← All-In with Chamath, Jason, Sacks & Friedberg
All-In with Chamath, Jason, Sacks & Friedberg
The AI Cold War, Signalgate, CoreWeave IPO, Tariff Endgames, El Salvador Deportations
01:28:00
(0:00) The Besties welcome Gavin Baker back on the show! (1:20) Nvidia balance sheet questions, CoreWeave IPO, M&A/IPO bounce back (16:22) US vs China in AI: Manus, China building its own Nvidia, and more (28:37) The Administration's endgame for...
Loading summary
Transcript242 lines
- [00:00]
Jason Calacanis
When I wasn't able to use the R word, I would use deficente for two people. Jason and Shaham.
- [00:07]
Chamath Palihapitiya
Youth.
- [00:07]
Jason Calacanis
And Friedberg's dog, Marshall Friedberg.
- [00:09]
David Friedberg
Oh, come on.
- [00:10]
Jason Calacanis
I can't stand Marshall Friedberg. That little Bastardino jumps on the table, eats the nuts.
- [00:17]
Chamath Palihapitiya
The worst. The worst.
- [00:18]
Jason Calacanis
I hate Marshall Friedberg. I hate him. I can't stand this Bastardino. Look how he sits. He sits like a moron. He sits like a deficente. Look at this dweeb.
- [00:31]
Chamath Palihapitiya
And this.
- [00:33]
Jason Calacanis
Now, Nick, show them my dogs. Beautiful, beautiful dogs. Valentina Zanini. She's the breeder of breeders. Look at these two. Beautifully elegant. Oh, look at. Look how. Look how well behaved they are. You don't see them jumping on the table to eat the main course. Friedberg.
- [00:47]
Chamath Palihapitiya
No, no.
- [00:49]
Jason Calacanis
Marshall almost ruined our Christmas dinner. This is why I'm holding a real grudge against Marshall Friedberg.
- [00:53]
David Friedberg
He ate chamath nuts.
- [00:54]
Gavin Baker
No.
- [00:54]
Jason Calacanis
And Allison Cock. Allison off guard. She's like Marshall Freedberg.
- [00:57]
Chamath Palihapitiya
Get off the table, Marshall. I just love that he's got a full name. Marshall Eugene Freebir. Let your winners ride Rain Man David Sachs.
- [01:12]
Gavin Baker
And instead we open source it to.
- [01:14]
David Friedberg
The fans and they've just gone crazy with it.
- [01:16]
Chamath Palihapitiya
Love you, Queen of Quinoa. All right everybody, welcome back to the number one state sponsor. I'm sorry, all in podcast in the world. The number one podcast. Oh, sorry, stray bullets. Here we go, back on the program. Our guy, Gavin Baker is here. You know him from Atreaties Management. Does private and public. 4 billion under management. And a lot to talk about with you.
- [01:40]
David Friedberg
GB1. Good to have you here.
- [01:41]
Chamath Palihapitiya
GB1 is here. Solo Dolo Core Weave, IPO happening soon. By the time you get this. And Nvidia, you were there at Nvidia. You are the one analyst Gavin, that Jensen pulled up. You're loved by Jensen. What's it like to be loved by Jensen? Tell us everything.
- [02:02]
Gavin Baker
Well, so firstly he did. There was. Alfred was from Sequoia. And then they had a nice sell side guy whose name is escaping me at the moment. But it is technically true. I was the only public equity investor on the buy side that Jensen asked. I've known Jensen for 25 years. He's. He's kind of the same guy he ever was. Just maybe slightly calmer.
- [02:26]
Jason Calacanis
Gavin, can I ask you all this stuff where they talk about the balance sheet questions that some folks have about Nvidia, some of the accounts receivable issues and stuff. Is there any legitimacy to those issues? The round tripping, what's the real story of someone that peers into that Pl and understands it.
- [02:48]
Gavin Baker
Yeah. So I guess maybe to take them in reverse order. I really don't think like if Nvidia had not put any money into Core Weave, not put any money into kind of other of these Neo clouds, I don't think it would have impacted their revenues at all, at all.
- [03:08]
Jason Calacanis
They would have sold more to Meta.
- [03:10]
Gavin Baker
And more to Meta, more to Amazon, more to Microsoft. So the reason they did it is even three years ago, it was a very stable three player oligopoly from the cloud computing players in Amazon, Google and Microsoft. And if you're Nvidia, that's not great to have just three big customers. Those big clouds, particularly in 2023 when there was such a rush to get GPUs, they each kind of want to do their own kind of custom version of an Nvidia server. And Nvidia, by giving kind of like a standard reference design which someone like Coralweave bought to Cora weave, you got GPUs in the market a lot faster. And when you use Nvidia's reference design, it's generally smoother and easier to stand them up. And so the big three kind of cloud computing hyperscalers, their incremental share of revenue went down and that was nothing but good for Nvidia because they now have kind of a more fragmented base of buyers who have less power over them.
- [04:19]
Jason Calacanis
But what does it mean, Gavin, when like the accounts receivable jumps from a billion five or so to like five and a half billion year over year, Is that concerning or that's just business.
- [04:28]
Gavin Baker
So look, it's never good, but if you think Nvidia has gone through the biggest product transition in history in terms of Hopper, you know, this is a business doing tens of billions of dollars at scale. There's never been a product transition like this in the history of semiconductors. Going from Hopper to Blackwell, kind of the 2022 generation GPU to this one. The only precedent for this on planet Earth is the iPhone. And there's something called the Osborne effect, which is when Apple comes out with a new iPhone for the three months before nobody buys the new iPhone. And I think the only reason Nvidia is able to grow through this product transition is because of reasoning models like Deep Se, which are just so compute hungry. And this product transition does come back to the days receivables, the cum receivables.
- [05:20]
Jason Calacanis
Now is like $23 billion.
- [05:22]
Gavin Baker
Yeah, it's never good when accounts receivables go up, but if this is the most understandable time for it to happen.
- [05:31]
Jason Calacanis
In a product refresh cycle, you're saying yeah.
- [05:33]
Gavin Baker
And because a hopper server, it's a rack, it's whatever it is, 7ft high, weighs 1,000 pounds. It consumes 60 kilowatts, which is 60American ohms. And it's air cooled. So you cool those GPUs. And the biggest problem with GPUs, one of the biggest is they melt. You cool it with air. Blackwell weighs 3,000 pounds, so three times as much the rack. You know, it's 8ft tall, maybe 5ft deep or 4ft deep, 3,000 pounds and it consumes 120 kilowatts, so twice as much power and roughly kind of the same footprint, three times as much weight. And it's liquid cooled. So this is like an iPhone upgrade cycle. You know, it was like it's still a pain that we went from, you know, lightning to USB C. You know, I'll grab a cord and it'll be lightning instead of USB C. This is like an iPhone upgrade cycle where to get the new iPhone. Not only do you have to change your connectors, you have to put in a new generator, you have to put in a new boiler and a whole house humidification system to kind of make it work. So it's a monumental product transition. And I think that is a lot of why the receivables went up. They're recognizing Blackwell revenue while it was still kind of getting into customers hands. If that trend continues past the July quarter, then I would say, hey, that's reason for concern. But this is a very understandable time for that to happen from my perspective.
- [07:07]
Jason Calacanis
So basically the summary is AR accounts receivable builds as you go through this very complicated product transition, but then at some point it peaks and then you start to work through all of it and it moves off balance sheet basically gets recognized and you move forward. And so then that AR should shrink.
- [07:26]
Chamath Palihapitiya
And just to clarify that that's accounts receivable, that's the money owed to you by customers. For the audience who might have a question, what they are.
- [07:32]
Jason Calacanis
Exactly.
- [07:33]
Chamath Palihapitiya
And the reason they're not collecting it is because they haven't delivered it.
- [07:37]
Gavin Baker
I mean the accounting gets very complicated with these systems. But yes, I mean they have delivered it and they've recognized the revenue, but maybe the customer is saying, hey, we're not going to pay you until X, until we get them plugged in and working. I mean, who knows what it is.
- [07:55]
Chamath Palihapitiya
Got it. Because it's a new thing.
- [07:58]
Gavin Baker
Yeah, but It's a new. It makes total sense to have accounts receivable. It's just that here the accounts receivable have gone up more than sales and that's just a function of the complexity of this product transition.
- [08:09]
Jason Calacanis
The other part of what I would say is, the first part of what you're saying is very similar to what intel did to scale their chip dominance in the 80s and 90s with this intel Insight program. They didn't really need to do it, probably in hindsight, but it helped them support an ecosystem and it helped diversify their buyer base so that fewer people had power over them. And so a lot of this quote unquote, round tripping from your perspective is diversifying the ownership pool of Nvidia, is what you're saying.
- [08:36]
Gavin Baker
Absolutely. And sending Nvidia GPUs to people who are adopting Nvidia's reference architecture, which they believe is the best architecture for those GPUs. Whereas each hyperscaler has their own slight tweaks to that server, that hyperscaler does it so it looks more like their other servers, but maybe doesn't run quite as well as the standard Nvidia reference architecture with all of their chips, not just the Nvidia GPUs. But the Intel Insight analogy is interesting. I had not thought of that. Thank you, Chamath.
- [09:08]
Chamath Palihapitiya
Well, he is definitely doing keynotes like intel did and trying to brand the actual names of the units, which is, yeah, it was interesting. Pentium inside, people would go and buy a computer and say, hey, does it have a Pentium and which Pentium does it have? And now Apple's doing that same thing with the M4, you know, series, and people are actually asking questions like, you know, so there is something to it that maybe some portion of the consumer base wants to know what's inside. Right. And doesn't cost much to brand. Since we're here, let's talk a little bit about the Core Weave ipo. Core Weave is going to go public on Friday. We tape on Thursday. So when you listen to this episode, you will have the actual data on what happened with their IPO. They're going to raise 1.5 billion. They're a NEO cloud. NEO Cloud means not just cloud computing, but a new cloud. Thus neo. And this company has really been growing quickly. It was reported they wanted to raise 2 billion and I guess they stepped it down to 1.5 billion at a $23 billion valuation. They had $2 billion in revenue last year. So they're up 8x and they've got a lot of debt. That's the other issue with Core Weave that people note. Almost $8 billion in debt and one customer, Microsoft, accounts for over 60% of their revenue. Always a bit of a red flag there. As Chamath mentioned, Nvidia accounts for 15% of their revenue and they own 6%. 6% seems small enough to not make a difference. So Gavin, I guess what do you make of this company, Core Weave and their timing, what it says about the markets? Because hey, this is the biggest IPO we've had in a bit. I think maybe the last ones that were notable were Reddit last year and a couple of other companies got out. Obviously Stripe hasn't gotten out. So is this a major milestone or are they going out because they have to go out because of all this debt? And then this is all against maybe a backdrop of did we over build and are these language models going to require as much hardware as we thought last year?
- [11:08]
Gavin Baker
So we're definitely not overbuilt yet, like since Deepsea came out. Like what has happened since Deepseak R1 came out is China is buying every GPU they can. One of the largest Chinese server manufacturers warned last night that there's about to be a shortage of GPUs in China. The price of memory dram goes up every day. So we're not overbuilt today. Point number one and OpenAI yesterday said that they are gating their new image generation service because they don't have enough GPUs. So we're not overbuilt yet. Blackwell is going to be a very successful product cycle. There is a little bit of a prisoner's dilemma where you're going to spend on Blackwell almost no matter what. Because if you don't, you are afraid that you cede a big advantage to a competitor. If you're meta and you don't spend and Google spends and their AI is a lot better than yours, you're worried you may not catch up.
- [12:04]
Jason Calacanis
I would say that that's already the case.
- [12:06]
Gavin Baker
Yeah, that's already the case. But here, this is a brand new architecture, which is a lot. I mean not only is it really different as we went through it is a lot better. But I would say all these GPUs, they're hard to get them working at the beginning. Like right now, Hoppers are finely tuned, everybody knows how to work with them. Blackwell, it's almost like you're skipping ahead. You know, it's like imagine each One of these GPUs is a Formula One car. Now you've skipped ahead 10 years in the future and you have to kind of learn how to drive that new Formula One car. And it takes a while till you drive it as well as the old one.
- [12:41]
Chamath Palihapitiya
So. Any other thoughts, Gavin, on the Core Weave ipo, which will have happened by the time people listen to this episode?
- [12:48]
Gavin Baker
Yeah, I would say the sentiment on X, investors on X are pretty negative. On Core Weave, I think there's maybe a little bit of negativity in the market. They had to reduce the range, lower the price, and everyone is very convinced this is a commodity business. Loads of debt, loads of capex, one really concentrated customer, and that they're completely undifferentiated. And I guess I would just make a point, which is, in America, if you can pick any category, any retail category, and if you can run 1000 stores in 50 different states with different preferences and have those stores well lit, clean, stocked by friendly employees, with the right stuff in stock, you will create a business that is worth well over $10 billion. And that sounds easy, but very few companies have been able to do it. I think what may be underappreciated about coreweave is it's actually really hard to run these big training clusters. Everybody thinks it's easy, but to synchronize tens of thousands of GPUs where they're melting or cables are being unplugged and you lose a bunch of training data when it happens, I just think it may not be the commodity that everyone thinks it is, and it may turn out that it's much harder to do than people think.
- [14:11]
Chamath Palihapitiya
Would there be analogy for that when there are people thought AWS would never work? At the beginning, they were like, who's going to trust Amazon with their compute? And it was difficult and developers didn't understand exactly how to abstract their services into the cloud.
- [14:27]
Gavin Baker
Yeah, the world was convinced aws, well, a lot of the world was convinced AWS was a terrible business for the first few years. When Microsoft announced they're going to transition to the cloud, it was very controversial because you go from a Capex light model to a Capex heavy model. So Wall street consensus has been wrong before. And I do think Core Weave runs these big GPU clusters as well as anyone. And there aren't that many people on planet Earth who can run them well. And it's kind of easy. You can just look at the NPV of their contracts and the asset value. And so everyone who's kind of confidently putting out all the negatives here I just think there are some offsetting positives that it's good for, I think people to be aware of and consider, that's all.
- [15:14]
Jason Calacanis
I think it's a good company. I would second. I mean, I think it's A. And it's a great business and I think they deserve to be successful. Totally true.
- [15:23]
Chamath Palihapitiya
And it's great to see a competitor to the existing three or four clouds that are out there. And it's great to see a company go public. I mean, M and A with Wiz and now Core Weave going public, Ratha Linacon is over. You got to give the administration a lot of credit for maybe removing the roadblocks to M and A and IPOs, or at least people perceive that. So I don't know if perception becomes reality here, but it does seem like M and A is a bit on fire. Yeah, Gavin.
- [15:48]
Gavin Baker
And people are talking above and beyond Wiz. I mean, Core Weave bought weights and Biases, which I think is a really interesting acquisition for them. That kind of further differentiates them and maybe decommodifies them a little bit. But there have been quite a few acquisitions by big companies of smaller companies in the last month. And I think because none of the companies that have been bought have been public, maybe it's flying a little under the radar, but it's happening in, I think, an accelerating way. And I think this would be very good for the market and animal spirits and everything that we care about.
- [16:22]
Jason Calacanis
Do you think that there's any issues? There was a bunch of companies added to the export control list two days ago. Some were in quantum computing generally. A lot of it, though, was in the Nvidia ecosystem. So I think that the US Government is really trying to make sure that these next gen GPUs don't go directly to China, but also don't go to countries that could then redirect them into China. Did you get a chance to look at that or did your team look at that?
- [16:45]
Gavin Baker
Oh, yeah. And I think this will be part of the upcoming negotiation between America and China. But it is hard. It's. If we can't, you know, if America cannot keep illegal drugs out of, you know, out of our own country, these GPUs are arguably dramatically more valuable per unit. You know, like a Blackwell is like, you know, the size of this. And it's just hard. Particularly like, you know, America, we're trying to keep drugs out here. China is trying to bring the GPUs in and it's kind of significantly, I think, harder to prevent than smuggling of illegal drugs. Now, everybody does their best, but, yeah, the United States, I think it's always going to be kind of a game of cat and mouse until you get some sort of grand bargain. And right now they're allowed to sell certain kinds of GPUs into China, and I'm sure they'll be.
- [17:44]
Chamath Palihapitiya
Should we be doing that, Gavin, is this going to be an effective strategy? If you were advising the President, would you say, just let Nvidia sell them? It's a fool's errand to try to stop them because they're all going to Singapore or wherever, Vietnam, and routing their way around.
- [18:00]
Gavin Baker
I think we're putting enough friction into the system that it does theoretically give America an advantage at the cost of creating tremendous incentives for China to develop their own semiconductor ecosystem. And pressure to kind of necessity is the mother of innovation. And these export controls are creating an immense incentive for China to be really algorithmically innovative. And you saw that with Deep Seat, where there were some real algorithmic innovations.
- [18:36]
Jason Calacanis
Yeah.
- [18:37]
Chamath Palihapitiya
So said another way, if we squeeze too tightly on letting them buy the Nvidia chips, they might make a better Nvidia. I mean, I think I'm resilient.
- [18:46]
Jason Calacanis
I think they're doing it now. They're trying now, so that's.
- [18:48]
Chamath Palihapitiya
Well, they're trying, but I guess what are the chances they succeed, in your mind, Gavin, in creating something competitive with or better? And then what would that say about.
- [18:57]
Gavin Baker
The AI race in the next five years? I think zero. I think it's really, really hard. But over the 10 years, who knows? And if you're the CCP, 10 years isn't that long. If you're America, 10 years is an eternity.
- [19:10]
Chamath Palihapitiya
Yeah, they're thinking in centuries and we're thinking in decades. Yeah, that's probably correct. Hey, let's pivot over to AI agents, since we're in the AI and obviously there's other big topics. This week we'll get to politics and Signal and all that kind of good stuff. But we have a company that seems to be having a moment. It's called Manus M A N U S. It's currently in private beta, but they're creating agents and we've been talking about this agentic revolution, Basically little, you know, jobs going out. We used to call them cron jobs back in the day, but going out and doing things for you, and it seems to be working, and it's pretty impressive. What do you think about this company specifically, if anything? And are we getting to a point where we're going to have the same ChatGPT 2.5 moment but with agents. And then if we do have that, Gavin, what will that look like in terms of employment and how companies are run?
- [20:11]
Gavin Baker
Look, I do think if agents materialize as a reality and Manus is maybe a little bit of a chatgpt moment for that, I would say OpenAI and Anthropic. Anthropic develops something called the Model context protocol that OpenAI just adopted. I think it will become a standard and it makes it really easy for an LLM like Stripe can just integrate with mcp and then any LLM that uses MCP can interact with Stripe. And this is solving a big, big problem for agents in terms of just making them much easier to use, much more standardized. But if agents become a reality, one, the ROI on AI and Blackwell is going to be very high. And two, it's not good for human employment. But what will be kind of, I would say the rate limiting factor is just compute. In a world where we all have agents doing things for us all day long, it's going to be a long time before we have enough compute in the ground for that to be a really, really widespread reality. And I think that's why OpenAI was talking about pricing their first agents at $2,000 to $20,000 a month. Like this ROI on AI question I think to me really does come down to agents in the short term.
- [21:36]
Chamath Palihapitiya
Friedberg, your thoughts on these agents and the impact they could have on running businesses, employment and just generally efficiency. We now starting to have some standards. MCP stands for Model Context Protocol. Your thoughts, Freeberg, on how this might impact architecting a business, which you're doing right now with Ohalo. How might this change how people work on a day to day basis? Let's maybe give some examples for the audience.
- [22:03]
David Friedberg
Look, I'll take a slightly different view than Gavin. I've said this in the past, but maybe I'll try and contextualize it a little bit. I think that the big unlock with these kind of agentic systems is not necessarily about replacing the easy human tasks which everyone kind of thinks are kind of the obvious application of them. I think what we're missing is the ability to unlock really complex tasks that are not really manageable. Today I can't come up with a very grand project planning exercise with the team I have today. I have to go hire 30 people. Let me give you an example. I want to go build a plant breeding facility under the ocean. Okay, so how do I do that? So to do that today, I'm like well I got to go hire people that understand oceans and understand engineering, that understand how to do underwater engineering. I have to hire material scientists, I have to hire physicists, I have to hire construction project planners. There's a whole group of complicated people I would need to kind of put together to be able to kind of execute on that opportunity. But now a smaller group, maybe three or four people or two people can say, okay, let's use these agents to help us build that project, plan and spec out every step of the process, define how much everything will cost, what workloads are needed, who's going to do what. So suddenly that difficult project becomes a reality. Here's another good example. The California high speed rail program that's ballooned to this $100 billion. What if we had agents organizing and running that program? Well, maybe the cost of that program and the reality of that program makes it a reality now. So it suddenly becomes a program that we launch, we get it done, we build this railroad. Whereas all the people, all the complication, all the confusion and whatever grift has been going on has led to $100 billion balloon budget with no outcome. So I think complex projects can actually be tackled in an easier way. That actually unlocks a tremendous amount of building, a tremendous amount of opportunity for new employment for people to come in and small teams of three or four to get hired that can now do the work of three or 400 really deeply sophisticated, highly technical people with a very small, less technical group. So I think there's going to be a tremendous amount of opportunity in biotech, in engineering, in manufacturing, in urban design, in transportation, and on and on and on where small groups are going to get spun up that can use these systems to do really complex projects. It's less about like oh, you're going to replace call centers like sure, maybe, but what are we going to be able to do with these things that I can't even think about doing today?
- [24:46]
Chamath Palihapitiya
Chamath, let's level this up and just talk about the bigger picture, which is our giant rival in China, they're actually catching up, in some cases exceeding us. If they get to AI first and then are able to execute on this, given their top down controls, given the size of their population, given their advantages in manufacturing, that we're seeing now with Xiaomi making cars, what BYD is doing in self driving in cars, what we're seeing now with chips versus Nvidia, it's kind of getting set up that almost everything we're building here in the U.S. china's copying at a very fast pace and then exceeding. So what's at stake here? Big picture. And then I guess we'll then look at what should our philosophy be in a geopolitical way.
- [25:37]
Jason Calacanis
Let's just do an economics lesson. Why does anybody invest? They invest because. Let's just take a dollar. You want to generate a rate of return that's better than all your alternatives. And the riskier it gets, the more of a return you want. That's the basic idea. So if you invest a dollar in bonds, you can get 5 or 6%. If you invest a dollar in an early stage startup, you want to get 50 or 60% returns. Okay, that's obvious. But the return that you generate is in part driven by how profitable is this company, obviously. And if you have a 300 person group of people that has to do something, it's a lot harder for them to generate profit and then to generate a rate of return than it is if you have two or three people. So the Chinese strategic imperative is no different than small startups versus an incumbent, which is to be as hyper disruptive economically as you can. So I think the big risk is not necessarily Chinese, but many of these alternatives will come from China, which is to say that where are the incumbents? Most of the incumbents are American companies. If you look at SAS software, that's a perfect example of where there is trillions of dollars. The software industrial complex as I call it, that's like a $3.54 trillion industry. It grows by 10% a year. So every year it's adding 300 billion of enterprise value. Is that value that is being created? I think a lot of the customers would say no. So if you're a startup or if you're China, what is the most disruptive thing you could do? Well, you could take a three person team to disrupt a 30,000 person team and blow a hole right in the side of that $3 trillion economy. That's the big risk. So whether the risk comes from here or whether it comes from the Chinese, I think what you're seeing is that if these agents can scale the opex, the actual load of making something will go down by an order of magnitude and maybe even two orders of magnitude. That is incredibly disruptive because the existing incumbents cannot compete with that cost scale.
- [27:59]
Chamath Palihapitiya
And Gavin, to just bring this around the horn here, China is playing a different game. And obviously there's other competitors on a global basis, but they are subsidizing, for example, their cars and their entire car industry. So the margin of cars here in the United States and Germany and Japan, that's their opportunity. They don't actually need to make a profit on it. They could just break even. There are cars now, 10, 20, 30, $40,000 cars now being made there. So this then leads us to, oh, my goodness, will Americans buy these? We're a pretty great customer. Will Trump block them with tariffs? So let's make the jump. What would the tariff policy be if, as Chamath points out here, we've got this big broadside of our battleship that they can put a giant hole through, which is our software industry, our car industry, Pick an industry that they might be able to just blow a hole in because they don't need to make a profit, they just need to have jobs and break even.
- [28:58]
Gavin Baker
What should our tariff policy be or what is it? I mean, we know what it is for autos, it's 25%.
- [29:03]
Chamath Palihapitiya
We know what it is. I mean, it seems like it's in flux. So maybe we start there. What should the policy be? What do you perceive the policy is? Because it does seem to be a moving target. We'll see what happens on April 2. Because Trump keeps tweaking, let's say adjusting in public.
- [29:21]
Gavin Baker
Yeah, I mean, this is so traditional economics would say, hey, tariffs are not a good idea. We should have free trade. Everybody understands the principle of comparative advantage. I do think the Trump administration is pretty convicted that that approach has not worked well for America over the last 20 years. And maybe it's worked well for knowledge workers, but it hasn't worked well for kind of ordinary Americans. And I think they're very convicted in changing that and trying to bring back kind of good, high quality manufacturing jobs to America. I think they see tariffs as an effective way to do that.
- [29:59]
Chamath Palihapitiya
Are they right? Is it going to be? Because a lot of what we're seeing in factories is automation. So while they may have been right about tariffs bringing back high paying middle class jobs for the past 20 years, we cannot go in a time machine and change that policy. And isn't where the puck's going that we're going to have optimus robots figure robots pick a robot company doing all this work.
- [30:21]
Jason Calacanis
Here's what tariffs do. Tariffs are a level setting mechanism that fixes a historical imbalance. Look, the reality is that we have had meaningfully lower tariffs for products coming in than those reciprocal tariffs exist for our products going into these other countries. That's true. And the one thing I'll say about Donald Trump is you may not agree with the Tariffs. But he's been incredibly consistent. I was on YouTube yesterday and I stumbled into an interview he did. Nick, maybe you can find this with Larry King in 1987. And he ran a full page ad in the New York Times talking about this exact issue and then went on Larry King and he walked through the entire trade imbalance 40 years ago.
- [31:12]
Chamath Palihapitiya
Yeah, he's been on this.
- [31:13]
Jason Calacanis
So this is not a fly by night thing. So what do they want? What they want is to create the economic incentives to reshore as much industry as possible into the United States. The delicate balancing act, though, is that after 20 years of globalism and a perverted version of free trade, because it's not what it is today, it's been perverted. It is incredibly difficult to do that without these whack a mole problems emerging in other areas. Right. Whether it's inflation or whether it's retaliatory tariffs or consumption taxes. All of these complexities I think are what has to get figured out. But the structural reason of why tariffs make sense is not necessarily to overly penalize one country over another, but it's simply to say if you charge 5%, we charge 5%. If you charge 10%, we charge 10%. Nick has a clip, he's just listen to this from 40 years ago. We don't have free trade right now because if you want to go to Japan or if you want to go.
- [32:13]
Gavin Baker
To Saudi Arabia or various other countries.
- [32:15]
Jason Calacanis
It'S virtually impossible for an American to.
- [32:17]
Gavin Baker
Do business in those countries.
- [32:19]
Jason Calacanis
Virtually impossible. So the fact is that you don't have free trade. We think of it as free free trade, but you right now don't have free trade.
- [32:25]
Chamath Palihapitiya
So, Gavin, let's get back to this original question with Chamath's important context. Trump has been on this for a while, but is this where the puck's going? We have the lowest unemployment of our lifetime. Wages are obviously not where we want them to be. So is the right solution to put in a bunch of tariffs, create trade wars, and then hope that people are going to build factories that employ humans, when in fact it probably will be robots. So is there another solution, like maybe raising the minimum wage? I don't know. What are your thoughts?
- [32:58]
Gavin Baker
Well, one, I think it's Jamath. And that clip illustrated he is convicted in this. It's 40 years old.
- [33:05]
Chamath Palihapitiya
It's happening.
- [33:06]
Gavin Baker
Yeah, it's happening. And so I would say two things. One, I think it's something I'm always conscious of at my wife Becky, one of her college or high school reunions There's a guy there who'd been in our class and had been in the Navy Seals, and he deployed to 80 countries. He'd been the Navy Seals for like a decade. And I said, what's the one thing that you learned? And he said, the one thing I learned is everybody in America is always focused on making America better. Have you been to 80 different places all around the world? Our only goal should be to not screw it up in America. Just don't make it worse because America is so much better than everywhere else. So the first thing is like Chamath said the word delicate, and I think that's right. And if I had one thought for the administration, it would be every time they say the word tariff, whatever they think, Wall street in the markets, and I would say, I think a lot of business leaders are convinced that tariffs survived. Now maybe Wall street is wrong and the administration is right. One thing everyone agrees on is deregulation is good. So every time they say the word tariff, they need to say the word deregulation two or three times. Because the best way to, I think, maximize the odds of this policy succeeding despite the headwinds from automation. I think it's going to be a long time before we have hundreds of millions of robots. Even between China and Tesla, I think it's going to take a long time to make vast numbers of humanoid robots. The best way to encourage this reshoring is it's just making it easier to do business in America.
- [34:42]
Jason Calacanis
Okay, 100%. Can I just add one thing that's really, really important? What Gavin said. There's a third thing I would add Gavin to your list, which is we need to figure out the difference between manufacturing and ip. And I think what we want to do is make sure that we trap the real value back in America as well. Look, I've told you guys this story before, but when I was helping to run Facebook, I was a signatory. When we were setting up Facebook abroad, we exported all of our IP to Ireland. And lo and behold, who do they sue? Zuck, Meta and me.
- [35:16]
Chamath Palihapitiya
Pink.
- [35:17]
Jason Calacanis
And we've been in this 10 year lawsuit, 15 year lawsuit with the IRS because they're trying to come back and say, hey, Facebook, you owe all of this money. Why? Because we exported all of our critical IP to Ireland and we trapped it there. That should not have been able to happen. We can fix it. Separately, there's many companies who are abroad, who live inside the American market, who have given a mechanism, would import their IP into the United States if there was a mechanism to do so. So not only can you have manufacturing, you can also have the critical knowledge, not just of that manufacturing, but of that product, of that supply chain. Those are the incentives that these nuances, if we get right, it's really a renaissance for the United States.
- [35:58]
Chamath Palihapitiya
Let's talk a little bit about maybe other solutions. Friedberg, obviously, perhaps raising the minimum wage or increasing corporate taxes in order to do that. Would that not also help us maybe build back the middle class? That is the criticism I think some other people have. Trump, when he did his tcja, if people remember the Tax Cut and Jobs act, corporate tax rate was 35%. We put it down to 21. And now repatriation of cash from overseas, as Chamath's pointing out, I think it's only 15%. It's like everybody can kind of afford that. So would that not be another way to solve this problem of the bottom half, the bottom third not making enough or maybe even lowering their tax rate, which is already pretty low?
- [36:47]
David Friedberg
Well, I think the proposal that I've heard from this administration, that we heard from Howard Lutnick when we met with him, was they're going to cut all taxes for people making less than $150,000 a year. So get the tax rate to zero. Do you believe that?
- [37:03]
Chamath Palihapitiya
Do you think it's realistic now that I do. After you do that, you actually think that could happen?
- [37:07]
David Friedberg
I 100% do.
- [37:09]
Chamath Palihapitiya
And in what timeline and why?
- [37:11]
David Friedberg
Well, that's the key question. This is where this becomes like a first and second derivative problem. Let's just talk about it this way. When you take money out of the economy, you want to make sure you're also putting money back into the economy in another way to keep the economy stable or growing. So if you're taking money out of the economy, in the case of tariffs, you're putting money into the government's coffers. You're reducing people's spending because everything costs more now, so consumers will spend less. So what you want to do is you want to make sure that the money that you're repatriating is going back to the consumers so they can now have more money to spend. So that's why you want to cut taxes at the same time that you're increasing the tariff rates. So if you increase the tariff rates, things cost more. The government is now making things more expensive. That's not good. But at the same time, if I cut your taxes and you got more money now than you did before, so you can now buy the Things that you were buying, even though they're a little more expensive, the economy should be able to remain stable or grow at the same time, if you're cutting government spending, that means that the government can afford to take less taxes in, and so they can make that assessment. So these are all. We've said it many times. These are all very related. And to Gavin's point, you've got to cut regulation at the same time so that the incremental dollars flow into things like automation, onshore production, so the cost of things come down. And so, again, not a simple equation. I would call it a grand economic experiment. The analogy for me feels a little bit like there's four freight trains kind of passing by each other at very high speed, and you're trying to pass all the ingredients to make a sandwich between the windows of the freight trains. You're trying to get them all over so you can make this delicious sandwich and get to this golden age. That's the configuration that it feels like they need to kind of assess as they're. And they're iteratively.
- [38:59]
Chamath Palihapitiya
They have to thread the needle. Is, I think, your point. And it's really hard to do. And you use the phrase experiment. Gavin, you said before, hey, don't screw up this amazing country. And what we've got here, this sounds like a very high risk, high dexterity maneuver. It feels like a fighter plane trying to land on a very small aircraft carrier. Can they pull this off? Can they get to the tariffs working at the same time, inflation not spiking, not impacting employment, getting rid of people's taxes? Does this sound too complex to you and too much too fast? What is your honest thought, Gavin, as you watch this as a capital allocator? Are they going too hard, too fast, or is it worth pursuing this experiment as Friedberg framed it?
- [39:48]
Gavin Baker
Look, Scott Besant is probably the single most respected, or was the single most respected macro investor in the world. He really understands the market, how they flow through to policy, how policy flows back. He's an extremely smart, talented guy. They have a coherent theory. I thought Howard and Scott did a great job in the last two episodes.
- [40:10]
Chamath Palihapitiya
Absolutely, yeah.
- [40:12]
Gavin Baker
Kind of explaining the theory. And the one thing I would just say, having we all watched the first Trump administration, he is adaptable. He adapts to circumstances. And the midterms now are whatever they are in political terms. They're 15 months away from.
- [40:30]
Chamath Palihapitiya
Around the corner.
- [40:31]
Gavin Baker
Yeah, around the corner. So I think they're trying to do a lot as quickly as they can. But I also think that if after a few months, it's six months, nine months, it's not working, they will adapt. And I think that's one reason there's such an emphasis on reciprocity. Vietnam came out and they lowered their tariffs on American goods. And that's good. And so I think the out is, oh, maybe it's not going quite the way we hoped. We're going to declare, hey, we have a series of grand bargains with these countries, declare victory, maybe tariffs on American goods are slightly lower, tariffs here are slightly higher, feels more fair, and move on to firmer ground of deregulation, balancing the budget, cutting government spending and cutting government taxes commensurate with the spending cuts. So I think they're trying the risky stuff first and if it doesn't work, they will tack quickly.
- [41:35]
Chamath Palihapitiya
Yeah, that was my perception, especially after hearing dissent on the all in pod. Great job, guys, on getting those long form. And I think this is where the administration is strongest when they do a long form, informed discussion and you hear their thoughts about. Doesn't sound as crazy as when, all due respect to the President, when the President is like, I'm gonna go easy on them, I'm gonna go hard on them, and it's like a reality TV show and who's gonna get fired this week. You actually have two incredibly thoughtful. I will point out, Democrats, lifelong Democrats around Trump, and I think that's like a really. I had this crazy observation, Gavin. I don't know if you noticed it as well. You know, Trump lost his reelection campaign and he filled his whole Cabinet with a bunch of Republicans. This time he's filled his whole Cabinet and everybody around him is a Democrat. And he's gone to a really unique concept here of how to solve the US's problems, which is get the working man and woman a higher salary and lower their taxes. This could be like an incredible grand bargain that Besant, I think is the architect of and Lutnick is the communicator and executor of. Do you think they have a chance of pulling this off if you had to handicap it?
- [42:43]
David Friedberg
I hope they do.
- [42:44]
Gavin Baker
As an American, I hope they do. I think they for sure have a chance of doing it. They have a solid theory of the case they need to execute. Well, I would say Doge's efforts are important. If you can really cut a trillion dollars of waste, fraud and abuse out of the government spending, that's good. We should all agree as Americans, maybe Democrats, they want more government spending, maybe Republicans, want less. But for whatever given level of Government spending. We want it to be as efficient as possible because if you're a Democrat that means more services. If you're Republican, maybe that means a smaller government. So I think they have a solid theory of the case. I think there's a reasonable chance it will succeed. But if it doesn't, I think they will attack quickly. And the one thing they can't afford is a recession. If they're focused on the defense deficit, a recession blows out the deficit. So they will be ultimately sensitive to these market based forces, rates, stock markets, the foreign currency markets.
- [43:43]
Chamath Palihapitiya
Chamath, you want to maybe wrap this up for us here and move on to some of the other topics of the week?
- [43:49]
Jason Calacanis
John Arnold had a post this morning on X. He was saying the deficit this year is going to be 1.9 trillion. His best guess for 2026 was 1.9 trillion. And he was just kind of asking his followers what they thought. If you listened to Howard last week, what he said is I'm going to raise a trillion dollars and Elon's going to cut a trillion. Now if that comes to pass, then we have a balanced budget. If you ask the Sharpe money on Wall street, their numbers range from 170 billion to 300 billion on the revenue side. So let's take the midpoint of around 200 to 250 billion.
- [44:29]
Chamath Palihapitiya
Okay, 250.
- [44:30]
Jason Calacanis
If the Sharpe money is right, that means that tariffs and all of that stuff will only really raise a quarter of a trillion, which means that there's going to be even more pressure on Elon. He's going to have to find not 1 trillion but 1.75 trillion. Again, assuming that that $1.9 trillion deficit exists next year. So that's the math. It is a $2 trillion bogey and they have to fill it somehow. My intuition is that the waste, fraud and abuse is probably meaningfully more significant than we think. When we were there we heard about one consulting firm, 95 plus of all of their revenue. Multibillion dollar revenue comes from time and materials contracts with the United States government. We heard throughout the week. I've reposted it on X. 65 billion is paid out to consulting organizations beyond just that one in these time materials cost plus contracts. If you start to add all of these up today we just heard that the $2 billion grift to Stacey Abrams was canceled and they're now starting a DOJ investigation into how those dollars got given to her. All of these things start to add up. It may be the case that if there's an upper bound on tariffs, that there will be more than a trillion. And Elon kind of fills in the gap.
- [45:54]
Chamath Palihapitiya
But I think it's possible they are looking, Gavin, also at military spending and maybe cutting that 8% a year every year for a couple of years. That's where big dollars are sitting. And obviously nobody wants to touch Social Security, despite I do have to point this out for my besties. You guys did a great job with that interview. And I just want to say FTMZ for trying to spin it as Lutnick was trying to take away people's Social Security, they literally took an hour plus interview. They clipped it to try to make it seem like he was saying the opposite of what he said he was saying. The fraudsters will be the first to respond, not my mom. My mom would just, you know, call eventually and say, hey, can I?
- [46:40]
Jason Calacanis
She would assume that there was good intentions.
- [46:43]
Chamath Palihapitiya
Yes. Whereas the fraudsters would be like, oh man, I got to get here.
- [46:45]
Jason Calacanis
I think it's great. You know what, you can.
- [46:47]
Chamath Palihapitiya
Swisher did the same thing. No, let me finish my little thing here, chamath, because I don't want you guys to have to defend yourself. Listen, I couldn't make it. You guys did these last minute interviews. Mazel tov.
- [46:56]
David Friedberg
We missed you.
- [46:57]
Chamath Palihapitiya
Thank you for saying that. I would have loved to be there. I will be at the next ones for people who are saying like, oh, there's some conspiracy. There's no conspiracy. I had ski week. These guys went to do business or whatever they were doing and see their friends in D.C. and these things happened very rapidly and I wasn't able to get there. Bottom line, these were great substantive, long interviews from Democrats. One of them, a gay Democrat, by the way, the highest ranking gay Democrat who's ever been in an administration. The left and the media should be giving praise to these interviews. They should be studying them. And they're doing the exact opposite. They're trying to spin them into something they weren't. It's a gift what the all in podcast did to the American people by showing them a long form interview with the administration explaining these details. Don't spin it.
- [47:44]
Jason Calacanis
I think it's great. I think it's great. No, sorry.
- [47:46]
Chamath Palihapitiya
I'm pissed off about it.
- [47:47]
David Friedberg
Piss me off.
- [47:48]
Jason Calacanis
I don't think you should be pissed off. I think it's wonderful that these people lie. I think it's incredible that they just put it out there and it just further erodes what's happening. I think if once Bobby puts a nail on the Coffin of pharma ads on tv.
- [48:02]
Chamath Palihapitiya
Bye bye, Anderson Cooper.
- [48:04]
Jason Calacanis
Bye bye all these guys. I think it's great.
- [48:07]
Chamath Palihapitiya
I'm so pissed off. I'm sorry. When I see people lie like that.
- [48:10]
Jason Calacanis
They should be lying. They should be lying. They should. It's great because they will not exist.
- [48:15]
Chamath Palihapitiya
Okay, Gavin, you're a neutral third party. Go ahead.
- [48:17]
Gavin Baker
No, I'll just say three really quick points. Like first, what Howard Lutnick literally said was, if we can find a lot of waste, fraud and abuse, we don't have to raise the retirement age. Everybody's talking about raising the retirement age to 70. Yes. If we administer these programs more efficiently, we can keep it at 65, and that's good for everyone. The second thing is, it's just interesting to me, there's so much doubt about this. When the inspector generals of both Biden and Obama said there were hundreds of billions of dollars of waste, fraud and abuse. And I would just say someone in my immediate family has had their Social Security, their identity stolen and someone is using their Social Security number to collect unemployment benefits in Alabama. And this has been going on for two years and they've been unable to stop it. And so you don't want to rely too much on anecdote, but I think this is really happening. And then just the third thing I would just say is I do think no one has ever raised, no president has ever raised my taxes more than Trump did. And I think they are pretty convicted in their focus on normal working class Americans and making their lives better is actually genuinely their North Star. You can disagree with the theory of the case, you can disagree with the way they're communicating it, but I think their intentions are good.
- [49:40]
Chamath Palihapitiya
Absolutely. And you know what he even said in the interview, if you really listen to it, he said he was disgusted by the idea that you would even raise the Social Security age. I think we should, by the way, any rational person, I think the majority of people say, hey, maybe it should go up a year or two, maybe we should have a little austerity here on the margins. But no, of course not. We can't talk about that. And the thing this administration could do better is communication. Those two long form interviews was a great step in the right direction. They should do more of those. And DOE should do a better job of explaining this waste and fraud. They're doing a good job. I give them like, you know, a B plus, but there's more work to be done here. And there's waste, there's overspending, there's fraud and there's abuse.
- [50:25]
David Friedberg
Right.
- [50:25]
Chamath Palihapitiya
These are like different categories to get to the fraud. That takes building legal cases. All that stuff's going to have to be referred to people. We have a justice system here. It's going to take years to figure out if somebody actually stole. But waste and overspending, we're going to find that pretty quickly. So it's a process, people. And I for one, trust the process because we're overspending massively. Let's get to some other conversations here. I think maybe we start with JCAL on Doge.
- [50:52]
Gavin Baker
I just think it is, whether it's a semiannual or quarterly, something that is like the Doge report and everything's been audited and triple checked. These are the three categories. This is what we found. I think something like that would be very helpful.
- [51:09]
Chamath Palihapitiya
I think they need investigative journalists. I'm happy to help with this. I'll do a dogepod. Listen, I'm not part of the administration. Everybody knows I was a Never Trumper. I'm an independent, blah, blah, blah. Disclaimer, disclaimer, disclaimer. I would totally go in there and I would do a dogemark.
- [51:21]
Jason Calacanis
Jk, why do you keep saying independent? And then you throw yourself a label that says you're not independent, you're dependent.
- [51:27]
Chamath Palihapitiya
I'm telling people I was a Never Trumper. But if Trump is gonna surround himself.
- [51:32]
Jason Calacanis
With a moderate Democrat, truly independent, I.
- [51:35]
Chamath Palihapitiya
Like to think so. I try to be independent. Call balls and strikes here on the program. I'm not gonna bend the knee to the administration. I'm going to be critical of Trump coin. I'm gonna be critical of these deportations, which we're gonna get to. And I will say critical things, but I would go in there and I would do the dogepod with Elon or whoever in the group is, and go point by point through these things to explain it to the American public. Let's keep moving here. We got such a full docket. I wanna talk about signal gate, text.
- [52:00]
Jason Calacanis
Our bestie and talk to him about it. I think that's.
- [52:02]
Chamath Palihapitiya
I mean, maybe I should go in there because, listen, I don't even consider this like a Trump administration now. I consider it's a Democratic, moderate administration. Everybody around Trump now is a Democrat. I think I might be in. I might be in. You guys had a good time? You guys look like you had a good time last week. Did you look like fun?
- [52:20]
Jason Calacanis
Did you vote for Trump?
- [52:22]
Chamath Palihapitiya
I don't want to bring in my vote. I did not vote for Kamala. Let's keep moving here. I'm going to keep dropping.
- [52:27]
Jason Calacanis
Wow.
- [52:28]
Chamath Palihapitiya
I did not vote for Kamala. I couldn't vote for her. She said, I don't wanna say it, but anyway, let's keep going. I don't wanna vote for somebody who was selected. I wanted to vote for somebody who had a primary and the Democrats description for not having a speed run. Primary. Signalgate, the biggest story in America right now on Monday.
- [52:48]
David Friedberg
This is incredible. What a day.
- [52:50]
Chamath Palihapitiya
No, I mean, listen, I'm gonna call balls and strikes right now. 70% of what they're doing, I agree with 30%. I don't. I'm gonna get to the 30% on a human rights basis.
- [52:57]
Jason Calacanis
I think you just admitted you voted for Trump. It's really incredible actually.
- [53:00]
Chamath Palihapitiya
Anyway, let's keep moving here. I'm from the great state of Texas. I'll leave it at that. Signal gate. Signal gate, signal gate. On Monday, the Atlantic published a story titled the Trump administration accidentally texted me their war plan. Somehow Atlantic editor in Chief Jeffrey Goldberg was added to a super high profile Signal group with our Secretary of State, our Vice President Tulsi Besant, the CIA director, the Secretary of Defense. How is this possible, folks? They added a journalist, the editor in chief of the Atlantic to their war planning Signal group. They shouldn't be using Signal, obviously to do this stuff. And inside this group, they discussed the plans to strike Houthi targets across Yemen. Nobody noticed, nobody checked that the editor in chief of the Atlantic was in the group chat. They included the exact targets, the actions, the timing of all of this. It was apparently cut and pasted from some other system by Hegseth, our Secretary of Defense and former Fox commentator. That's not a dig, it's just a fact. I'm not saying it as a dig, Chamath. People are losing their mind over this. I could get into all the details. I think most people know it because it's taking up the whole. All the oxygen in the room, in the media, in the group chats. Number one, what's your general take on what happened here? How stupid is this? How ridiculous is it? Does it matter? Go ahead, Shamon, start us off here.
- [54:32]
Jason Calacanis
I think that what folks have stopped talking about entirely, which I think is just worth touching upon, is what is actually going on that necessitated this group chat to be created in the first place in such haste. So I have a couple of images that I pulled just to explain what this issue is. So the problem that we have is that somewhere after the war with Gaza, Iran continues to fund these Houthi rebels in Yemen. And what do they start to do? They start to invade and flood into the Red Sea and they start to block up the Suez Canal in different points, making it very perilous for freight traffic to get there. So what do folks do? They're either forced to go all the way around the Cape of Good Hope or risk attack through the Suez Canal. So what do you think happens? Well, the traffic through the Red Sea and the Suez Canal falls off a cliff. And then you would ask, well, why is that important? Well, the problem is that because of that other chart and this chart, prices start to skyrocket. So if you're trying to ship things even going into the United States, prices start to rise 30, 40%. Going to Europe, prices are rising 300 and 400%. If you add that all together, as Gavin said earlier, we're in this very delicate moment where we're fixing all these parts of the economy. The thing we can't have is, is productivity go down. You can't have a recession. And so if you have a bunch of input prices that go up or trade slow down now, you're bringing the likelihood of a recession to the forefront. So that's one thing. The second thing which was included in the group chat is it turns out that nobody was in a position to fight off these Houthis except the United States, the British, the French, all of their naval capacity wasn't strong enough or adaptable enough to fight these folks off. So the United States had no choice but to attack these guys and reset. And so what happened? Now, all of a sudden, traffic is reset, volumes are back up by the third week of March, which is where we are now. We're back to where they were even a year ago. The price of shipping is now contained. The inflation risk is contained, the productivity hit is contained.
- [56:57]
Chamath Palihapitiya
It's just important to understand that's the context. Okay, so this is why they did the attack. Great.
- [57:03]
Jason Calacanis
I find it crazy that we still actually, for 95 articles, though, Jason, on signal, we have only less than one article on this. So I just wanted the smart people to listen to our pod, to actually understand it. The second thing. The second thing is we're going to.
- [57:16]
Chamath Palihapitiya
Send the bill to Europe because this is really a European problem, because we have the whole Pacific Ocean, we can accept things through, and you can go to ports in Texas or, you know.
- [57:26]
Jason Calacanis
So the point is, we're on a shock now. Yeah. So the point is we're on a shot clock. People had to act quickly. Here's my Big problem with Signal. I think it was a fuck up, okay? And I think, I think it was an important set of decisions that had to be made. But I think the using signal was a mistake. But there's very one narrow reason why, and we've said this in our group chat, the Signal desktop app is total and complete garbage.
- [57:51]
Chamath Palihapitiya
Okay?
- [57:52]
Jason Calacanis
And when you build apps, somewhere along the way, we were all told, all of us as app developers, oh, you need to have an app on every endpoint. It needs to be available for Android, it needs to be available for the iPad, it needs to be available for your phone, it needs to be available for the desktop. And the problem is now you'll have a computer at home, you'll have a computer in your den, you'll have a computer at the office. Some IT person comes and helps you install this stuff. And now all of a sudden instead of having one attack vector attack, you have seven, right? So this is insanity.
- [58:26]
Chamath Palihapitiya
So it's a mistake. It's a stupid mistake, but I think it's a mistake.
- [58:30]
Jason Calacanis
And so I think like, you know, let's give it two Scaramucci's. I think we'll forget about it, give.
- [58:36]
Chamath Palihapitiya
It a Scaramucci or two. Should somebody resign? Should somebody be fired?
- [58:39]
Jason Calacanis
No, no, no. I think these are mistakes. And I think, I think, by the way, sorry, the other thing is John Ratcliffe is very clear. There are very clear procedures that they inherited, which is no administration's fault, but there's some security IT person that writes these things, it's approved, and so rewrite those things to be more normal.
- [58:56]
Chamath Palihapitiya
Friedberg, your thoughts here? Do you have a take?
- [58:59]
David Friedberg
So I think this issue will become one of whether or not government officials can use Signal and apps like it for communication. This is a controversy that's been around for some time, but it's actually being tried in the courts right now. There's, I think, four active cases. So the Federal Records act was originally passed in 1950, and then there was this amendment related to electronic communications that was passed in 2014. And the federal Records act says all government officials and employees have to create, maintain and preserve adequate and proper documentation of activities, transactions, decisions, policies and other business.
- [59:44]
Chamath Palihapitiya
That's the law.
- [59:45]
David Friedberg
That's the law. And it says adequate and proper documentation is defined as records that clearly document the government's decisions and actions and that can be preserved and retrieved for accountability, transparency and historical purposes. And then we have the FOIA laws which allow you as a citizen or as a journalist to go make a.
- [60:01]
Chamath Palihapitiya
Request, Freedom of information Act. This is to have a functioning democracy. What you're talking about here, Freeberg, is people who work for us should not be able to end run their communication. And that's the law.
- [60:13]
David Friedberg
Yeah. The FOIA provides access to government records because our taxpayer dollars pay for the government to do its work and therefore access. So the question is, is the particulars of the communication that's taking place amongst these individuals in this case and in the daily work done by government officials that's like this, where people are updating one another or talking with one another about things. Does that have restrictions around preservation of records under the Federal Records act and the amendment that came out in 2014? And so there were a bunch of lawsuits. One is the Competitive Enterprise institute against the OSDP, the Office of Science and Technology Policy in 2016, where using email accounts and communications that weren't properly archived or preserved was challenged by this institute. And the D.C. circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the officials who use private email for official business must copy or forward email communications government accounts to comply. The Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington act sued the Trump administration in 2017. And this is ongoing in multiple forms right now in the courts, where there's a lot of procedural complexity. But the courts have generally said that they emphasize that these officials are obligated to preserve official communications and that failure is violating the laws. Then there's Judicial Watch versus Department of Homeland Security and then there's national security archive versus Mike Pompeo, the State Department 2019, which is also still in the courts. I think from these cases and this particular incident, there's going to become much greater kind of call it clarity and also a better understanding of the consequences of what communication do you need to preserve records of? And what communication are you allowed to have off the record that you can.
- [61:56]
Chamath Palihapitiya
But what do you think, Freeberg? I mean, we get it. There's a. What do you personally think? Like, what do you, David Freeberg, the sultan of Science, think?
- [62:04]
David Friedberg
I think it is counterproductive to have every piece of communication foiable and kept in the public record. I think that's a mistake. And I'll tell you why. When you're making a business decision, let's say you're making an HR decision, the management team sitting around, they're talking about a particular candidate or person at the company. Should we give this person a raise? Should we terminate someone? You don't want to have a record of that that employees can then go pull up and see and understand because it will have a really muting effect and a dampening effect on the types of conversation, on the authenticity of the conversation, on the productivity of the conversation that you will be able to have if you're forced to say, this is always going to be in the public domain. And so I do think that this idea on how did you make a decision and what was the action that you took, those, to me, feel like they should be recorded and they should be foiable, but all of the background material, all of the noise, all of the dialogue that leads up to that.
- [62:58]
Chamath Palihapitiya
So the equivalent of this would be.
- [62:59]
David Friedberg
I do not think that should be foiable. And I think that you need to justify the actions and the decisions that you're making as a government official. But I don't think that you need to have a record personally of everything that led up to that action or that decision, because I think that that will be really deeply unproductive.
- [63:14]
Chamath Palihapitiya
Let me give a take here. This is a serious issue. They shouldn't be doing it for obvious reasons. It's very easy to hack personal phones and they do have a way to do this, which is called the scif. And there's other places for them to have secure communication. And as you point out, they work for the American people. They should be a record of this. They're breaking the law by doing this. So the administration should not be breaking the law. Obviously, we don't want them to do that. Also, Hegseth clearly took a report of the attack plan, cut and pasted it from some server somewhere, and then pasted it over. This is a known vector. Your clipboard is what it's called. And this is an attack vector that anybody who's in it or has basic security training knows that you can get your clipboard hacked very easily. They need to take ownership of it. And this is one of the things that this administration and this group does very poorly. Instead of taking ownership, like Chamath said here, just, just own it. No big deal. This is a, you know, a chance for us to learn and iterate on the security protocols, yada, yada. We apologize, let's move on. They attack. And this is Trump's like, playbook. We have to attack the journalists. So what did they do? They attacked the journalists. They take no ownership. And the second thing, which this administration really has an Achilles heel for is on top of just taking, not taking ownership and attacking the hypocrisy, because this was the entirety of the anti Hillary movement, was, oh, my God, she did this exact same thing with her email. And Republicans had a Long list of. Oh, my God, Here's.
- [64:47]
Jason Calacanis
Hold on.
- [64:48]
Chamath Palihapitiya
Finish. You'll get your chance, Chamath, to defend your boys. The point is, it's complete, utter hypocrisy, and it's distasteful to attack the journalists, which you added. This is incompetence. It's a mistake. Own it.
- [65:00]
Jason Calacanis
No, hold on.
- [65:01]
Chamath Palihapitiya
And then every single person's phone has to get dumped now. And so they're not doing a good job communicating what they're gonna do to make sure that somebody hasn't gotten onto everybody's personal phone. Why are they doing this on their personal phones? As Chamath, you very much pointed out, these are attack vectors. They should be using the phones issued to them for these communications, not their personal devices.
- [65:24]
Jason Calacanis
Go ahead. The first thing is I think you're right. Wrong about the fact that they don't have an adequate claim with this journalist. I think it's fair to ask what is the ethical standard that that journalist should have had? If you're added to something, you know, it's inappropriate. The guy just sat there lurking. You don't know how it was added. Jason, you're speculating. It could have been. Hold on. It could have been injected, okay? It could have been injected into a laptop. Nobody knows yet. This is why I think. Just admit what happened was a mistake. I think they did that. They're looking into it. Let them look into it. I don't think you need to have scalpels and heads and all this other stuff, but I do think it's important to say, why was this guy lurking about? Okay, what ethical standards should he have at? Clearly, he had none. And by the way, this guy.
- [66:15]
Chamath Palihapitiya
Oh, no, that's ridiculous. You're so wrong on this chamap.
- [66:17]
Jason Calacanis
It's my opinion.
- [66:18]
Chamath Palihapitiya
Try to figure out. Okay, your opinion is wrong in this case.
- [66:21]
Jason Calacanis
Okay?
- [66:21]
Chamath Palihapitiya
He tried to figure out what was going on here, and then when he did figure out it, he contacted them and removed himself. He didn't stay on there indefinitely. If he did that, that would be wrong. But for him to be added to something, he may have been being attacked himself. And the other reason you're wrong is they went on the attack immediately, and they denied that there was anything wrong. They did not take ownership of it. And that's why we're having this debate right now, is they don't take ownership of these. These things.
- [66:49]
Gavin Baker
Marco Rubio did say someone made a big mistake. There were no consequences. We learned we're gonna do better, and he is the Secretary of State. So someone in the administration did say that this was a mistake.
- [67:03]
Chamath Palihapitiya
Yeah. And the other guys attacked the journalist, so that's what I find distasteful.
- [67:05]
Jason Calacanis
No, no, no, but hold on a second. Trump said it was a mistake, too. I don't think these guys. It is. It's a mistake. So fix it and move on. But the point should be, what is the mistake? The mistake is the security protocols that these guys rely on. I don't. I'm going to just go out on a limb. As expert as they are in policy, I think they're inexperts in technology. So there is probably somebody that is responsible for how all of these folks communicate, how all of these folks get software installed on their multiple devices. Okay. How they get new devices. I'm guessing that it's not them. So I think that they're using their personal devices.
- [67:46]
Chamath Palihapitiya
I think that's the problem. Why is anybody in government using a personal device to share plans?
- [67:52]
Jason Calacanis
How do you know that?
- [67:54]
Chamath Palihapitiya
Because they said it was their personal devices. They've said it. This has been established that they did this on their personal devices. That's totally established now. And they have skiffs for this. So I just don't understand why they don't just use their.
- [68:08]
Jason Calacanis
But again, I'm saying the bigger issue is that they had to operationalize quickly. They weren't in a position to be together. The importance of the issue is getting lost. It was an important issue that has consequences.
- [68:20]
Chamath Palihapitiya
They're all within 10ft of a skiff at all times. Their SUVs are skiffs. Their offices are skiffs. Gavin, you have any final thoughts before we move on to the.
- [68:27]
Gavin Baker
Yeah, I would just say that the contents were interesting and that there are a couple of things. There's all this, oh, the Trump administration is cozying up to Russia, trying to blow up this post World War II alliance with Europe. There are two things. One, they said we are the only people on our side of the ledger who can deal with the Houthis. And our side of the ledger meaning recognizing Europe, traditional alliances.
- [68:56]
Jason Calacanis
The good team. The good team.
- [68:58]
Gavin Baker
So I thought that was interesting, that just for all the rhetoric they're conscious of, who's the home team. And second, it was very clear to everyone in that chat, and J.D. vance raised it. 3% of America's trade goes through the Suez Canal, 40% of Europe's trade. So we are really doing this. It will help us a little bit, but it will help Europe a vast amount. And we're doing something that helps them that they cannot do now. Hey, they're asking that they want to be paid. But I just think it made me think that behind the scenes, a lot of this rhetoric about the US and the European schism is overblown and we're still helping them. That was interesting.
- [69:40]
Chamath Palihapitiya
Yeah, I think it's important. Note. Okay, let's move on to our final two stories. The Trump administration has deported 238 alleged gang members to a pretty severe prison called Secot Cecot Prison in El Salvador. Here's a clip of them being dragged out of the United States and put into this extremely notorious prison. This was all done under the Alien enemies Act of 1798. This allows the president to detain and deport individuals without due process from an enemy nation during an invasion or predatory incursion. It's been used before, but only during actual wars. FDR used it to deport thousands of Germans, Italians, Japanese during World War II. The Trump administration is claiming that the gang members were sent to the US Intentionally, calling them a hybrid criminal state. Not surprisingly, most of them, or not all of them had criminal records in the US this was confirmed by ice, and obviously some number of them appear to have been misidentified as gang members or terrorists. I can tell you, you know, coming from a law enforcement family and just looking at the statistics, out of 238, you're not going to bat a thousand. So maybe you get a couple of these wrong. Former pro soccer player Jersey Reyes Barrios. He fled Venezuela after being tortured by the government for protesting. He's a refugee. He has been mistaken for a gang member, according to his people, because he's got an arm tattoo supporting his favorite club, Real Madrid. And there is a social media post that ICE officials believe featured him making gang signs, but it was actually the language for I love you, according to his attorney. Second example, a shoe salesman and social media influencer Norberto Rodriguez. He fled Venezuela for Colombia out of desperation because he and his family were starving. He's a father of three. He was also suspected because of a tattoo which features playing cards and dice. His family says he got it to cover a scar on his forearm. And third and final example, stylist and makeup artist Andre Hernandez. He is being represented by the Immigration Defenders Law Center. He claims he has no criminal history. He sought asylum after fleeing Venezuela, where he was persecuted for being gay. Again, his arrest was based on tattoos that its attorneys claim are not gang affiliated. This has caused a US District judge to pause these deportations. The administration has apparently continued these deportations, and they're Even gloating by doing videos, highly produced videos, threatening people with the prison in El Salvador. Again, the ccot. Your thoughts, Chamath on this extradition process, if any.
- [72:37]
Jason Calacanis
I mean, as long as there's a mechanism for these mistakes to get rectified, seems like the overwhelming majority of these folks should not have been in the United States and were part of illegal criminal organizations.
- [72:53]
Chamath Palihapitiya
Okay, so there should be a mechanism. Gavin, your thoughts?
- [72:56]
Gavin Baker
If innocent people were sent to a prison, like that's a terrible mistake and that happens and it shouldn't happen and hopefully it gets rectified. But I guess my bigger thought is a little bit, this administration, as we discussed, they have a really ambitious agenda. They want to fundamentally change America in the ways that they think will be better for kind of blue collar, normal working Americans and things like this signal gate. If you, if they made a mistake and sent innocent people to this prison, there's only so many of those mistakes they can afford before they lose kind of the mandate necessary to accomplish their goals. And hopefully we're in whatever. We're not even into the third full month.
- [73:47]
Chamath Palihapitiya
66 days.
- [73:48]
Gavin Baker
66 days. We're into the third month.
- [73:50]
Chamath Palihapitiya
We're 4.5% of the way through the.
- [73:53]
Jason Calacanis
Second term and it feels like six Scaramucci's in.
- [73:58]
Gavin Baker
Yes, it's brutal.
- [73:59]
Chamath Palihapitiya
It ain't easy here. This is such a good point though, Gavin, continue.
- [74:03]
Gavin Baker
They just execution matters. Like if they to accomplish their goals, they need to execute at a high level and communicate clearly and effectively. And just if innocent people were sent to this prison. Mistake signal gate. Look, hey, maybe it's a big mistake. Maybe it's a small mistake depending on where you sit. I thought Marco Rubio's response was good, but just I think execution is important for them to accomplish their goals.
- [74:34]
Chamath Palihapitiya
Great. Freeberg, any thoughts here?
- [74:36]
David Friedberg
I do not agree with sending people to prison or detention center without due process. I felt similarly about Guantanamo Bay because I don't think it matches the rights and values that the United States should stand for. I think it's different if you believe that they're here illegally, they're part of a criminal enterprise and we don't want to try them in courts here. Then we should ship them back to a port of departure somewhere else in another country, maybe it's back to Venezuela and let their courts try them. But I will talk a little bit about this El Salvador motivation. As you guys know, the El Salvador prison that they set up for putting the gang members in had a radical impact on living standards in the country. In 2015, the homicide rate per capita in El Salvador was 103 people per 100,000. So one out of every thousand people were murdered every year. They introduced this aggressive policy of rounding people up without due process and putting them in this prison. And through that action, they were able to reduce the homicide rate per capita below 2 per 100,000, which is what it was last year, 1.9. So it had a radically positive effect on society, but obviously at the cost of a value that we in the United States hold dear, which is the value of due process and the importance of due process, because all it takes is one innocent life being locked up.
- [75:57]
Jason Calacanis
But, sorry, you're saying El Salvador, there was no due process.
- [75:59]
David Friedberg
There was no due process. And so there are plenty of stories. If you watch the documentaries on this prison, there are plenty of stories of people that later were released when they were found to be completely innocent and randomly rounded up or randomly were caught up in a sweep or something that they shouldn't have been at. And there was actually one fascinating interview I saw of one of the guys who spent over a year in the prison was completely innocent. But he said, you know what? It was worth it because the government's been able to clean up the streets. I gotta find this clip. But I was really, like, shocked. I couldn't believe that a guy that spent a year in this prison actually had something positive to say because it was such a profoundly.
- [76:32]
Chamath Palihapitiya
You can't say that to get out. Who knows?
- [76:33]
David Friedberg
Well, it was such a profoundly difficult place to live in El Salvador, and we've all heard these stories. But I do think that there's a cue being taken by this administration that there is a way to kind of very quickly resolve to a positive outcome with respect to immigration and crime. But I do think Gavin's point is right, that we do have to have some boundary conditions, particularly as it relates to human rights, that we do value here in this country. And as long as there's a court trial, as long as there's a judge, as long as there's some sort of. It doesn't need to be a jury of peers, but as long as there's some evidentiary hearing to make the determination that someone is likely this criminal, it makes sense. But again, I'm much more in favor. If there's going to be forced movement of people, I don't think that they should necessarily be moved into a prison as much as move to a port of departure and have them tried in another country. If there's a crime, or we Try them here and put them in prison.
- [77:28]
Gavin Baker
I agree so much with what you just said. Due process is important. Like America, like human rights are a core American value. Ad, it was great. You acknowledged that the outcome in El Salvador was good. Homicide's down 99.9%, lots of lives saved. And just there needs to be a balance between these.
- [77:49]
Chamath Palihapitiya
Yes.
- [77:49]
Jason Calacanis
Then let me ask you guys a question, very pointed question. If you guys could implement an El Salvadorian style incarceration system tomorrow and it would have the exact same effect on American crime, so cuts it by night and I'll give you there's a 4 or 5% error rate. Would you do it? Would the benefit of the safer society be outweighed in your minds by the error rate or not?
- [78:19]
Chamath Palihapitiya
Absolutely not.
- [78:20]
David Friedberg
Most people would say yes because they would view it wouldn't affect them. And then the 2 to 5% of people who have family members who are innocent get locked up.
- [78:29]
Jason Calacanis
I get that. I'm saying, what do you think?
- [78:31]
David Friedberg
Yeah, I wouldn't compromise that value.
- [78:33]
Chamath Palihapitiya
Yeah, we don't want to compromise that value. It's incredibly dangerous. Yeah, incredibly dangerous. We've been riding on a bit of a high. And I think there's a couple of things here this administration could do better and communicating when they make a mistake. And then human rights is such a core part. I believe me, Jason Calacanis believes that there is a sadistic nature to this administration. It is an Achilles heel for them. And when you see them doing videos from these prisons and saying, this is going to happen to you, and this prison is known for torture and this prison is known for just absolutely the most abhorrent issues in the world. This is the sadistic nature of this administration that I think they need to drop because it is going to derail them. And people, people care in this country deeply about human rights and process. And there is a constitutional issue right now because Trump and this administration is disobeying the court when they say, hey, let's slow down here. There is no cost, zero cost to Americans sending these people to a way station and investigating each of these cases to make sure we don't send a gay hairdresser to El Salvador, another country to be tortured in prison, if that is in fact the case. And it is against all American principles to not have due process and to have innocent people potentially go to jail. And what all Republicans should do is hear is say this is going to derail the administration. These are the things that will build up over time. And people just, pragmatically speaking, People in America who are rooting for this administration to do some good things, like I am. When they do stuff like this, and I represent a large swath of people, it loses them votes. And this is why I predict this is why they will lose the midterms if they continue to do this type of stuff. That's my position. It's not virtual signaling. I've cared about human rights long before the all in podcast existed. My first job was working at Amnesty International, and this is a giant mistake by this administration. Gavin, you had some thoughts.
- [80:32]
Gavin Baker
This whole debate is a question of INS versus means. And it's like, we all agree that the homicide rate down 99.9% in El Salvador is a good outcome. It's a good end. And this is one of the great philosophical questions. And it's, you know, we can debate it endlessly, and there has to be a balance between the two. Human rights are a core American value. And I agree, I think, with a lot of what David said. But I also think if you are going back to that homicide rate, the Trump campaign, they spoke to the mothers and the families of people who were brutally murdered or raped and murdered by people who were illegal immigrants and were convicted criminals in their home country and were known convicted criminals and somehow still were not apprehended and then committed terrible crimes that were very similar to the crimes they committed there. You have a lot of compassion for the victims, too, but all they have to do. One of I thought Elon's best moments, and I think what Doge is doing is great. These are brilliant people working hard for free to do things that have never been done before in the government in terms of efficiency and kind of modernizing it. But Elon said at the first press conference says, listen, we're going to make mistakes and then we're going to quickly correct them. So to me, I think all the administration needs to say, and I do think more due process, to David's point, is good, is like, listen, if we made a mistake, it's terrible and we're going to fix it immediately. And it just gives you so much credibility when you say that.
- [82:14]
Chamath Palihapitiya
Agreed.
- [82:16]
Jason Calacanis
But isn't due process happening? How else would you guys know that three out of the 238 were miscast? The fact that, you know, that means the process is working. I think the question is, what about the other 235 people?
- [82:30]
Chamath Palihapitiya
Their families talked to the press. This wasn't from the administration, but the.
- [82:34]
Jason Calacanis
Point is it's there. So whether it's the Freedom Project or Whether it's the Settlement Poverty Law Center. My point is there are resources. Is it bad when this happens? Absolutely. My question is, do you just blow the whole process up and then what do you do with the other 235 people?
- [82:47]
Chamath Palihapitiya
You'd hold all 238@ Gitmo, if you wanted to, in humane prisons and process them and then have their attorneys get to look at their case. You could give their cases to. You could be public with their cases and say, here are the cases. These are the people we're deporting and why.
- [83:02]
Jason Calacanis
Right. So your specific issue is where they're being sent?
- [83:06]
Chamath Palihapitiya
Yes, Chamath, they're being sent to the most sadistic prison in the world.
- [83:10]
David Friedberg
Chamath, do you want to answer your question about, like, the 5% trade off? Like if you sweep up 5% of the people being innocent, whether it's worth that trade off for crime?
- [83:21]
Jason Calacanis
Did I get an answer?
- [83:23]
David Friedberg
Well, you asked this question, but I wanted to hear your answer. What's your point of view on that?
- [83:27]
Jason Calacanis
I think that that's probably what happens today in America's presence. In fact, it's probably more than 5%.
- [83:35]
Gavin Baker
But I guess the question is, Chamath, what is an acceptable. It's a little bit like the trolley problem. There are many variations of this.
- [83:41]
Jason Calacanis
I think the important, important thing is I think that that's a bit above our pay grade, but I don't think it's above the president's. And I think that that was part of what he was elected to do, is make that call. Because I don't think he hid behind any rhetoric. He was very clear about what his intentions were. And to your point, he did bring the Lake and Riley act. I mean, they were very explicit about what their intentions were.
- [84:04]
Gavin Baker
Yes, but man, it just feels like a little more due process, being a little more careful with the signal, but also just going back to what we're four and a half percent into the administration. I'm not saying, hey, mistakes were made and it's okay if innocent people were sent to this prison, that's terrible, and I hope it gets rectified quickly.
- [84:22]
Chamath Palihapitiya
If there was some concession here, hey, if we made a mistake, we're going to fix it. That would be a lot better than putting out promotional videos lauding how brutal this prison is. That would go a long way with me. But we're seeing the opposite. They're releasing videos that they're producing. We'll play one here for you to see.
- [84:43]
David Friedberg
By the way, I think an important point about this and perhaps the key part of the strategy of the administration is that this isn't the beginning of a continuous process, but they're sending a signal which they expect will cause people to naturally immigrate out of the country that are committing crime or at risk of being caught for being associated with gangs and while being in the United States as a way to kind of chase folks out. So I think that there's some calculus on what's going on here with respect to the risk and the actions being, hey, look, if we do this to the first 240 people, and even if three or four innocent people get caught up, there's a net benefit ultimately because it will reduce the immigrants kind of coming to this country that are parts of gangs, and perhaps some of them will choose to go home.
- [85:37]
Gavin Baker
You know, they clearly believe that this is going to save innocent lives in America. That is their clear belief system.
- [85:47]
Chamath Palihapitiya
Well, yeah, and everybody wants that. Here's secretary Kristy Noemi from the prison itself here at secot today and visiting this facility. And first of all, I want to thank El Salvador and their president for their partnership with the United States of America to bring our terrorists here and to incarcerate them and have consequences for the violence that they have perpetuated in our communities. I also want everybody to know, if you come to our country illegally, this is one of the consequences you could face. First of all, do not come to our country illegally. You will be removed and you will be prosecuted. But know that this facility is one of the tools in our toolkit that we will use if you commit crimes against the American people. Harsh words. She's trying to make it a deterrent, clearly. All right. Another amazing episode of all in is in the can for Gavin Baker, David Freeberg, and Chamath Palihapitiya. I'm J Cal. Jason Calacanis. And we will see you all next time.
- [86:44]
Jason Calacanis
Virtue signaling. Mother.
- [86:47]
Chamath Palihapitiya
Did you see that?
- [86:48]
Jason Calacanis
I love you.
- [86:48]
Chamath Palihapitiya
I mean, I can't even take it there. I'm sorry. I'm passionate about some things. I'm passionate about some things. Look at this.
- [86:54]
Gavin Baker
I can't tell how much of the tension is real. Vers like I love.
- [86:58]
Jason Calacanis
I love j I'm an.
- [87:01]
Gavin Baker
We'Ll let your winners ride.
- [87:04]
Chamath Palihapitiya
Rain man David sack.
- [87:08]
David Friedberg
And I said.
- [87:09]
Gavin Baker
We are open source it to the fans and they've just gone crazy with it.
- [87:13]
Chamath Palihapitiya
Love you, queen of k. Besties are gone.
- [87:24]
Gavin Baker
That is my dog taking a notice in your driveway.
- [87:29]
David Friedberg
Oh, man. My will meet me at.
- [87:32]
Jason Calacanis
We should all just get a room and just have one big huge orgy. Cuz they're all. All this useless. It's like this like sexual tension that they just need to release somehow.
- [87:45]
Chamath Palihapitiya
We need to get merch.