running it as long as we can have the 20% carry and I'll manage the whole thing. We got four people on the call 45 We each get 5% carry, but we gotta make a living here. Not everybody's made. It came off. Not everybody got SPAC a through Z or had all of their slack shares bought. I think we'll kick it off with that mammoth we saw this week. In fact, just two days ago, Salesforce in a record transaction for a SAS company. I think it's the highest ever paid for a SAS company. $27 billion.27.7 billion dollars for

Slack, which has only been public for just over a year. I think you were, I think, did the Siri's being slack right after they did the pivot at Social Capital and if that was in front of one or two but Phil Hellmuth serious about it. It was a Siri's be in tiny speck. But it was the Siri's a and slack, and, um, there's a really important story, which is that myself and Rico, who's my partner and social capital? We've worked together now for my gosh, I think it's probably 15 years. Um wrote a really great memo justifying the investment in Slack. And it had to do with one thing and one thing only. We ignored the revenue, and they are. I mean, it was fine and nice and good, but the single biggest thing that we were attracted to was something that we looked at and which was called, um, intercompany edges and even back in 2000 and 15 or 16 when we did this original investment. There was this dynamic where people

across companies were communicating via slack channels. And I was completely stunned by this idea because that was effectively a substitution for email. Because the only way you communicate across companies today is by email. You know, David, is that Kraft ventures dot com and he emails me at social capital dot com and I email Jason at inside dot com. That's how we communicate across across businesses. Except now all of a sudden, you could be messaging and having a much more real time interface. That, to me, was incredibly disruptive. And it justified Theo, entirety of the rial, forward looking investment thesis. Now fast forward five years later, and these guys have mawr usage on a daily basis than Facebook, which is stunning because, you know, these guys have 10 million D A use in Facebook has two billion. So it just goes to show you the quantity of traffic and the the volume of information. And theoretically, you know, productivity that's happening on slack. And so I don't not sure what Salesforce bought. I actually think

that, you know, you could make a case. Why? Um it's a shame that it got bought a very strong one, in fact. But what they did get, whether they know it or not, is an inter company edge effect, which is the most disruptive thing Thio email and in the hands of Salesforce in that sales team, I think it has the ability to really be a very disruptive force for good in enterprise software. Alright, so, sacks, this is a natural passing of the ball to you in the baton because you did yammer sold it to Microsoft for a billion dollars and obviously slack was the mobile successor to the desktop version of yammer. And you've got a lot of your fingerprints all over this. But the fact is, you did a tweet storm about it. Slack is an unbelievable success. Stewart is a great founder, you know. It's sold his first company flicker for 30 million. This one for almost 30 billion. That's pretty nice. But there was one failure and you pointed out in your

tweet storm. Explain what? The one failure If you could pick out of the hundreds of things. Thousands of things they did right. There was one thing they did wrong that, uh, to Jamaat's point would have resulted. And then remaining an independent company that could have become worth more than 27 billion. Yeah, it was. It was a slowness to embrace the idea of enterprise sales. Um, and and by the way, let's put this in context. I mean, Stewart and this lack team did a phenomenal job. $30 billion exit, Um, seven years of just about flawless execution. So I don't wanna And also, you know, I was an investor in the company, so thank you. Disturbed for let me invest. I'm definitely don't wanna sound like an ingrate or a critic. I mean, they just they did a phenomenal job, but if you were to knit, pick just 11 little thing that I think they could have, uh, done faster. It would have been embracing enterprise sales, the big learning from yammer. Uh, you know, we learnt this at yammer

from 2000 and 2012 is that enterprises don't self serve right. They don't self close. Bottom up. SAS products are phenomenal for generating top of funnel, basically generating leads. But you have to have sales. People close the deals and enterprises don't just kind of pull out of credit card and and self serve you. They need a sales person. And I think there was something in the DNA of snap slack that actually I see really very commonly in the DNA of of sort of product e sas company's products. The SAS founders, which is They kind of have a reflexive dislike or distaste for sales. And they resist the idea of sales. And they want to believe that they could just be entirely product driven. And, um and what I see and across the board is they all come to the same realization that that we had a yammer, which is we have to have a sales team. And I do remember you know, back in 2014, the whole yammer

sales team was basically rolling off because of, you know, Microsoft acquired the company 2012, and there's an integration period. And by 2013, 2014, they were all looking for jobs. And I remember you know, my my former c R O. I think was interviewing it slack. And it would have been such a perfect thing for them because he had just learned all the lessons of how you layer on kind of an enterprise sale on top of, ah bottom up product. And they just weren't ready toe to make that higher yet on dso Look, if you're gonna nitpick, look $30 billion outcome. No one's criticizing. But if you're a NIT pick, you know, um, it's an A plus, regardless, but, you know, this will be the one thing you could you could say. Well, congratulations all around to everybody involved, especially Phil Hellmuth, who was an LP and one of Jamaat's funds. So if you need insights on slack or anything inside information, you can just follow Phil Hellmuth on Twitter at being the greatest or I am the greatest

or I'll always be the greatest. One of those Twitter handles is his. But, Jason, you basically the same conclusion in your emergency pod, right? I mean, I did. I hadn't seen your I think a tweet came after the emergency pod, but yeah, it just seemed to me this company, unlike Zoom, should have been able to grow quicker. And if you look at their numbers, they had 87 companies that had we're spending over a million dollars. You put a rabid sales team on that product and they go in like Benny off does with his sales team. I mean, he was just hyper aggressive and just putting huge numbers out there and saying, You have to pass this much money So much so that I don't know if you remember Ellen getting into a public spat with him where he's like Salesforce's horrible software, get it out of the organization and basically bandit, because they came to him with the bottom of people using of Salesforce and said, Hey, you always this amount of money anyone was like f you banned forever from inside of our organization will build our own software. We don't need it on they

didn't have somebody and Stuart didn't have that DNA. I think to say aggressively we need to charge with this product is worth And you saw that in I think one of their strengths and weaknesses, which was they Onley billed you for people who were actively using the product. Now that's a beautiful, awesome feature and makes you not scared to use it. But on the enterprise level, I mean, that seemed to be like maybe one of those non cutthroat things that maybe we're holding them back. David, you have any insights on this, or should we go on to Alfa Philip's? It's really important to remember the mechanics and the game theory around M and especially, you know, big game hunting when you're doing $30 billion acquisitions. Um, it's also kind of true at billion dollar levels, but less so, But the bigger the acquisition gets, you have to remember that there's an asymmetry of information between buyers and sellers, and the question is, who does the asymmetry favor? Right? Because you could look at this acquisition and say, Wow, Salesforce's crazy for spending $30 billion and somebody else may

say Wow, slack was really stupid for selling it for $30 billion right? Um, the reality is that I think that there was a symmetries on both sides. I think that what slack probably saw. And I don't know, because I've been off the board now for more than a year. But I think what they saw was, as David said, just, um, you know, a level of sophistication and scale and ability to cross selling up cell that was needed for enterprise scale. Either you overcome it with precision and speed, or you overcome it by going the same pace as somebody like Microsoft, but with an equivalent product portfolio. So that's that's sort of one realization that that that slack had. But in the case of you know, um, Salesforce, what they probably had was a really ization that they couldn't go wall to wall inside of a customer because they didn't really have a product that was useful or usable to every single individual inside of an enterprise. And so both of those two

things create a symmetries. There's a level of fear inside of slack, and there's a level of fear inside of salesforce. Both of them are about the fear of disruption. And then the question is, who gets the better of the other person in the middle of the acquisition? Right. So the deal could have probably gotten done it, you know, 22 billion. It probably could have also gotten done at 45 billion. Andi, that's again to a combination of, um how well, you play poker in that moment, right? Who blinks first and the quality of the bankers. This is like two people having top pair on a vory textured board like on there just raising versus place. Yeah, place. Because, like, it's similar also to like how Microsoft bought Lincoln, right? Because if you think about what happened in linked in, if you remember when that happened, it was almost to a t very much like slack. Lincoln had one bad quarter. They got decapitated by I, you know, and then I owned it at the time. In the in our public fund, it got decapitated by like, 50 60 70%. I mean something insane for missing numbers by like, a few pennies. Okay. And

all of a sudden it took a lot of the wind out of their sails internally it didn't change the user momentum at all because, you know, the users that were signing up for Lincoln didn't care what the stock price was yesterday, today and tomorrow, Um, but it all of a sudden created a fear. And I think Microsoft was able to exploit that fear. And within a year, this company was bought for $25 billion not dissimilar, you know, slack had, you know, a hiccup. And they got re rated the stock bounced back. But I think that if Salesforce was smart, they probably created, you know, sort of like a white knight kind of bid that said, Listen, you need enterprise scale and the ability to cross selling Upsell. I could give it to you and slack probably said, Listen, you need to go wall to wall. So I understand why you need me and you know the prices with the prices. If you look at the pricing right, so slack, normally the way these big M and A, you know, public company M and A deals get done is the board has to approve the price, and they have to say this was the right deal for us relative to other options

and one of the ways you you assess that is you look at where the share price has been historically, and if you're getting a premium toe where the share price has been historically, let's say 30 40% higher than it's ever been, then the board says, Great, that's a good deal. We should take it because we've got a long way to grow into that value. Um, in this case, the deal was done. Not in a very high premium toe where slack traded just in the summer. Eyes that right, Jamaat. So it looked like it peak. It's basically if you look at the 10% premium right, 10% premium, 10% premium way opened the direct listing at 40 or 41 then this was at 45 right? And so there clearly was a sense of weakness from the board, which is, um I think why the Salesforce stock traded down afterwards because if they were willing to sell it that small of a premium, the forecast internally is probably feeling not that strong. And then people translate that into hey, Salesforce bought something that's not that strong. Um, you know, there's there's something a little bit amiss, but but obviously to your point, they're missing a lot of the cross selling in this energy that will

. I think it's a huge slam dunk acquisition, and I go back to the this idea of inter company, um, network effects. Um, I think they exist. And I think they're riel. And I think that the slack the slack, um, product teams ability to innovate around that, um was not as fast as it could have been. But it was still very unique. And I think it was It was a true moat. And, you know, the the tragedy is we won't see what the terminal value is if they were, um, left alone to execute. And in this weird way, like, I've always struggled with why Microsoft was so overly obsessed with slack, because if you looked at the team's product, it was much more directly competitive with Zoom and to this day still remains much more directly competitive with Zoom than slack. But you know, there we have. And if you look at the revenue, Slack was doing 800 million run rate so anyway rounded up to a billion and yet Salesforce at 20 billion s 05%

revenue to revenue and then they got 10% of the company. So in that way, if you look at on a percentage basis, which is you know, how you might look at the Facebook Instagram and WhatsApp is what percentage of the existing entity did they get? Story about 60% a year. And Salesforce is growing about 22%. Something like that. The other thing is the president of Salesforce's Bret Taylor, who was our CTO at Facebook, who I worked with. And so I think Bret also understands network effects really well on. Do you know, by the way, in this interesting twist of fate, Benioff was the under bidder, I think for linked in. And so, you know, we've We've seen Mark around the hoop on these, you know, Social Network, network effect, business tool, um, acquisitions before and finally also Twitter. He was running and he was hanging around the basket with Twitter, and then they also brought his name up for ticktock, which made no sense. So I think Benny office just looking at this, like if if Google and Microsoft

and Apple are too scared to buy things because of antitrust. Well, I'm under the radar of the antitrust trillion dollars, so I'm the only he's a He's under the radar because he doesn't have a play in this sort of communication or collaboration space. And so therefore, there are no antitrust issues. Um, if Microsoft were to do it, it would definitely be scrutinized because you could argue that they're adding to their existing dominant market share and collaboration. Um, but many upstream has always been, at least since he, uh, you know, launched chatter to compete with with us when we were doing Hammer's back in 10 4011. His dream has always been to have a product that could get him onto every seat in the Enterprise. You know, his current products set has is departmental. I mean, you've got kind of the Syrian product for sales, and they've got the support cloud for customer support, and they've got the marking cloud for marketing. And so he's gone department by department, But he's never really had a sort of pan like cross

company. Yeah, something that the entire company would use like a log in system right and so is that central logging system. But when you when he came up against you, it was very, you know, Benny off your friendly with Benny off Benny off came at you so hard he threw three or 400 engineers at chatter. He took out full page Wall Street Journal. Adds he tried to poach your people. He tried to make the product free. He made it personal against you after you would not sell to him. True or false? David Sacks. I don't I don't think he made it personal, but it was definitely feel personal. Um, you know. No, no, no, no. E understood what he was trying to dio. No, I mean, if we had sold to Salesforce like we we ended up. So what I would say is, yeah, we got, like a very It was a very competitive situation. He didn't beat us. Um, you know, e was that He knows that product

. Yeah, um, it's sort of like a feed inside of the serum product. It didn't really succeed is a standalone collaboration product. And so we won that battle, but it definitely I would say it scared us enough to sell to Microsoft because you know the way we're about. We were about to enter a new stage of competition. So here's what happened is he launched his product to kind of be a clone of yammer inside of Salesforce. But he was initially charging $15 per seat. We were charging, like, five. And so they massively overpriced it and the event. And then they were on this, like, slippery slope where they kept lowering the price to compete better with us. And then finally, they realized that they should give the thing away for free as a strategic move. Um, and that was when we decided to sell them to Microsoft is we didn't know. We knew we had a better product than chatter, but we didn't know how it would go if we were up against a free chat. Tell us, honestly, how much did he offer? What was the meeting like? We're a major. The offer We? Yeah

. So they wouldn't. Yeah, so here. I'll tell you the back story. I mean, this hasn't been public, publicly revealed, but in service of the in service of the all in podcast, but yeah, Thio in services trying to get us from number three to number one on the charts. Um, you know, you know, it's funny. We launched yammer at the TechCrunch 40 conference that Jason, as you know, you were the co founder off and Benny off was like a judge. He was a Panelist, and he was raving about it. And you could just, you know, from from the moment we launched, he was raving about it. You could see the light bulb go off with him, and he realized that, like social was gonna be It was, you know, at the time, obviously Social is big with consumer social networks, but he saw the potential social collaboration inside the enterprise. And so, yeah, I mean, like, I think a year later or something, they were interested in buying

the company for around $250 million. The big issue for them, though, was that Benioff had a bunch of, like, engineers who wanted to build it in house. And so they actually I don't know what would have happened if, um, if they, you know, didn't wanna build it themselves. But basically they vetoed doing a deal. And so they ended up building chatter. and they threw the 300 engineers at it, and they basically spun their wheels for a few years. And anyway, it turned out to be much better for us because we end up selling the company for five times as much to Microsoft. Um, you know, if we had sold toe salesforce in, like 2010, it would've been a much smaller deal. Um, but yeah, I mean, he was very interesting that from the from the get go Are folks there? You have it breaking news in the background on what actually happened. Congratulations to Stuart in the team. I wanna I wanna ask a question to mock and sex. Did you guys keep all of the shares? You You originally invested in, um

, to the exit here, just toe set the context for folks. You know, you invest in a company. It's a small startup. 4. 30 billion before you hold. Uh, for every share that I owned, half of it were half. No, uh, yeah, for off 100 shares that I owned per every 100 that I owned. Um, 10 of them. I sold a 38 right at the direct listening. Um, I want to say 40 of them. I sold in the mid twenties, and the rest of it just got taken out of this place. So you dollar cost average to the, you know, whatever high thirties, maybe 40 or something. I don't know, my exact I mean, I I I sold some, and I still own some. So, um, you know, I definitely got my beak wet from this acquisition, but but no, but look, I I think I probably

sold, you know, more than half of them, you know, on that was a mistake. And, you know, one of my biggest learnings as an investor's has been toe let your winners ride. You know, my biggest mistakes Investor has not been the losers. It's all it's been selling the winners prematurely. You did that with uber as well, David. Andi. I sold some before, but I kept a lot of my uber maybe most of it. Or half of it. I think uber Facebook. I mean, Facebook, You know, when the eye po'd it was worth 50 billion. We all thought that was, like, unbelievable, because it was over a 50 extra turn. But what's the lesson does never sell anything if you can help it. I I saw telling my Facebook in 2014, and but Amazon and Tesla I think that you have to be able to sell for two reasons. Liquidity and moral obligation. Mhm. Yeah. I mean, that's an exaggeration. I mean, you could never its's people need to be able to sell. But to the extent you can hold on, uh, just don't sell everything, you know, Always

you keep e think about the people who were at Apple in the eighties or Microsoft in the eighties or Amazon in the nineties. Ah, lot of those people got frustrated holding the shares for so long. And I think keeping at least 20% of your shares forever, you know, could be amazing. There was somebody told me I had never sold a single share of I don't know if that's a true story. I told you that you can't be okay. Way E way e credit all in podcast way may not be true. Any way should do is we should do a, um we should put beeps in their neck. I was told I had never sold a share of and then we just let everybody react to it this way. Nobody knows we're talking about, I

I do know that has not sold a single share. And it has only show shares of the fund capital calls, which is an incredible statement to fortitude. Envision. Credible, Lower. Incredible, By the way, By the way, it's not always worked out because he did the same with those. Didn't go as well. Yeah. I mean, look, you have to diversify when when you've got all your eggs in one basket in one company. Obviously, you have to sell some shares. But you know, one of things I've just learned over the last 20 years is probably people ask me what's your biggest regret or learning or whatever. It's just selling too early. It's like one of the biggest mistakes you can make. Um, look at PayPal. PayPal is now a $250 billion company. We sold it in 2002 for 1.5 billion. We thought that was a great deal of the time, and we sold it for less than 1% of what is worth today and the products basically the same. You know, this is the lesson never sell if it's a winner, right? It you compare. Okay, hold on, hold on. I'm gonna put a final nail this cough, and then we're gonna go toe alfa fold. There's a great quote by Warren Buffett

, which is, um, if you know what you're doing, the best thing you could do is be is concentrated as possible. Nobody ever got rich in their seventh best idea, and I think that that basically sums it up. But you have to be in a position to have the ability to have that kind of portfolio allocation. And I think that's hard. Three birds explained Alfa, full please. Okay, let's explain. Give me two minutes on. I'll explain proteins and then, um, the importance of proteins in an alfa fold. So the numbers to remember our 43 and 20 there are four nucleic acids that make up your DNA. We all learned this in high school biology. Um, sets of three A, C, T and G combinations define an amino acid. There are 20 amino acids, um, and ah, protein is a string of amino acids. So in your body and every cell there, these organelles, they make proteins by reading the DNA, taking a copy of it and turning it into a amino acid

chains. And that's what we kind of call proteins. Um, but what's interesting is when you make a chain of amino acids, so there's 20 of them that you could put in each point in the chain. It doesn't come out as a long chain. What happens is those amino acids. The whole thing collapses and it turns into a very specific shape. And the shape of that protein is what defines its function. So pretty much every biological function across all life eyes undertaken by proteins doing something. Some proteins, like hemoglobin in our red blood cells, will has a very specific little pocket where oxygen molecules stick into the pocket and then it moves the oxygen from your lungs to your cells. It's a pretty amazing protein to exist on. It specifically is shaped to do that exact function. There are other proteins that can, for example, rip apart. Other molecules break a molecular bond. Um, there are other proteins, for example, that can take nitrogen out of the atmosphere and put it into plants, cells that the plants can then use to

grow. Um, there's an incredible, um, you know, a set of potential on the nanoscale of what you could do with proteins, and we see that in life and were just shocked and awed and amazed by it every day. But in order to figure out how to create proteins that do specific things, you have to know how to those amino acids turn into the shape that the protein ultimately takes. And that's what's called protein folding on DSO. The hard thing is on. Do you know why is this important? It's important because we can easily read DNA, and therefore we can figure out what amino acid sequence is being made to define that protein. But what we don't know really well is what is the shape of that protein and therefore, how does it undertake the function that we see it taking in biology? And if you think about the reverse of this, the reverse of this. If you have a function, you wanna undertaken biology, you could design a protein to do that function for you, for example, bind to a specific point on a cancer cell or, you know, take carbon out of the atmosphere or pretty much anything else your your mind can kind of imagine

on the nanoscale proteins can be designed to dio. The challenge is, how do you write the code, which is the DNA to make the protein that does that thing? Well, we don't know how the code turns into the shape, and that's what folding the folding problem is. So the folding problem there's a data set and the data set is what's the three dimensional shape of a protein? And then what's the DNA code that defines the amino acid sequence that makes that protein? And how do you figure out how to predict the shape of the protein from the amino acid sequence? It has been an impossibility. And again, if you think about this chain of amino acids, they each have little, um, you know, electrical spaces and and the way that they bind to each other. It's very complicated. You can't just deterministic Lee define it. You know we don't have that level of understanding on a quantum scale. So what Alfa fold has done is they have now been able to predict from a sequence of amino acids what the protein shape will ultimately become by learning from

a database off hundreds of thousands of structural protein Um uh, shapes that have been defined through really, really, really difficult, you know, scanning microscopes and other techniques toe really trying to scan a protein on a microscopic scale and then looking at the DNA sequence and figuring out okay, what's the relationship? And the accuracy of their predictive model now is within the range of error off the microscopes that are being used to actually scan and measure those proteins. So that's incredible, because now, theoretically, you could come up with a design for a protein, and you could actually build that protein by writing the amino acid sequence. And that protein could do any number of things you want to dio. And this has been a difficult problem that's been intractable by humanity, and we've been challenged by it for decades for this machine learning breakthrough Thio to kind of be realized in literally less than three years. I mean, these guys were at a score of 40 last year, and this year they're like nearly 90

which is incredible. And so now you know, we can now predict what the shape will be from the from the DNA sequence, and this is gonna unlock this ability. Everyone is now going to take their model if they license it or whatever they do with it, or people are gonna go learn using the same techniques that deepmind used. But it just means that it's possible. And then scientists will go away and they'll say, You know what? I want to do this particular thing on a microscopic scale. Let me design in three dimensional space of protein to do that thing. Okay, Now, let me go figure out how to make that protein by writing the DNA code, which is really easy if you could use this algorithm to solve that for you. And it is literally dollars and pennies to make proteins weaken right DNA on a computer. We could get printed DNA sent to us in 48 hours and FedEx envelope for DNA printing facility. We can put it in a microbe, and we could get that microbe to make the protein for us in a day the lab cost. Any high school biology class could do this now. So by being able to actually figure out what DNA to right. Based on the objective function of what we want the protein to dio it's gonna unlock

this universe of things we could do in medicine. In environmental science, we could do things like break apart P e T plastics. We could do things like fixing nitrogen from the atmosphere and getting rid of fertilizer plants. We can create all sorts of new, you know, food solutions, health solutions, environmental solutions. Any chance you could make a pizza that doesn't have carbohydrates? Because that's what I'm thinking about here is is there a way healthy pasta or pizza or something like that? But in all seriousness, What? What do you think the early winds will be out of this technology? And is this a theoretical win that will benefit from in 20 years? Or is this a serious breakthrough that we're gonna benefit from in the near term? Like No, I think 1 to 5 years, both are true. This is an incredibly important advancement in machine learning. But the reality is that you know, Google will still have to spend a deep mind, will have to spend a lot of time refining it, and then they have some really big ethical challenges ahead of it. How do you expose this technology to whom and under what conditions

? And it's the same situation that open AI has with GPT three. Although ah, lot of people I think you know, the the scale of the computer science challenge maybe was a bigger winning gpt three because it was a much more open space. Andi, I think this is a much more specific sort of almost expert system in a way, um, but the downstream commercial implications of this there's just enormous. Um and so just think about this like, this is where, like, you gotta you gotta love companies like Google. The fact that they exist because from, you know, page rank in 1999 2 CPC ads in 2000 and three and four, we have Alfa fold in 2000 and 20. And that, to me, is just That's just is an argument against breaking up tech because on Lee, a tech company with this amount of resource knowledge can then go spend a billion dollars on deepmind alphabets burning $45 billion a year on their quote unquote other bets line and people give them a lot of shit for it. But I mean, you hit any one of these things and it's $100 billion

payday. I mean, look atyou, Cube. YouTube's easily $100 billion payday on a billion dollar bet. Billion six. That's a That's a 250 to 500 a applied semantics. A lot of people miss this, but applied semantics was $100 million bet. And that's the entirety of AdSense. Initially, Android, chrome android. Um, you know, and is this is this the first commercial application of Deepmind? Because until now, you know, they've had Alfa zero. So there was a period of time. A lot of people I don't know. Uh, let me just think about this for a second, because I e I want to be careful about this, but I do think that, you know, But I do think I do think it was disclosed that they've used deepmind, uh, to improve as quality and improve YouTube viewing. And as a result of that, you get the number of hours per day of the average user on YouTube to double or triple ad revenue goes by three x and I think in one quarter, Google was able to generate something like an incremental 15 billion annual revenue from deep mines. And

, you know, and you know what that deepmind actually did on YouTube? It sent everybody to the all tried and involve wars and Ben Shapiro. Congratulations. Be careful what you said. People's minds with artificial intelligence. Maybe you just argued to break them up. Yeah, but I understand sacks that it's being used broadly across the products at Google in a now now, in a much more careful way, is my understanding. I'm Look, I'm a I'm a big ally of alphabet. I'm a big fan, and I love you know, they were, and I used to work there, and I'm very close to people there. So, you know, who used to be on the board and was the major backer of that company? Deepmind Founders Fund from Elon must too, and he begged them to not sell to Google because $400 million.4 million dollar X. It was with 40 or 50 scientists, I think. Yeah, absolutely no, Ellen. I mean, Ellen has publicly said that he thinks deepmind is like the greatest threat. Well, you think, say Isa. Grass starts humanity. And of the people working on Ai Deepmind is the furthest along and therefore most dangerous. He

tried to stop. I mean, he's only straight up, like when he's been very public about the sense that he he said, I'll give you an unlimited amount of money to not sell to Google. His friends with Larry Page, too. But he said, Don't sell. I want you to be independent. Would you keep working on this? But he said that when he saw the AI there become aware that it was an AI, that that was when he was like Wait a second. No, does not Alfa Alfa Alfa zero is not self aware. That's it felt it was becoming self aware that it knew what it was. I don't know if that was just Ellen, you know, just sort of No, it's not. It's not self aware, so I mean, I'm watching. Yeah. I mean, the amazing things that Deepmind has released prior to this were games, right? They had this chess, this chess ai called Alfa zero, which rapidly became not just the best chest. Um, it only beat every human in the world. It also beat every chess engine because computers became or, you know, better at chess than humans long time ago because of their sheer computational

power. But Alfa zero plays like a human, but with kind of that same computational power. And so that created a whole revolution in chess engines. And then they also did that with a game called Go the Credit Alphago and basically every single game that you can think of, uh, deep mines created, you know, an Alfa whatever Alfa version that destroys both humans and computers. But this is the first thing they've publicly announced that that seems like it will be a available to others. Eventually, that could have tremendous social impact. Imagine the government trying to understand this. Can you imagine them being brought before, like Senator Thes are These are the new weapons of mass destruction? I mean, let's be honest, like if if somebody else had had Alfa fold and probably somebody doesn't just hasn't said, you know, I mean, Google actually values transparency, so that's the only reason why we know, Um, imagine what they could do is freed, Brooks said. It's

like, you know the opposite of this is basically to design a specific protein that basically, um, you know, destroys organs or their their proteins called prions, which are the scariest thing known in biology. In my opinion, ah, prion is a protein that it actually find similar proteins and based on its shape, it gets those proteins to change, and it becomes like a virus. And pre ions actually are. There's an extremely sad Siris of diseases that are related to pry on, where your body expresses a protein in the wrong way, and then that protein itself gets other proteins to change. It creates copies of itself, and it spreads. Um, it is a Fascinatingly scary biological phenomenon, but, you know, there are extremely scary things you could do with the designer protein capability. Basically, you could make a bio weapon that would be similar to what the aliens and Prometheus and and aliens were doing. Even much worse, even much worse. This is why I think they're going to spend years before. So

this is why back to that earlier question it will be years before this sees the light of day because they're they're smart enough to know what they've uncovered on. I think they did. They did the right thing by talking about it, because I think there's a lot of really amazing R and D. Um, but the reality is that Google, for the next 20 or 30 years will have layers and layers of oversight because, you know, it's not like you're gonna allow a company to enrich uranium, uh, in Mountain View without oversight. And this is the equivalent. It's just a were buying time until governments realize that they have todo that they have to do it. But let's also remember the protein data set they trained on is publicly available. You know, anyone can access this and with the, you know, catch up in machine learning, you know, capability to deepmind, infrastructure wise. Theoretically, you know, someone could could I think it's It's an inevitability that in the next 24 months, someone else we'll get this right now, I think what Deepmind has done is showed that specific, um, techniques of learning can overcome

limitations in compute. But to your point, David, like we're accelerating silicon at a fast enough speed where you know, it's like if you can throw 5, 10, 5100, 500 pet ops at a problem. You're you know, you can run, you know, some really, really old version of tensorflow and probably get to the same answer. Yeah, I actually think they published. I'm gonna find it while you guys were chatting, but they published what the compute Needs were on running this. I'll find it in a second. Uh, tell you because, uh, make one sort of slightly descending point on the whole WMD thing. I mean, look, obviously the you know who has access, this technology needs to be controlled. We do have to make sure it doesn't get to the hands of bad actors. But the reality is there's plenty of existing WMDs out there that have been around for a long time that bad actors could get their hands on. Um, they could already make, you know, extremely dangerous viruses in a lab. They could, you know, take something that's is contagious a smallpox, and make it as deadly as a bowl

or something like that. And it's these new technologies that provide a way for us to combat those those WMDs because, you know, technology has a tendency to become democratized. Um, you know, was it. Uh, 75 years ago, the US was the only country that had an atomic weapon. Now what, like close to 10 have, you know, nuclear, atomic weapons. And so, um, you know, these these sort of nefarious technologies get democratized anyway, and we really need some of these new technologies and new abilities as a way to combat them. So, like last week, we were talking about the ability Now, toe basically print, um, you know, a vaccine using this m r n a technique within two days. You know, you could imagine, you know, if if someone tried to use a bioweapon create a new virus, we could print a vaccine the next day. Um, those are the kinds of capabilities we're gonna need to fight the spread of WMD. I think you're right. It's just that you then have a law of large numbers problem

meaning? You know, the previous problem before is you had 180 192 100 state sponsored actors, so if you had a 1% you know, rate of people who are just bad. You're talking about two states. Now when you talk about five billion people getting access to code that's basically running in a W S or G C. P. Instance someplace, and you have a 1% you know, bad guy rate. All of a sudden, that 1% really matters. And I think that's the problem. It's just the law of large numbers. David applied to very, very small rates of immorality. But, I mean, you could already do very scary things with, you know, Rick, competent DNA, taking DNA from one organism, putting in another and setting that organism out. And, you know, theoretically, you could have designed ah, virus that would spread throughout humanity and cause a lot of death, right? I mean, there's a lot of this case people would have found that out because, like, you can't run these labs and you're not going to get, you know, monkey models or mouse models. It's like there's there's a trail of bread crumbs. Er, that is easier to track. Wouldn't you agree that just running an instance in a simulation

on G. C. P, sending it someplace to then have a protein printed that comes into FedEx envelope, too? And you have to hire people as we saw in Iran with you know, their chief scientist being whacked by whoever accidentally whacked him with 60 people like you need to have the brain power to do this when you have the brain power to do it, you contract that brainpower and we had for the last. I think it's like since we even tested nuclear bombs, we've had the special planes flying around the globe looking for the signature of nuclear, uh, detonations or any kind of nuclear fallout. And we've been flying those forever, I e. I think I think biodefense is gonna become probably one of the biggest industries on planet or starting in the latter half of this century, because you're gonna get to a point where digital biology is like a tool. Just like software was in the eighties where suddenly everyone could access it. Everyone could use it. Everyone could do stuff with it. You have this ubiquity of scary shit happening. Hackers everywhere hold on free. Didn't we have that as well in those same claims

about nuclear power? And we were been able to for 100 years, with nuclear close to 100 years nuclear in particular with nuclear in particular, there is a material problem. You have to source and refined material to do something scary with biology. You don't. You could do this anywhere. You could do it on your desktop at home. Um, and you know it's getting easier, cheaper, faster. And you can use software and a printer and you know, a cheap sequences and do stuff. Do we believe that China has this Freeburg China, for sure? Yeah. I mean, look yeah, head of deepmind behind 100% 100%. So here's the stats that deepmind put out. It took him the equivalent of 100 to 200 GP youth run over a few weeks to build this model that I don't care how advanced deep mine is at this point s. You know, if that's the model, then someone else can replicate that. You know someone, That's what that's what happened. Thio Alfa zero, the demon chess engine After they proved it. Now there's a whole bunch of chess a eyes e were

then within one year Jake al of a lot of startups replicating this Alfa fault technique and then using that to go do drug discovery and you'll see 50 startups getting funded 12 to 18 months from now based on some novel protein idea. Andi, I think that this we've got to get our beef sweat on this on the, uh, everybody go to this is getting ridiculous. Everybody way. Com slash All in wait a protein way Should create a protein folding syndicate. Absolutely. Here it is. Everybody go to the syndicate dot com slash All in. If we do this, I'm collecting the emails now. I will. I will. I will make my first series of bets less on the application and more on the protection. I think biodefense 30 years from now is gonna be so important. If you want to invest with the best ease can there is there gonna be a protein that prevents Rudy Giuliani from farting? I mean, what is going on, Sax? Let's throw to you as our resident Right wing. Uh, joking. Joking

sacks don't take it so personal. We know you didn't vote for Trump Way. No, you did a write in vote for for Tucker Carlson. Let me ask you, have you have you or have you not had dinner with Tucker Carlson? Um e call. All in. I've actually Yeah. No, I don't think I've had to know with Tucker. But to a party with Tucker Carlson? No, no, But let me let me let me get, uh Here's what's happening is well, I feel my dream of gridlock in Washington for the next four years is slipping away. Um, you know, the you know, I described this is sort of like it was kind of a dream scenario that you would have a divided Congress and the Republicans, you know, they won 50. They won 50 seats in the Senate in November and then, you know, because of the stupid rule in Georgia that you have tow, you can't just win. You have tow win by having over 50%

. Um, the Republicans would have had 51. But now these. There's a runoff for these two open seats, and the Republicans were ahead in the polls at the time they were. The more I think it's mostly is based on the candidate's being more popular than the Democratic candidates. But now, because of all these antics around the election, the Democrats have both Democratic candidates have pulled ahead. S oh, yeah, there now both Democratic in the last couple of the last week or so. Um, awesome is ahead of Purdue by about two points, which is a stunner, because Purdue has already beaten him before he beat him in the November election. He is, I think, a better candidate. You his margin of error, but no Republican. Right? But Warnock is seven points ahead of lawful er, so that one is outside the margin of error. He's clearly beating her. And, um, you know, and now it looks like produce in danger to the Republicans. Just need to win one of those in order for us toe

have, you know, divided government in Washington, which I think tends to produce better results than giving one party all the levers of power. Um, but But this is this is the crazy thing. And so I think, even from Trump's point of view, you know, I think this is a branding exercise toe, you know, prove that he didn't lose. The problem is if well, it's not working, and it looks like it's gonna cost Republicans in the Senate, which is something that I think he won't come back from. So if I was advising the president, I would tell him to drop this. You know, these these legal challenges. They fired Sidney Powell from the legal team, which I think was a good decision because of her crazy wild allegations. But now Rudy is out there doing the same study. Three answer that I gave you is they didn't bother to interview a single witness. Judi Giuliani. He was adjusting. He wasn't waking up the genie. He was. He was tucking his pants and laying down in the bedroom having a drink with a Russian underage

. I mean, Rudy, it's just, I mean, fresh off his guest starring appearance in the Borat movies. I mean, it's like uncredited. Yeah, it's like he's reenacting my cousin Vinny or something in these, um, in these hearings, Um, but it's gonna cost Republicans the Senate. Yeah, I think there s so amazing. Like, the Democrats basically have now have a stone cold free role because there is a very good chance that these guys were going thio when these two Senate seats, which would just be absolutely incredible. Absolutely. Eso Republicans air definitely figuring this out. Rich Lowry had a great column. He's editor of National Review. He's on the right, but I think provides very good, objective political analysis. He sound his last column sounded the alarm bells about what was happening in Georgia. And look, if the if the issue in the Georgia run offs is are these antics? If it's Rudy and Sidney Powell, the public is gonna lose the seat that both seats. If the question of the election is whether Democrats should

have a free hand to ram through whatever legislation they want, then I think the Republicans win. So the question is, what is that election gonna be about? And the longer that Rudy stays on the stage making these crazy wild allegations, the worse it gets for Republicans. When is the Georgia runoff election this January 5th or 10th is one of those two. January 5th? I think, my gosh, would anybody here if they had gray hair? And I know we have three gentlemen on the call who have gray hair. Friedberg. Somehow your your you might be. Maybe I've answered this question. Would any of you dye your hair if you were a 79 87 year old Rudy Giuliani? No, my hair is white and getting whiter. It's like it is what it is. It's a passage of time. I would just move on. David, would you consider just taking that gray right out of your hair because you have the your silver fox as it stands, would you ever consider it? You

could stand to, man, you can see the decision I've made, but look, that's not I mean, it's Yeah. I mean, that was just like a meltdown. I mean, literal meltdown, literal, literal meltdown on, uh, it was so like representative of the moment. The congressional Republicans want to use a hook to get Rudy off the stage. I mean, they cannot wait to get him off the stage. And But if they don't do it, stand up and just tell Trump to shut this down. I think I think it's coming. It's coming. So yeah. Oh, wow. So the Republican to stand up to Trump with four weeks left in office. Wow, what a profile in courage. Freeburg, are you dyeing your hair? Do you have gray hair on you actually dying, or have you not just tell us right now? It's an emergency pod. No truth. David, you're dying your hair. Yes or no Eyes. There's so many ways have an opinion on whether Trump is a lot to pre pardon himself and his kids. It's exactly

where I was going. Well, all right wing. Definitely part of his kids. I don't know that there's open legal question, whether he can pardon himself, can you pardon? What does it mean, pre part in this definition? You pardon for a committed crime, right? I mean, that's traditionally no part of it was a blanket. Well, you can pardon for things that happened in the past. I don't think you can pardon for things that happen in the future. And you could you know, I don't think you have to define it. I think you could just do a blanket. Pardon. Um, the I would advise trump not to do it if I were one of his advisers. And the reason is that he can only pardon for federal and the big problem the Trump family has right now. You know, the Southern district of New York. These mad dog prosecutors who are democrats. This is you know I don't approve of it. This is This is to me. This is the to me. This is the criminalization of political differences. I don't I think it be great if he could pardon, because I do think that

those guys are again. They're trying to criminalize political differences. But pardoning doesn't solve the problem of the Southern District of New York. And Biden has already said that he doesn't believe in having any having these having like a federal investigation of Trump. And so I don't think I don't think Trump has anything to worry about federally. I think the problem is, can I just say New York is just so fucking decent and classy like, Isn't it refreshing? It's actually boring, But isn't it just wait, What are you talking about? Biden is just so deeply Biden like. I haven't seen that guy. He worked for us. He's been great. No, I mean, like, well disappeared. Look, he doesn't disappear. He's just not crazy. He's Biden. Biden. Biden has done a really has done a few really smart things. I mean, in his acceptance speech, he did what Churchill advises you to do in victory, which is be making animus. He's made the right sort of sounds towards reconciliation, I think, saying that he didn't

believe in going after Trump, criminally. I mean, look, I don't think that would have been a good political move anyway, because it would have created a backlash. But it was a smart thing to say. And so and then I think the other smart thing he's done is which is very Biden, anyway. Which is he's gone establishment all the way for his Cabinet. He has not put. He hasn't named any totally crazy progressives to his Cabinet yet that that Republicans could latch onto for the Georgia run offs. And so Biden is doing a very good job right now of appearing non threatening and doing nothing toe nothing to blow up his honeymoon. He and his advisers have run a perfect, perfect this floor. It's been flawless. I mean, David, you just nailed it. Like all of all the things he could have done to potentially put the Senate at risk or to potentially give Republicans sort of something to hang their hats on, he has given zero space, right, like he has not created a single locally. And so you You would have thought that coming into this election cycle, the way that Trump tried to paint

Biden was like this, you know, uh, gaffe Aholic. And instead, he has just been picture pitch perfect. Well, I think I think I think he's a He's a gaffe machine when he speaks spontaneously, which he has not done. I mean, every time I've seen him speak since the elections, be reading off a teleprompter. But I think that his campaign has run a really good They have run a good strategy. Um, and now look, it helps that the press doesn't really challenge is like it's like it's like weekend at Bernie's, except it's like presidency of Bernie's. You know, it's like four years basement. The only reason a hold him up, put him in the stage. But the press press let him get away with it. I mean, no other candidate could have gotten away with a basement strategy, but the press was so determined to go after Trump that they really gave him a free pass on what Biden believed in what he was going to do. But look, Biden has run. Biden has run a very good campaign in a very good transition, and really, I think the biggest mistake he made during the campaign was not declaring definitively that he would not try

to pack the Supreme Court. That was his big mistake and what happened. The voters split the ticket to give the Senate to the Republicans so that Biden wouldn't be able to pack the court, and so he would be able to do it anyway. And I think maybe his administration has learned from that mistake, which is don't do anything or say anything that's going to give Republicans something to latch onto. To say that Biden's really radical. We've got to stop him. And anyway, so to now George is in play and Biden could win the Senate. That's a perfect insights act, because what you haven't seen as well as you haven't seen Kamala Harris out there all that much because that's something Republicans could glom onto. And you haven't seen AOC, Bernie Sanders or Elizabeth Warren. They are persona non grata. They are not involved in this. They're my they're my age, and the Democrats won't bring them up. And you have Bernie Sanders like, wasn't he supposed to be like Ellen? Omar wants to cancel rent and mortgages. I mean, they're throwing classic starring everything out

there just to see if anything sticks. Yeah, Biden. Biden has really given Bernie Sanders and that wing of the party the high hat in the in these Cabinet choices. In fact, he just named ah woman to be the head of the of O M B the you know, the budget director who has a huge Twitter feud with Bernie Sanders and the Bernie Bernie folks are up in arms about it. I don't think she's gonna get through. Um, but but yeah, I mean, Biden has really stiff armed. A lot of the progressives want to be associated with the historical left. I mean, why would you want todo? I also think it's hysterical. E o the right. I mean, he's appealing to the right to some extent, right? I mean, like by not putting those people in place. He's never never writer. He's never gonna be able to appeal to the Trump base. But what he's going to be able to do is prevent the Republicans from from sort of labeling him as a radical and therefore and therefore, you know, went over those independents that he needs. And by the way back, Thio

back to Trump for one second I apologize because I wanted to ask you, David. I mean, the other thing that could tip Georgia is this whole craziness where Trump is like, I'm going to veto the defense bill unless we repeal section 2. 30. And if you're you know, a military person in Georgia, you're like, Wait a second. Um, you're gonna leave my brothers and sisters in arms basically lollygagging without any financial support because you don't like Twitter's tweet policy, it's gonna seem kind of crazy. Yeah, it was. It was one of these, like, classic trump moves where you feel like I think he does have a good point With respect to the social media companies, I do think they've been engaging in censorship. They've overstepped their bounds. They are they do deserve some sort of cup comeuppance or control. I personally don't think that repealing two to a two third was a 2 80. is the section 2 30 is the way to go. Um

, it's, um, for a bunch of reasons that we could get into if you want. But but but yeah, it was one of these, like, reflexive Trump Trump, you know, tweets. And you heard Republicans in the Senate were very, very quick to shoot it down on. Did you know there was an article in Politico where Republicans were quoted well, anonymously saying, they're pretty sick of this shit. That was the quote. And so, yeah, I mean, I think that Republicans on Capitol Hill are kind of ready for for for those types of antics to be over. Okay. Should he or will he pardon himself and the kids? Like I mean, I guess that's what it comes down to, and I Well, I think we shouldn't think I don't I don't I don't think so. And I don't think it will matter, because I think Biden will leave him alone, and it will not help his biggest risk. Uh, and this is, by the way, why they tried to get Jay Clayton to resign from the SEC and move over to the Southern district of New York because they thought maybe he could run some kind of interference. But, I mean, I think the state a G s will

want a pound of flesh here. If I were if I were advising. Yeah, just if I were advising Trump and and advising him on how to present maximize his legacy. It would be, you know, pardon. Pardon? People in administration been treated unfairly. There's no need to pardon yourself. Um, I don't I don't think he has federal exposure. Um, and I would And I would tell them that, you know, if Republicans lose thes Georgia Senate seats that he will be blamed for among the base for a long time and that I think will be hard for him to get past, uh, in four years. And so it's very important, I think, for him to make sure that that at least Purdue wins his election. Yeah. What do you guys can ask? Another question. What do you think is gonna happen with eso? Trump is trying to make his case. Um, but no one's listening. Twitter keeps putting up his fraudulent. You know, uh

, this is despite claims disputed claims thing, and he's been pushing newsmax in o a. And then do you think those become viable and really kind of media businesses now? And are they actually going to steal an audience away from Fox News? 100%. It's already happened. It's just the increasing fragmentation of media cable networks don't pick them up, do they? Uh, cable companies. I've seen NewsMax news, Max. People channel my There he is. This entire twisted like crazy, right? Alright. Mania just fades into oblivion, and the party reinvents itself. No, No, because they can't win. They can't win, David. They can't win with this brand. They did. They did when they did. And they will not in the future, because they just lost their Republicans won, like 10 or 12 seats in the house. They've almost got the majority back in the house. They almost certainly will win back the house and retire Nancy Pelosi in two years during the midterm election. I'll put money on that right now. They held

the Senate local elections. They held the Senate presidency again. With this strategy, you think you can win with the demographic shift with Trump in 2024? Really? Yeah, because I wanna go back to that level of crazy. No, I mean people. People don't. People don't want the they don't want the crazy. But this idea that the issue set that Trump ran on and won on is dead. I don't I don't agree with that. Yeah, Issue you'll have a better branded face and a standard bearer for those issues. And if you say it in the less crazy way and you're generally less crazy, I think that it will resonate with a lot more people that have already proven that it resonates with. It already resonates with 70 million. Could it resonate with 75? And could they overtake the White House? It's not inconceivable, so I think I think we can't all of a sudden say this is signed, sealed and delivered its affect the complete and all of a sudden it's just Democrats the rest of the way. David's right. The down ballot results for the Democrats were not good, and it's a sign that moderate centrism

is the only winning strategy. If you really have a strategy where it's like I really wanna win, and not just me, but my party and generations of people after me, you have to run a centrist campaign, which is why they're retiring. The AOC. Elizabeth Warren Bernie Bro contingent, right? So there's there's a House member group of crazy, right? There was a there was a Democratic House member, I think Elizabeth Spam Burger, who almost lost her seat, I think, and I like a Virginia like kind of swing Virginia district. There was a big call of the Democratic House caucus, and she was just laying into Pelosi and the leadership there because she was basically saying, Don't ever mention defund the police again. You know, if you want me to win my my swing district next time, do not mention this ever again. And she was just This is all in The Washington Post. You know, they the call was leaked by about a dozen different press out outlets, which tells you there was a lot of unhappiness among the House members who

almost lost their seat because of these, like radical ideas the other. The other thing is, and you know, unless all of a sudden the folks that are in their twenties and thirties air radically different than many, many generations before them. The reality is that they will, as they get older and wealthier. Generally speaking, get mawr conservative and we are about to go through over the next 20 years, $30 trillion of wealth transfer. And so you know, I mean you can wear but buttons on buttons on flannel. But at the end of the day, when you're you know, Mom and Dad pass pass away, and all of a sudden you know you have 45678 million bucks and you have to think about your Children and your Children's Children. I tend to think people generally do very predictably kept more conservative. And so again, another reason why you can't count on, UM, a stayed interpretation of progressivism. There will be progressivism. I think it just will

be a different form of policy, and it'll just be more moderate and centrist and it'll be normal. Which is a perfect segue to The New York Times story that came out on the Friday after Thanksgiving, November 27th. The rich kids who want to tear down capitalism socialist minded millennials millennial heirs are trying to live their values by getting rid of their money. Lately, Sam Jacobs and I'll read just a little bit of it, has been having a lot of conversations with his family's lawyers. He's trying to gain access to his trust of 30 his $30 million trust fund. At 25 he's hit the age where many heirs can blow there money on hair brain businesses or a stable of sports cars? He doesn't want to do that, but by wealth management standards, his plans or Justus bad, he wants to give it all away. I want to build a world where someone like me, a young person who controls tens of million dollars, is possible. A socialist college, Mr Jacob sees his family's extreme plutocratic wealth as both a moral and economic failure. His parents, first of all, Sam Jacobs sounds like an idiot, and he shouldn't have anybody. So hopefully he gets his wish. Why did his parents

giving $30 million? This trust fund should be like given to somebody who deserves it like, yeah, but But what? What? Sam, what? What Sam Jacobs wants doesn't mean that Sam Jacobs gets to decide for everybody else. And just because that he wants to live in a communist country, he could go and find one. And the reality is like, you know, we just talked about Alfa fold. Well, guess what. You know, there's four of us on this on this podcast today that over the next 20 or 30 years are more than likely going to invest hundreds of millions of dollars in protein design. And I don't do that with any, um, sense of shame. Andi. I'm glad that Stewart Butterfield made me, you know, a lot of money because it's gonna go go back into the world in positive ways. And, you know, maybe if my Children are taught properly, um, they'll be able to take a small piece of that and they'll decide that. You know, there's something else that's important to them, but the reality is that everybody should be allowed to make their own decisions. And I don't want somebody like him, especially a 25 year old dipshit telling

me or my kids who, even though they're, you know, under the age of 15, are probably smarter than him. What to do, David, when you read this article, If you did read it, what were your thoughts, and especially in regards to parenting and thinking about our own kids? Because that's when I started thinking about it like, Oh my God, what if one of my daughters wants to take her trust fund and just throw it into the wind? I really don't want to wait. Hold on. I just want to know everything. The part that's completely reasonable and that I respect is is this 25 year old seems to have come to a decision. What I find completely unreasonable and, you know, just completely lathered with insecurity is his need to then projected and say it has to be true for everybody else as well. And and the grand our king statements of how it should never be just completely betrays. You know what we've learned in how society functionally works, like if you want democracy, the only sort of economic philosophy that's been partnered with with democracy, to work while is capitalism

. And so if you want to change one, you're gonna have to change the other. And just the fact that, you know, with all of his education, the hundreds of millions of dollars you know, didn't get a course in civics toe. Understand, that is kind of sad. I just before you go, David, I have to read one comment because it's so deranged that it almost seems like it was part of a script to like some billions or secession. Um, Airs whose wealth have come from specific sources, sometimes used that history to guide. Their giving is That's the New York Times saying that Pierce still ah Hunt, a 32 year old socialist, anarchist, Marxist, communist, or all of the above has a trust fund that was financed by their former stepfather's outlet mall empire. When I and this is Mr uh, Mr I'm sorry, m X. I've never seen that before. Delahunt, how do you pronounce Max Hunt? How do you pronounce M X M X? Delahunt takes non gendered pronouns

. Has anybody seen MX? I've never seen that. That was the first time. Yeah, that's the first for me. So I guess it s so you don't have to say Mr or Miss or Mrs. It's like Latin X where you just get group a bunch of people into one thing. I got it. Um, this is what M X Delahunt says. I'm just trying Figure how it's pronounced. Maxus Hunt. Delahunt. Uh, takes a shot, Jason. You're not showing respect for his pronounce. I don't wanna get canceled. It's just it's kind of hard to pronounce m x e don't mean toe left. E need somebody to tell me how to pronounce them x dot com Um, I think This is the quote that is so insane when I think about outlet malls, and I think this is what we all think about, what we think about outlet malls. When I think about Allah malls, I think about intersectional oppression. What's the

first thing that comes to mind when you think of an outlet mall? Certainly it's intersectional compression or a subway E. Can I just point out like the New York Times has become a little bit sensationalist? Like, You know, if you were to ask statistically what percentage of people that are inheriting wealth, they're gonna be stupid like this. The answer would probably be pretty low, but they find the one or two characters like this, and they built the story around him. And then people extrapolate. That is, if that is the persona of the entire population of people that are going to inherit some degree of wealth and that becomes the story. And I'm just so sick of it, like I don't read the New York Times anymore. And look, I love The New York Times. I would read it every single day. I still have it on my phone. I still pay for my subscription, but I'm so sick of the narrative being written by the authors objective. And then they go and find one or two facts that meat that narrative. And rather than speaking about it statistically and saying we surveyed 100 people that were wealthy, this is how many And if it if it was 60% of them saying, I'm gonna go give away all my wealth and do crazy shit great, like that's the

story. But picking, picking, picking an individual on building the narrative around that individual is if that is the but David. But David and that's the point, like what they do is they don't even talk about people who want to give their money away. What they do is they create thes caricatures around this, like judge judgment. It's It's all about this like judgment. It's like virtual. I am. It's virtue. It's like I am holier than everybody else because of these decisions that I made, and I just find it so offensive. Now here's Can I just tell you I had my physical last week and I have a doctor in L. A, whose superb and he's in many ways sort of a philosopher king. To me, he's been incredibly important in my life. And, you know, I Doctor Vegas, I talked to his name. His name is Christian Renna at Lifespan Medicine. But anyways, um and here's what you and I talked to Chris about raising kids and Christmas scene. You know, thousands of people over the course of his, you know, journey as a primary care physician. And he's seen the kids of these folks and etcetera. You know, he he boiled it down to me. It's like, um, you know, your job

is a parent is to make sure that your Children have incredible tools, married with incredible habits. And so some of these things are very simple, like food, and you know how to eat and self care and exercise. But some of these things are really important, which is, Ah, worldview, empathy. And he uses this word, which is called awareness and awareness. Is this idea that you understand the world around you, and that's an incredibly difficult thing for parents to be able to teach their kids, but it seems like if you could give them that that's independent of anything other than time and care, right? It doesn't matter whether you're rich or your poor doesn't really matter whether you're black or you're white. You can really teach the concept of awareness and empathy. And then the other thing that he taught me was you know, there's a really big difference between folks like you meet, meaning guys like me who grew up poor and who are focused on the generation of money, right? Meaning making money. And some of you make it some of

you don't. But you're living in this existentially threat that you feel is hanging over you. And so you go out and you make it. And a lot of it is driven by this insecurity you've had since you were young. But make no mistake, your Children's lives is harder than yours. And it's about the utilization of money and whether they want to give it away or whether they want to use it. You have a responsibility to teach them whether you're giving him a dollar a million dollars or a billion dollars. And this is where I think somewhere along the way, these kids parents, you know, may or may not have done the best. Maybe they did the best they could. But somewhere along the way, these gaps are are obvious, at least in the telling of the article. And this is where I go back to if you're really going to talk about something like this, which actually is quite important, because again, we're gonna go through the most enormous wealth transfer in the history of the world in the next 20 years. $30 trillion that could so talk about that. If if enough people took their inheritance and decided to eradicate student debt, it would be 3% of what's going to be inherited

over the next 20 years. Think about it. So obviously you could do some incredible things, but it's not framed in the right way. It doesn't promote the right kind of discussion and all it is a salacious reporting that makes these kids look like caricatures. And by the way, remember that money today is invested somewhere. So to pull that 3% out would have a kind of triple kind of rippling and kind of, um, probably deleterious effect on thistles. My point also is I think, that there's a responsibility to the stewards of capital, right? They Maybe you can call them wealthy all you want, but they really are the people that pull the strings and where money is moving. Onda there's, I think, you know to your point kind of, ah, degree of responsibility that inevitably have to kind of sit with this, uh, this group because here here, here's the problem with it is if they just want to give their money away to a charity that they thought was worthy and and

they were willing to live, like, you know, monks or something and not need money, that'll be fine. You know, we could respect that. But the reason why they're in such a hurry to get rid of this wealth is because they feel like money itself is ill gotten. That wealth itself is is by definition, ill gotten. It must have come from at the expense of somebody else, right? And you only could have gotten that wealth by ripping people off. And that is the thing that that that's the idea that's really pernicious about this sort of like socialism. Movement is they don't really understand that the way capitalism works, you only get rich by selling something to somebody that they want. That makes their life better, right? I mean, all of us are engaged in the creation of new technologies and new products, and that makes the world better. And people are willing to pay for that. And that's what creates value. And and that's what creates wealth. And it's really just kind of sad that people, you know, it goes beyond this article on these trust fund kids. But this whole, uh, condemnation of

capitalism and this attack on any, you know, billionaires or whatever the problem with it is it doesn't recognize the way that value is created for everybody. Can I give you a quote from Walter Williams, who just passed away, who is a very famous economist? Prior to capitalism, the way people amassed great wealth was by looting, plundering and enslaving their fellow man. Capitalism made it possible to become wealthy by serving your fellow men, and that's really true. And somewhere along the way, folks, folks have lost the script and have all of a sudden gone back to pre historic capitals times, and I think that we don't have enough good examples of constructive capitalism that proved that this is not a bad word. Yeah, yeah, exactly. Yeah, the all of the Walter Williams quote you just to give another example. Jeff Bezos just gave $10 billion toe climate change, you know, billion Teddy. What's the kids name? Teddy Schaefer. Somebody

that the journalist has been riding him on Twitter. I think he works for box or something. Like they have basically been attacking Bezos since he made the announcement that he hasn't done enough. And it's like $10 billion is the largest contribution ever made to a single cause. I mean, obviously Bill Gates. And how did he do that nation, Right. And how did he do that? Because he created Amazon, which has created enormous value for all of us. Imagine if one of these kids in the article, instead of just giving their money away, they, by the way, it looks like there's a bunch of organizations have sprung up to scam these kids out of their trust fund is sort of, you know, full of money are there was a fool and their money are soon parted. There's a whole bunch of scam artists, Mark, they're trying to scam these kids, but, uh, yeah, I mean, they're definitely getting scammed. But imagine if, instead of just getting scammed out of their money, they already use it to create a business that created a new product or technology that serve people. Then maybe they could turn that 30 million into 10 billion, like those hosted and And if they lost it, they would have done it in the

pursuit of something really Grant. And so nobody would actually, instead of virtue signaling instead of virtue signaling on the New York Times. Yeah, like these guys were so glad to be in The New York Times to dunk on capitalists and dunk and literally dunk on their own Parents think about that. You hate your parents so much, you have to go to The New York Times and tell them how much you hate them. I mean, I don't know how this change. Well, by the way, speaking of virtue, signaling the New York Times when we talk about The New York Times writing that hit piece on coin base, All right. I mean, if you want to go there, I mean, this is the first of the podcast, but we've been talking about Brian Armstrong just to set the table here. Brian Armstrong wrote a memo. He said No politics. By the way, Jake, I just posted an image for Nick to put up here. Just Thio. Don't tell me it's a code 13 thing. This is not a code 30. It's to reinforce your point about the you know, the virtue of capitalism. You know, this kind of dates back toe these air 33 images three charts from the year 1500 to today, and energy use has grown 115 times

well, so this is basically a measure of population consumption and production, right? And so the capitalist incentive has driven Theobald ity. While population has grown 14 x over the last 500 years, it's driven, um, a nearly 10 x increment in what is available for humans to consume per capita during that period of time. I mean, think about that. That was driven entirely by industry, and so industry has enabled and and production has increased by 240 X. We have a surplus of goods on planet Earth and a surplus of access to goods because of the capitalist incentive over the last 500 years, And whose right is it to say that that was wrong and all of the people that are employed by it and live within that you are no longer living in poverty who are no longer slave? A sudden 50,000 people convert you signal because they're sitting in their warm homes in America telling everybody else to fuck off. I mean, I find it kind of a joke. I mean, I would like you to go and live. You know where I was supposed to live before I emigrated

? Sri Lanka. No heater, no roof, no food, etcetera. You do? They should go to North Korea. You go. Go. Come to Sri. Look, I can show you you could you go toe on outhouse. Okay. You sit there. You squat to go to the bathroom. Okay. Um, there's no fucking three ply. You know, bamboo, You know, press free toilet can deal with, um you know, you You literally what? You know, you clean yourself with your hand, you brush your teeth with Cole. I remember we used to brush our teeth with fucking Cole. Okay, We have a well for water, and so you you have all these people in these situations where all we wanted was to just get a chance to run the race and the people that were born with a silver spoon in their mouth who had the chance to run the race, turns around and tells guys like me. No, you can't. And it fucking infuriates me. Yeah, I want to blow up the racetrack. By the way, I want to just get rid of the honestly fuck you. It's a serious fuck you to these to these, like they were profited and they benefited from democracy

and capitalism. And now they want to revert back to a system where everybody who's in that don't trying to get into this system. They don't understand what feudalism is because there are so many layers removed through their fucking filtered lenses and, you know, country clubs and bullshit vacations and all this crap that they have no idea what it's like. And I'm telling you, I am first generation of having escaped that shit, and I don't want anything to do with it. But the point is, capitalism has allowed not just the US but many other countries to change their course in life. Stephen pictures for all of the controversy he creates his books on. You know what humans have really achieved during this great kind of era of capitalism and industrialism and how we've changed our course on planet Earth. Improved human health, improve longevity, improved calorie access to calories, improved access to shelter to medicine. Um, it's all because of a nonsense of a market based incentive system. Andi. It is very, very powerful. It is the most powerful force

we know as a species, and it's allowed this incredible acceleration, exponential acceleration of possibility for our species. Also, from the article A great quote. Elizabeth Baldwin Ah, 34 year old Democratic Socialist from Cambridge, Massachusetts. She plans to keep enough of her inheritance to buy an apartment and raise a family enjoying the sort of pleasant middle class existence denied to many people of color in the United States. What does that mean? That's just I don't know. I just I don't see Let's just move on to talk about Brian so dumb they see they see the world in a zero sum way where you know, anything they have means that somebody else must have it must've been taken away from somebody else. They don't really understand the way that value is created by an exchange and by people creating new things on, Do you know? And and that's what technology is all about, you know, it's creating new I mean, there was a time when everybody didn't have access to clean

water. Now we take that for granted this time when everybody have access to affordable food and electricity. And by the way, look at him. We started all of this is driven by capitalism. And look at how we started the conversation today. Alfa Fold, I think, is the realization of one of the greatest capitalist enterprises in history, if not the greatest, you know, alphabet, and they're still getting started. And the output of that is gonna be an incredible new tool for drug discovery that is going to extend human lifespan in an incredible way. There was a window of time where folks who are really really good at bitching and complaining, How'd a window of opportunity to bitch and complain and what happened was they were not able to seize power. And then just in the last few months, literally, I think we're nailing that coffin shut? Because, as you said, David, you're gonna have to all of a sudden, like, look at companies like Google and look at things like Alfa fold and reject them. And I don't know how people do because everyone will need something that that company will create now and that Alfa fold will be responsible for

we are all going to need a vaccine. These are all coming from for profit companies Were that thrived on top of R and D. You know, all of it was funded by past drug profits from other things. And so, you know, we're gonna have to really look at ourselves in the mirror and say, Did we not want that? Did we want to just die on the street to prove a point? And I don't think anybody actually wants that. I mean, what is your What is the ultimate criticism of Amazon? They made you know iPhone Chargers. $5. What? The point is, you $40. You can't have your cake and eat it too. You can't actually, you know, complain about Amazon on the one hand, complain about no action on climate change on the other, complain about this complaint about that complain about the other thing, then you're just a fucking whiner. And nobody wants a whiner around because they're not additive. They're not useful. You don't learn anything from a whiner. Alright, so looking at The New York Times versus Coinbase The Foul New York Times Fake news, gentlemen, Trump Okay, fell New York Times. We'll talk about

talk about whining. This is more virtue signaling whining by The New York Times and actually the look. This was clearly a hit piece because they don't like Brian Armstrong's decision to make coin based on a political workplace. If any workplace has chosen to be political, it's The New York Times. There's a lot of examples of that. The fact that they they are twice that of the newsroom. I mean, this is these are the most, uh, that's right. I mean, they ran James Bennett out of there for publishing an op ed by Tom Cotton. Remember that he got kicked out. He got forced to resign because he published one op ed by Republican senator. Okay, this is the most closed minded group, the most closed minded political workplace. And here they are lecturing a Silicon Valley company. That, in their view, isn't tolerant enough. I mean, it's ridiculous, but the but the and it was obvious that it was a hit piece. The stories, the examples in the article where years old, um

, you know, the they weren't even reported to H R violation as violations at the time. So there's, you know, it's it's people cooking up things that weren't reported as problems at the time but the But the really interesting thing about this story, I think is that is the way Coin based reacted to it by preemptively announcing that it was coming, which really made The New York Times reporter is really irate, you know, they called it extremely. Other reporters were upset, and they threatened that they would. No longer three journalists said, if you guys were gonna front run our stories, we are not going to call you when we have a story, and I responded to that. I was like, Are you serious? Like you're literally gonna lose what little integrity you have left about fact checking because there's an amazing wrote a preemptive block post about. I'll say this about I'll say this about Brian Armstrong I have a lot of respect for him for making a stand. I think every CEO has that right. And, uh, I'm glad that at the end of the day, the employees a coin base were given. Ah

, humane way of making a decision to be on the same page with him or not. I will also say that I thought that s a It was not deliberate And that, given the chance, I could have rewritten that for him in a much better way. I've maintained this the whole time, but I I think he's in the right here. Wrap it up, tell us what you think. Well, okay. That Zatz interesting that that your mouth is, um is interesting to hear your support for Brian. So we've talked about this has become a recurring topic on the pod. Um, but anyway, I think you know, the important thing is the way that I think the tech community fought back against this hit piece and it was the like, you said Jason, the front running of the story. Somebody, a wag on Twitter had a had a great comments saying, you know, basically said, you know, I try to walk up. I agree with the New York Times on this, I try to walk up to somebody and kick him in the nuts. And they covered their groin, you know, how dare they? You know how? How

unprofessional of that. Yeah, exactly. And so yeah, right. But it was a but, you know, So, yeah, The New York Times, just the coin base just covered his groin so the New York Times couldn't cover kick him in the nuts. And and, of course, the reporters all went hysterical about that, but it you know, But but but it was a really brilliant PR tactic by coin base, because what it did is it almost, like, released a spike protein, you know, by by sort of a pre announced The New York Times story. It created this spike protein that train the immune system of Silicon Valley to be ready for this pathogenic New York Times story. And the story just really felt flattered and go anywhere. Yeah, it was. And they did the same thing with the Away CEO. She was too hard on people in slacks. All of these stories to go full circle involved some leak from a slack room. So if you're a CEO or you're managing anybody don't have any difficult

or legal issues discussed on slack to go for a walk with somebody, talk to them face to face, because you're gonna get destroyed. All right, listen, everybody, there's been another amazing episode. We have 10 more stories. Way wanted to get Thio that we weren't able to get Thio. But while we were doing this, I asked my crack team. Sorry at the syndicate. Whoa. What was that To set up the syndicate dot com slash All in. So I'm not saying we're doing a syndicate. Yes, we are not Figure out how to do something. We're gonna do something toe. Let the people who listen invest alongside us. We're gonna figure it out in 2000 and 21. At some point, you have to write a review on iTunes. No, you just got to sign up. Just got to sign up at the syndicate dot com slash All in. If we do a folding protein company or a unicorn in the space, maybe everybody who listens to the all in podcast gets toe wet their beak for the rain. Speak what your way

. Need to get merch. What? I care what my beak is like. The T shirt. The teen 13. The T shirt guy that listens to us. We love you. There's a coat. There's a worse but wet your beak or what? The beak. We have to figure out which one's better. I think we have a new I think we have a new tagline for the pod. What? Your big beak and code 13. These air Great merch. Opportunities for anybody who wants toe Go do merch. You could go do merch on your own. We don't care. We're not in the merch business. Put it up on your own website. Love you! I love you. Besties s over. Bestie Rain Man The Dictator Trauma Palihapitiya and the Queen of Kin Wah himself Metro Mile founder SPAC er Piper laying pipe and SPAC everywhere. I'm Jason Calacanis for the besties. We'll see you next time which could be in a week or a month. Who knows? On the all in podcast love your besties

E14: Salesforce acquires Slack, DeepMind’s AlphaFold breakthrough, Trust Fund Socialists & more
E14: Salesforce acquires Slack, DeepMind’s AlphaFold breakthrough, Trust Fund Socialists & more
replay_10 forward_10
1.0x