Anthropic Loses the Battle

Summary

FIREWALL with Bradley Tusk
Episode: "Anthropic Loses the Battle"
Date: March 2, 2026

---

Overview

In this episode, Bradley Tusk and producer Hugo Lindgren discuss the high-profile conflict between AI company Anthropic and the U.S. Department of War. The episode explores the broader implications of Anthropic’s ethical stand, layoffs driven by AI efficiency (including Jack Dorsey's Block), public distrust of AI, and the cyclical nature of technology-driven job displacement. Politics, generational shifts in activism, the current legal battle facing social media companies, and New York’s political landscape are also prominent topics. The banter is intelligent, incisive, and laced with skepticism.

---

Key Discussion Points and Insights

1. Anthropic vs. the Pentagon: Short-Term Loss, Long-Term Gain

[00:27–09:03]

• Context: Anthropic, an AI company, is resisting Pentagon demands to allow its platform's use for fully autonomous weapons and mass surveillance.
• Government Response: Secretary of War Pete Hegseth is poised to declare Anthropic a supply chain risk, likely ending all federal contracts, threatening at least $200 million in revenue.
• Tusk’s Take: Anthropic will "lose the battle" financially but "win the war" in public perception.
  • Society is deeply cynical and distrustful of large institutions and AI.
  • "The media is eating out of Anthropic’s hand and Anthropic comes out of all of this positioned as the 1 AI company with integrity..." — Bradley ([04:06])
• Analogy to Apple (San Bernardino, 2016):
  • Apple’s refusal to unlock an iPhone for the FBI created a lasting, positive impression of principled leadership.
  • “They must really believe this if they're gonna do it here.” — Bradley ([05:41])
• Reputational Impact:
  • Anthropic’s stand sets them apart from OpenAI, Grok, Perplexity, Gemini, etc.
  • Potential to generate "far more long-term goodwill and economic value" than short-term losses.
• Investor Sentiment & Valuation:
  • Despite unsustainable fundamentals, retail investor enthusiasm may sustain high valuations (as with Tesla).
  • "Some companies... live in a world of suspended reality where there is retail investor belief and enthusiasm that drives the share price..." — Bradley ([08:25])

---

2. AI Layoffs and Efficiency: The Block Example

[09:03–13:15]

• Jack Dorsey’s Mass Layoffs:
  • Block laid off 4,000 people, citing AI-driven efficiency gains.
  • “He didn’t hurt himself. He hurt other people for his own benefit.” — Bradley ([09:21])
• Corporate Motives:
  • Layoffs reflect standard corporate prioritization of profit and efficiency, not morality.
  • "You can't put the genie back in the bottle..."—Bradley ([11:08])
• Automation’s Inevitable March:
  • Reference to previous tech revolutions (milk delivery, horse & buggy, typewriter).
  • “Automation has always been a thing.” — Bradley ([12:37])
  • Prediction of ongoing and significant white-collar job losses due to AI.
  • “Tip of the iceberg” — Hugo ([13:00]), with Bradley agreeing it’s just the beginning.

---

3. Technology, Progress, and Political Response

[13:15–19:39]

• Attempts to Resist Tech Change:
  • New York’s struggle with Uber & driverless taxis exemplifies futile regulatory resistance.
  • "Fundamentally, progress is always going to move forward. Technology, progress, it all, it's inevitable." — Bradley ([15:32])
• Limits of Political Action:
  • Politicians may penalize large layoffs, but impact is likely marginal.
  • Worker retraining is a popular remedy but has uncertain effectiveness ("I don't know what you're training them in." — Bradley, [16:11])
• Universal Basic Income:
  • Bradley advocates UBI to bridge the inevitable gap between lost and new jobs.
  • “Not only is AI unpopular, I think it's gonna get much worse because you're gonna have this big job displacement. People are gonna be really suffering and there's not gonna be an immediate solution to help them.” — Bradley ([16:32])

---

4. The Potential for AI to Address Global Challenges

[19:39–21:39]

• Hopeful Vision:
  • AI’s promise to solve climate change (carbon capture), disease, and other major problems.
  • “If it's going to happen, it's going to be because of AI...” — Bradley ([19:50])
  • Cites the example of GLP-1 diabetes drugs having unexpectedly broad benefits, forecasting similar breakthroughs with AI.
• Public Perception Lag:
  • There will be a “gap” where pain from lost jobs is felt before major benefits appear.

---

5. Generational Progressivism and Youth Activism

[25:59–30:02]

• Nature of Youth Activism:
  • Is today’s youth progressivism a phase or response to genuine societal issues?
  • “Maybe that's always been the case. I mean, how do you think the sort of greatest generation that fought World War II felt about their hippie kids, right?” — Bradley ([26:28])
• Importance of Youth:
  • While youth appear idealistic and naive, their pressure is often essential for social change.
  • “A lot of important societal changes have also happened because young people have been the ones out front demanding them.” — Bradley ([29:03])
  • Contrasts this with adults who cling to untested theories, drawing a distinction between activism born of inexperience and that of willful ignorance.

---

6. Social Media and Legal Responsibility

[30:02–31:51]

• High-Profile Lawsuit:
  • Discussion of a California woman suing Meta and YouTube over “addictive” and harmful platform design.
  • Question of legality: "We know this... but is it illegal? I'm not sure."
• Section 230:
  • Bradley reiterates his call for its repeal to enable legal accountability for tech companies.

---

7. Political Theory: Klosterman’s Camps of Protest

[31:57–39:48]

• Klosterman’s Theory (Paraphrased by Hugo, [34:19–35:15]):
  • Protest response splits into three: fervent support, vehement opposition, and the indifferent "Camp 3."
  • Movement success relies on winning over the uncommitted middle.
• Bradley’s Rebuttal:
  • Reality is dominated by vocal extremes, not the disengaged middle, except in rare cases.
  • "The first two groups do dominate the discourse, and that dominates the outcomes because that's what politicians pay attention to..." — Bradley ([35:15])

---

8. Democratic Policy Platforms: Project 2029

[39:48–42:34]

• Should Democrats Counter Republican Project 2025 with a ‘Project 2029’?
  • Need for clear, coherent Democratic policy—“I can't tell you what the Democratic Party really stands for.”
  • Dangers: Too left-wing or “mealy-mouthed” platforms risk alienation or irrelevance.
  • “It cannot be written by anybody who lives or works in Washington D.C. nor can it be written by... Chuck Klosterman.” — Bradley ([42:10])

---

9. New York Politics and Demographics

[42:34–45:38]

• Governor Hochul's Popularity vs. Residents’ Desire to Leave:
  • Paradox of solid approval ratings alongside high desire to leave New York.
  • Reasoning: Approval reflects expectations; desire to leave tied to taxes, weather, economic opportunity.
  • Natural churn in NYC is “not even a bad thing”—concern is loss of high-income taxpayers.

---

10. AI, Data Centers, and Market Realities

[45:38–48:11]

• Nvidia’s Stock Dip:
  • Despite strong earnings, market corrected Nvidia’s $5T valuation.
  • “It has to translate into actual revenue from consumers at some point or businesses at some point. And if it's just sort of moving numbers from one column to another, I'm not sure how real it is.” — Bradley ([45:48])
  • Barriers: Environmental and regulatory objections impede requisite data center growth.

---

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

• On Anthropic’s Moral Branding:
  “Anthropic comes out of all of this positioned as the 1 AI company with integrity, the 1 AI company that puts morals and ethics and beliefs ahead of profits.”
  — Bradley ([04:06])

• Reflecting on Apple’s Stand:
  "What it did do was that it created an impression... they weren't just about their own sort of interests at the expense of everything else."
  — Bradley ([05:26])

• On Job Loss and Automation:
  “You can't put the genie back in the bottle.”
  — Bradley ([11:08])

• On Political Resistance to Technology:
  “Progress is always going to move forward... the minute it stops being inevitable is the minute the human race stops existing.”
  — Bradley ([15:32])

• On the Public's Distrust of AI:
  "People are really not excited about AI... 10% of people said they were excited about AI and 50%... said they were concerned."
  — Bradley ([01:52])

---

Timestamps for Key Segments

| Topic | Timestamp | |---------------------------------------------------|-----------------| | Anthropic vs Pentagon | 00:27–09:03 | | AI-driven layoffs & Block | 09:03–13:15 | | Technology, resistance & regulation | 13:15–19:39 | | AI’s potential for good | 19:39–21:39 | | Generational activism, youth politics | 25:59–30:02 | | Social media lawsuit & Section 230 | 30:02–31:51 | | Klosterman’s protest theory vs. political reality | 31:57–39:48 | | Democratic agenda & Project 2029 | 39:48–42:34 | | NY politics—Hochul ratings, churn | 42:34–45:38 | | Nvidia, data centers, AI skepticism | 45:38–48:11 |

---

Other Segments and Tone

• Sports Digressions: Lengthy but friendly banter about the Mets, Yankees, and soccer ([48:11–56:43]).
• Book & Podcast Preferences: Lighthearted self-deprecation about book fatigue following a 100-book year ([57:33–58:29]).
• Episode Tone:
  Conversational, sharp, irreverent. Bradley mixes political insight with cultural skepticism; Hugo draws out nuance and reality checks.

---

Contextual Summary

This episode delivers a nuanced analysis of how a principled stand in technology can play out differently in public perception versus short-term business. It relates contemporary issues—AI’s impact on trust, jobs, and economics—to historical examples and political realities, all while illustrating through personal anecdotes and New York-centric asides. For listeners interested in the crossroads of tech and society—and how brands, institutions, and individuals can be remade by political decisions—this is a brisk, witty, and enlightening episode.

Transcript

[A]

All right. Welcome back to Firewall. I'm your host, Bradley Tusk. It's a Tuesday episode, so with us is our friend and producer, Hugo Lindgren. Hugo, how you doing?

[B]

Hey, Bradley, how are you? We're recording on Friday.

[A]

Yes.

[B]

This week. So hopefully, like, events won't happen between now and Tuesday that make everything we say irrelevant.

[A]

If everything is relevant, we won't release the episode.

[B]

So we're gonna switch around. We've been doing these sort of larger thematic episodes, not completely, but a lot of them recently. So today's going to be a little different. We're going to be doing sort of more switching around. I want to start by talking about the anthropic sort of situation with the Pentagon. They're playing hardball. It doesn't want its platform used for fully autonomous weapons or mass surveillance of American citizens. Secretary of War Pete Hegseth seems to be taking this personally. Is this a fight Anthropic can or should be involved in?

[A]

Yeah, absolutely. So let me approach this issue from maybe a little bit of a different perspective than what you're reading and seeing out there, which is forget about, like, whether or not the government should have the ability to use technologies that sees fit. Forget about whether or not Anthropic is right about mass surveillance or unmanned weapons or anything else. It seems to me that regardless of how this plays out. So at 501 today, Hegseth is supposed to make his decision. It seems very likely that he will declare Anthropic a supply chain risk which would cancel their contract both with the Department of War and then require all other Department of War contractors to cancel their contracts with Anthropic. And then along those lines, you can't imagine that any other federal agency would be, you know, using Anthropic for anything either, right? So they're going to lose. It sounds like at least 200 million, but probably a lot more in. In revenue. So to me, though, they're gonna lose the battle, right, in the sense that they're gonna lose their contract, they're gonna lose revenue. Trump's gonna say they've called for them to be hung and all this other stuff like that. They will win the war because in a world where, take a few things to count, one, as we discussed on this podcast, many times, no one trusts institutions across the board. They don't trust the government, they don't trust corporations. They don't trust media, higher ed religion, all that. So, one, we live in a society of massive cynicism and distrust. Number two, people are really not excited about AI. So you know, I looked at a few different polls. There's a Pew poll that found that 10% of people said they were excited about AI and 50% to a 5 to 1 ratio said they were concerned. There was a Marist poll that by a 2 to 1 margin people said that AI will caused far more job loss than job creation. There was a YouGov poll that said that people by I think it was a 47 to 27 margin had a negative opinion of AI. You've got data centers causing rising electricity prices all over the place. Seven states have legislation that would create a full on moratorium of data center creation. 30 states are looking at some sort of data center regulation. Trump in the State of the Union even called for data centers to create and supply their own power and not pass it on to consumers. So there's a lot of unpopularity that way. Block, which is Jack Dorsey's fintech startup.

[B]

Yesterday I was going to ask about that.

[A]

Yeah, laying off 4,000 people and from what I read Dorsey saying we just don't need all these people. We have tools that you know, can do things far more efficiently. So you've got job loss, electricity price increases, general distrust of AI, general distrust of institutions in that atmosphere. Because this is such a high profile issue and fight and because it is such catnip for the media of the evil Trump and the evil idiot Hegseth, you know, being sort of stood up to for a moral reason by one man. Dario.

[B]

Dario Amadeus.

[A]

Yeah. The media is eating out of Anthropic's hand and Anthropic comes out of all of this positioned as the 1 AI company with integrity, the 1 AI company that puts morals and ethics and beliefs ahead of profits. So in a world where everyone is anxious to purely negative at AI, in a world where everyone is anxious to purely negative about sort of society writ large, when one company can sort of make the impression in such an incredibly high profile way that, that they are different and they have a different set of motivating principles, the ultimate benefit to them will be so much greater than whatever revenue they lose in this particular contract. So do you remember in 2000, I think it was 18 or 16, there was a San Bernardino shooting and the FBI had the iPhone of one of the suspects and they wanted Apple to unlock it for them. And Tim Cook refused and what he said was, you know, we respect all of our users privacy and if we create a backdoor for you on this, we're effectively creating a backdoor on everything. And we're not going to do it. And it got solved because the FBI was able to find another firm that was able to crack it anyway.

[B]

But what have you supported that Apple making that stand?

[A]

No, not necessarily, but. But I think what it did do was that it created an impression of both Apple and Tim Cook, that they weren't just about their own sort of interests at the expense of everything else. And they took the stand.

[B]

They had a principle.

[A]

It's funny, it was even in some ways a more unpopular, risky stand because it was for someone who committed pure evil that they were trying to protect in a way. But because of that, you said, well, they must really believe this if they're gonna do it here. And even though Apple's done all kinds of terrible shit for the world, good stuff too, but plenty of bad stuff as well. And as you know, in many ways, in the way that it runs the app, it's a massive monopoly, makes us all pay far more money for things than we probably should have to. They are still the seventh most kind of popular company in the world based on those various surveys that are done. And I do think that on some level, not that everyone's walking around thinking about Tim Cook and San Bernardino, but it was one of those things that I think.

[B]

Well, I think your point is they're not going around talking about it, right? I mean that they were able to make the stand and it didn't have long term negative implications.

[A]

No, that's not my point. No, my point is the opposite. My point is they took a stand. And in the back of your head you noted it and said, huh, these guys must really believe in something.

[B]

Okay, yeah.

[A]

And so, but to me, that's a lower level version of this one here, where in six months, in a year, 90% of us won't remember this particular fight that Anthropic had with Trump and the government and Hexag.

[B]

But we'll have positive, kind of.

[A]

Yeah, we will have a implicitly positive association in the back of our head. And what contrasted with Sam Altman and OpenAI, which seems like the most sort of zero sum group of people around, or Grok, and that's Elon. Same kind of thing, or perplexity or Gemini or whatever, there's multiple players in the space and I think Anthropic will generate far more long term goodwill and economic value that you grant.

[B]

There's a risk though, right? Because precisely because of all those companies you mentioned, Anthropic's in a very competitive

[A]

situation and you're talking about hundreds in 14 billion in revenue. 200 million. Even if it's triple it to 600 million. Here's the thing, when they go public, their valuation right now I think last time I checked was like 350 or something like that. So a $14 billion revenue company with a 353, 80 billion, right? Yeah. So it's something a 27x multiple on revenue. Revenue. Not even EBITDA, just revenue. There's no EBITDA obviously that's not a sustainable fundamental thing. But some companies, and Tesla was certainly one of these, kind of live in a world of suspended reality where there is retail investor belief and enthusiasm that drives the share price in a way that does not reflect the actual economic or fundamentals at all. I think Anthropic has the possibility at least of being that type of company. And if it is, I think when you look back at the story of anthropic 10, 20 years from now, this will be a turning point where its reputation was solidified in a way because they took a short term hit in something that will ultimately derive a much bigger long term gain. I'm not saying that this is all totally cynical ploy B Anthropic. They very well may absolutely believe in what they're saying or they may not, I don't know. But either way I think it is absolutely brilliant. Politics and position.

[B]

Let's. You mentioned Jack Dorsey. I'm curious how you thought of that news. Is that like there are some people saying oh, they were overstaffed anyway and this is just a kind of like maybe and, and, but do you think somebody sticking their neck out like this is in a sense a good thing?

[A]

Because how did he stick his neck out?

[B]

Well, I mean he fired 4,000 people, right?

[A]

That's he chop their necks off, heads off. How did he. He didn't hurt himself. He hurt other people for his own benefit.

[B]

Right, but I'm just saying in public opinion, right. People aren't going around saying Jack Dorsey is a great guy, right?

[A]

No, but no one, no people, people

[B]

who close GM plants that aren't celebrated for like, oh, they're doing a great celebrating Jack Dorsey. Well, the point is he, he takes a reputational hit.

[A]

But he had to because, I mean,

[B]

did he have to?

[A]

Well, if you run a company and you are overstaffed or you have a way to significantly reduce your costs, that's what you do, right? So he didn't, he did what companies do, which is to try to have the highest amount of revenue at the lowest cost to deliver the Greatest profit. So I don't think he did anything particularly noble or not noble. No, it's just there's normal corporate activity, right?

[B]

I mean, there are other ways of handling it. Right? You, you would, you would do it more slowly. You would do.

[A]

But that's, this is not. You're thinking about it from the way that like government would do it because.

[B]

No, but other companies respond to like, like, like companies definitely do not make big huge layoff announcements. Like, they don't feel good about doing that. GM does not like celebrate the closing of.

[A]

You think Jack Dorsey was like yay me when he did it?

[B]

No, no, I, no, I don't think he was yay me at all. I just wonder if he was. If he was. I guess.

[A]

I mean, to me the only thing that's noteworthy is just, it's another sign that the efficiency tools of AI are developed enough to replace a lot of human beings. And quite frankly, like, so, for example.

[B]

Well, if it's true. If so, if it's true at Block, it's got to be true at lots of other companies that haven't made big announcements like, well, but there, last year

[A]

there were tons of layoffs at big tech firms.

[B]

A 40% layoff at one company. I mean, like Amazon's like 5%, 3%, like just because.

[A]

But if they could, they would lay off 40% for sure. If Amazon or Google or anyone else could replace their employees with exponentially cheaper technology and reduce their personnel cost by 40%, they would absolutely do so. It would be almost their legal fact. I'm not sure that a shareholder couldn't sue them if they didn't do so. So I don't know. To me, that's just the. You can't put the genie back in the bottle. You can't say, oh, you know, we have so many people who deliver milk and horse and buggies that even though the car is here, we're just going to keep the horse and buggies going anyway. That doesn't work. So now look, I would argue a

[B]

lot of companies actually do do that.

[A]

So like those companies fail, you shouldn't invest in those companies. So like, you can't refuse to make companies more efficient and reduce their expenses by ignoring the tools that exist. You have to figure out new ways to create jobs and industries and train people and everything else. And, and the opportunities that are going to come as a result of the new technology that's doing this. Now look, I will say that I think AI is a little over celebrated for its efficiency tools in the sense that this is not revolutionary. It's a, it's another. You know, Microsoft Word was an efficiency tool. Right. That typewriter was an efficiency tool. So like, maybe I would. Typing is pretty fucking painful.

[B]

But like, well, compared to what it was before.

[A]

So like every, every advancement, every time is an efficiency. I guess there's some sort of a greater standard deviation on maybe some of the AI efficiency tools. But like, you know, to me, like, automation has always been a thing.

[B]

We've talked around it. But you do believe there'll be significant white collar job loss? Like, and.

[A]

Absolutely.

[B]

And is that so is this is sort of tip of the iceberg stuff with Dorsey, you think?

[A]

I think that he is doing what lots of companies are doing and some of them get more attention than others. Jack Dorsey is a really high profile guy and he seeks attention no matter what. So that's part of it.

[B]

Well, I guess that's partially what I was talking about. Like there, there does seem to be an attention grabbing aspect to this.

[A]

That seems to be who he is. Right? You know, fine. But ultimately you can't, you know, like take New York City and driverless taxis. Like, Mondani hates Uber, he hates Waymo, he hates anything that is not a traditional yellow taxi being driven by a human being. And could he use his power to try to forestall this for a couple of years? Yeah, probably. But in doing so, ultimately, long term, he's gonna do more harm than good. When we did Uber rather than the TLC and the city and just traps everywhere saying, okay, this thing's coming, how do we anticipate it? And if the well being of taxi drivers is a societal concern, how do we sort of adjust? And for it, they just said, no Uber and then they got their ass kicked. And then all of a sudden, Uber, we were allowed to operate in full because they couldn't stop us because we changed the politics of the issue. And then taxi was basically decimated as a result. Medallion prices in New York went from $1.3 million to like $130,000. So same thing is true here. Like, yeah, maybe you can sort of could have muck it up for a little while, but at the same time, imagine that if you were Mondani and you were trying to be thoughtful about this, to actually help the drivers as opposed to just sort of making narrative stands for your own kind of political well being. You would say, this thing's coming, I'm not going to be able to stop it long term. And what can we do to take these people who drive Taxis and make sure that as Waymo's displaced yellow taxis, we are taking care of them. And you could create a licensing system for, for autonomous taxi. Doesn't have to be way more. By the way, Tesla's got Uber. I mean, there's certainly other companies too and say in order to have a license in New York City, to have an autonomous taxi, you have to pay X amount of money. And that goes into a fund for drivers, just like the Black car fund goes to a fundraiser for drivers. So fundamentally, progress is always going to move forward. Technology, progress, it all, it's inevitable. And if it. The minute it stops being inevitable is the minute the human race stops existing. So, you know, trying to pretend it's not real, you know, that's the Soviet Union. So.

[B]

But, but you do. You cited the bunch of the polls of how people feel about AI, Right? And so politicians will respond to that and.

[A]

But, but they can't. Yeah, fine, but it's not. Politicians can't tell companies that they can't lay people off. Politicians could, you know, someone like Elizabeth Warren will try to create some sort of like financial penalty, tax, whatever it is, or, you know, if it's an area where the government has licensing authority, it could use that to do so, things like that. But those are typically at the margins, by and large. The other big problem, though, to make it even more depressing, is the way that I think the government's going to respond is going to say worker training, because that sounds really good. And they're going to throw tens of billions of dollars at it. And I'm all for worker training, but I don't know what you're training them in. Right. So will there be in 20 years, industries that we just can't think of today that AI made possible? Absolutely. Right. For sure. Just like think about your wife's job that wouldn't have existed pre Internet, but until you know what they are, it's really hard to train people to do that. So not only is AI unpopular, I think it's gonna get much worse because you're gonna have this big job displacement. People are gonna be really suffering and there's not gonna be an immediate solution to help them. That's a big reason why I believe in universal basic income. And by the way, to Andrew Yang's credit, he was the one when he wrote his book the War on Normal People in like the middle, I don't know, 2015. Whenever that book came out, he didn't necessarily call it automation, maybe AI, but nonetheless it's what he Meant, which is, you know, all forms of technology reduce the need for workers in existing industries. They also eventually lead to new industries. But there's always a period of time in between. Just like, think about all of the small businesses that, you know, got taken out by the Internet. Think about this bookstore that we're sitting in right now. This was a charity project, right? I couldn't run an actual bookstore at even, even break even, let alone a profit. I know some people do, but in New York City it seems really fudgeing hard given the wages you have to pay and all of the, you know, laws around, you know, employment and the rent and everything else, insurance and everything else. So every utility cost, everything is really high. And so there was a lot of job displacement by the Internet, but there was also a lot of job creation by the Internet. I think AI is the same thing. It's just going to be much more severe and a much faster. And that's going to create this gulf of time where you're going to feel the pain of it. You're not going to see the benefits of it yet. And that's what's going to happen. And by the way, I also, I do believe has the potential to solve massive societal problems that will then eventually change its perception. So like, take climb. You know, I'm drinking a can of Celsius right now. I guess I'll put it in the blue bin instead of the black bin. But you know where it all goes? In the fucking landfill. And I'm fine with all the various government regulations to try to limit emissions and improve recycling and everything else, but it seems to me that it's pretty simple. Either we're gonna figure out how to remove carbon from the atmosphere and store it underground and that is gonna reduce the temperature of the earth. Cause there will be less car the atmosphere. Or we're not. And there's a carbon capture industry already, but it's very nascent. And it's not there like there are people building some test plans. Like there's some stuff happening, but they don't really know how to do it yet. I do think that AI has the potential to figure that out. And then it will still require a massive governmental global investment of probably trillions of dollars to build these plants. But. But it will be worth it. But you won't. If it's going to happen, it's going to be because of AI, all kinds of fatal diseases that. So I had a, you know, full body scan today per nouveau. And when do they.

[B]

When do you find out what's the timeline on.

[A]

I know I don't. Because I had one two years ago, but I don't remember if it was like a week or three weeks. But, like, I'll get the results and God willing, there won't be anything terrible. But, you know, if there were, in 10 years, I will probably have come up with the ability to cure a lot of things that today might not be curable. Because when you can take all kinds of combinations of molecules and then synthetically test them through AI like think about GLP1s. It was meant as a, you know, a diabetes drug to reduce food noise for people who had diabetes, because obesity obviously makes it worse. And then it just turned out that. And they didn't know this when they invented it, that it had all these cardiovascular benefits and neurodegenerative benefits and cancer prevention benefits and metabolic benefits and maybe even some mental health benefits and things like addiction recovery and everything else. And that was kind of by accident. So when you start doing it deliberately. So AI, I think, will ultimately both produce lots of new industries. It will make our lives easier and better in lots of ways, and it will solve major, major societal problems. But there's going to be a real gap between the two. And so just to sort of bring this back around, Anthropic, there's going to be a period of time where the AI companies are really fucking unpopular. And it seems to me that the only one that seems to have any awareness of this is Anthropic. Right. The rest of them just seem to act as if everyone's goal in life is to make sure that a handful of guys, these companies, become trillionaires. It's like, so are the people at Anthropic any more inherently moral? I don't know. But do they come off more moral through this situation? Absolutely.

[B]

You mentioned Mamdani. So he went down to the White House yesterday. I guess he went in disguise. Did you see the picture of him holding up the fake copy of the Daily News?

[A]

Oh, I saw that.

[B]

I didn't see.

[A]

What was the disguise?

[B]

Oh, I mean, he just wore a mask. I think he wore like a. Not like a. Like he wore like a, you know.

[A]

What kind of mask?

[B]

No, just like a. You know, like a. Oh.

[A]

Cause. To show that you're virtuous and.

[B]

No, no, no. I just think he didn't want to be recognized on the train on the way down there so that people would. People would blow up the. The meeting that. That's the account. I read that he just.

[A]

Why would the Mask fully.

[B]

Just because people wouldn't recognize him on

[A]

the train, wouldn't the rest of his face still be visible?

[B]

Yeah, but if you just saw a

[A]

guy, didn't he have a security detail with him and staff?

[B]

I don't know. I didn't see all that. They just said he was wearing a

[A]

mask on the train.

[B]

I'm gonna. I'm gonna. I'll call.

[A]

That makes no sense.

[B]

Okay. Anyway, so he has this weird.

[A]

Have you been around the mayor? I mean, there's like, we talked to him in here. Yeah, no, but before he was mayor. I'm saying, not this mayor. A mayor of New York City. There's, like a whole security team around.

[B]

There's eight guys. Yeah.

[A]

There's a lead car. There's the guys with them.

[B]

Well, he definitely. I mean, he went on the train, so I think.

[A]

But there's, like, staff. This is not like, I don't know,

[B]

maybe left him at home. I'm not sure.

[A]

Maybe.

[B]

All right, keep going. So. So he's. Somebody called him the Trump whisperer. He managed to get the student at Columbia released. He apparently made some deal on the housing project that he wants to do. 12,000 units of housing. Now, one of the things that there was like, a column in New York magazine this week said Lamdani, surprisingly moderate start. The mayor is governing like a big city liberal. His base seems undeterred. Is that how it appears to you? Is he managing like a big city liberal?

[A]

It's a really good question. Right. So big city liberal would just basically mean a normal big city mayor.

[B]

Yeah.

[A]

Right. Because you don't really have that many cities that have, like, firebrand conservatives. Right. It's an excellent question. So the arguments to the contrary would be, I think his refusal to clear the homeless encampments, which he changed, he backed off on, but 19 people died. Right. That was putting his, you know, coffee shop, Crown Heights ultra left progressive theory ahead of real people in their lives, and 19 people lost their lives as a result. That is certainly not moderate or pragmatic. I think NYPD officers pelted in the face with ice and rocks, and him just calling it a snowball fight. And then Alvin Brett, who's been on the podcast and who I like a lot personally, I think was absolutely wrong to not bring charges against the people who did that. I think it's very much not that, because Mondani, it feels like. Or let's say this because I don't talk to Jesse to. So I know her, but I don't talk to her. So it's not like I can tell you what's happening there, but the media, at the very least is pushing for a big blow up between the picture. Right. And I don't know if either of them are heading in that direction personally or not. But, you know, if he pushes her away, either because he takes stances that she feels are really antithetical to what she believes in, or because he's doing it deliberately so he can say, well, I tried and, you know, now I need someone who believes in no law enforcement and no prisons and no punishment and no everything else. That is certainly not a pragmatic approach at all. I think his tax bill is not pragmatic where he said, you know, I'm going to have to raise property taxes if you don't raise income taxes. Now, I understand that the key desire of the far left is to raise tax to the 1%, not in order to create more revenue to help poor people, but because they are angry that they're not at the 1% and they want punishment. You know, if you can't achieve things and the next thing you can do is try to create a tribunal and, you know, punish everyone who has achieved something. So, you know, he might get a tax increase, but, you know, it could certainly drive more people away and there's plenty of evidence that that happened. So, no, I think as I go through it, I think he's made some good appointments on the operational side, and I don't think he has been a disaster at all. But I think elements of that sort of super progressive part of his philosophy has been evident in his governance.

[B]

I'm gonna throw back a question at you that you articulated over our text exchange. How much do you think the progressivism of young people today reflects the world they live in and they're reacting to the different societal conditions that have them feeling hopeless and angry and outraged. And how much is just that? This is what young people with ideals but no life experience do.

[A]

Yeah, you know, I've been thinking about this because I'm now old enough to be able to complain about young people, right?

[B]

Did you just start?

[A]

I think last couple of years it's gotten a lot worse. Um, and then the other day, I think it's when I texted you, I was like, you know what? Because you know what it was specifically, I was just. It was like some random article about how like students at some university in California were able to like get the New York Times for free and rejected it because it's too conservative. Fucking idiots. You know, you're Going to deny yourself access to information and knowledge because it doesn't check every box that you think something needs to based on you having zero life experience in anything. And so first I was like, you know, this world is coming to an end. But you know what? Maybe that's always been the case. I mean, how do you think the sort of greatest generation that fought World War II felt about their hippie kids, right? Or I mean, even us. Like, I remember Rodney King happened and I was all, you know, I was outraged about that and I, when I was in college, it was a march in Philadelphia and I went on the march and, you know, no justice.

[B]

But that was outrageous, right? Certainly beating the shit out of him.

[A]

But the point is, young people are definitionally reacting to a world that they see but they haven't really experienced yet.

[B]

Right.

[A]

Like, to me, the people who are kind of shameful are on either side of the extreme, who are adults and should know better and yet still live in an ivory tower. Or like the cybersecurity professors that hate mobile voting. Like, I understand that their whole identity is how smart they are. And so they think because they're so smart they understand everything. And like, are they right? Could something ever go wrong with mobile voting? Sure, you know, and that's why we want to start it out at the municipal level for local elections as an option, among other forms of voting and kind of see what works from there and go from there. But these are people that seem to be completely ignorant of how government works, how politics works, the reality of where we are today, the risk of inaction, and yet because they sort of live in this very, very narrow world, if they do hurt our ability to make mobile voting happen, then I would say that the blood of this country is on their hands. And their arrogance and their shortsightedness is the result of that, or you know, the product is the cause of that. An 18 year old. I'm just. As much as I like to sort of say that, you know, kids today seem totally clueless and they're arguing for a world that makes no fucking sense. On the other hand, one, that's what probably young people do. And two, a lot of important societal changes have also happened because young people have been the ones out front demanding them. And quite frankly, if mobile voting happens, it's because we mobilized enough of Gen Z to demand it and make it happen. And so. Right.

[B]

So you gotta not put down the youth. You need them.

[A]

Yeah. So I just think that like, I've been too, I've been too sort of like naive. Not naive like I, like I should be a little more generous and a little more understanding of. These are the patterns of the evolution of one's life as opposed to there is something specifically wrong with these. Yeah. Now with that said, if you want even more generous, these kids have also grown up with social media which is a destructive force in people's lives. And so not only do they have all the general naivete of youth, but then this fucking nasty thing like just bombarding them 24 7.

[B]

Well I'm glad you mentioned that because you've teed up our next subject. So there's a 20 year old woman suing Meta and YouTube claiming she got hooked on Instagram as a child.

[A]

Was the California.

[B]

California case. It's deliberately addictive features like infinite scroll and beauty filters cause her depression, anxiety and suicidal thoughts. Yeah, she is. Mark Zuckerberg has been testifying in that trial. What is this? Is this a kind of big tobacco moment? Is this. Or I guess more specifically, you've talked a lot about the, the need to repeal Section 230 to sort of unleash these.

[A]

First of all, I think 1,000% accurate. Correct? Right. Like for sure we know this.

[B]

Right.

[A]

So then the question is okay, but is it illegal?

[B]

Right?

[A]

I'm not sure. Right. I would like it to be. And the reason why I want to repeal section 230 is then that would create. It's a little bit. 230 would be for kind of defamation, slander as opposed to what she's talking about. But I would like there to be legal causes of action against the metas of the world specifically. But at the same time it'll be up to the, you know, to the court to determine whether or not. Like I don't think there's really any debate that meta was 1000% aware of these massive harms that their products were doing and chose to ignore it. Sort of the anti. If anthropic is genuinely doing what they're doing out of principle. Mark Zuckerberg is the opposite. Right. He is purely for his own wealth at the expense of everything else literally killing kids. So is that true? Absolutely. Is it illegal? I don't know. You know, Big Tobacco from what I remember, committed all kinds of fraud in their marketing of their products.

[B]

Yeah, they lied.

[A]

The legal liability. I don't know if that's the case here.

[B]

I'm gonna read you a quote from Chuck Klosterman.

[A]

His book football.

[B]

He sort of.

[A]

I got bored with it and stopped reading it after like 30 pages.

[B]

You have to say, I liked it. I really liked it. I listened to it and I know Chuck a little bit and there was something, in a really good way, it felt like I was just like sitting around talking to him.

[A]

Maybe I'll try to listen to it. I like listening to him on Bill Simmons.

[B]

Yeah, I really enjoyed it. And I didn't really expect to because while I like football a lot, like, I'm not. I'm not that interested in it. I just like to watch the game.

[A]

That's funny.

[B]

Me too.

[A]

I thought it was sports. So football, I really love to watch it. I don't like talking about it, I don't like reading about it, and I don't listen to football podcasts. Baseball, I love to talk about it. I love to watch it. And yet, whether it's because there are no good baseball podcasts or just because maybe more likely that I'm just not.

[B]

Do you not like Joe Posjnanski?

[A]

I get for a while and that kind of. He's been on the pod. I like him.

[B]

He's a great writer. Yeah.

[A]

Yeah. For some reason, basketball seems to be the sport where I like to watch it. I like to read about it. I like to listen to people talk about.

[B]

Right, right. Yeah. I don't listen to any baseball podcasts either, but I really like. I love the guy who does River Avenue Blues rib on the Yankees. I mean, you're not a Yankees fan. Yeah, but you. I asked you.

[A]

I do listen to the Met Fix podcast by our friends Blake Zef and Peter Cow.

[B]

Well, and I subscribe to metsfix, the substack or whatever it is on your recommendation. And I. It's good, but it's. And, and also I'm not as much of a Mets fan, but it's the level of detail that that Art River Avenue Blues guy goes into. It's just insane. I mean, it's so crazy. I was reading something the other day about like. Like their third baseman's, like his. The. The separation of his feet in his batting stance.

[A]

Right. I'm not sure how interested.

[B]

Yeah, it was crazy. I liked it. But I. I don't. I don't understand how many people possibly could. Anyway, Chuck Klosserman, you ready? Political theory. This is from this quote from his book on football. The public response to any protest, or really to any political movement, small or large, always breaks into three camps. The first comprises activists who unequivocally support the protesters message and view them as a hero. The second are those who automatically hate the protests and see it as an ungrateful attack on the society they value. These two camps dominate the discourse, but they live on the margins, and their opinions are taken seriously only by those who already agree or who are looking for a fight.

[A]

Fine, I'll agree. Yeah.

[B]

The people who matter are the people in Camp 3, where the reactions are less predictable, though not necessarily because the constituents are more open minded or better at critical thinking. More often, responses emerging from Camp 3 are based on something personal or arbitrary. Such a person might support a violent protest when they see it on the news, but not if the riot is happening too close to their own neighborhood. They might disagree with the protest in theory, but they'll sympathize with an especially earnest protester who reminds them of a younger version of themselves. They might have no fixed opinion at all, but they'll create an intractable and irretractible one if they go to a dinner party. And that's the topic of conversation.

[A]

Yeah.

[B]

Mainstream traction for any movement inevitably comes down to how convincing it appears to the uninvested residents of Camp 3. The defining perception of a political idea is dictated by the people who don't particularly care about the idea itself. See?

[A]

No, it's funny. I agreed with everything.

[B]

Right.

[A]

And then it all made sense. And I disagree with the conclusion because ultimately, though, it's like as if he is somehow not living in the same America as the rest of us, which is. The first two groups do dominate the discourse, and that dominates the outcomes because that's what politicians pay attention to. And those are the people who vote in primaries. And that's what the media gets excited about. And that 80% in the middle gets ignored. Maybe in something like a presidential election, if you have something where there is a. The people. That 80% are actually engaged in an action.

[B]

Right.

[A]

Yes. And perhaps if it's something like a war where all of a sudden the public turns against it and people who are in the 80% start taking action about it. Sure, absolutely. Yeah. I think you only need like 3 and a half to 5% of a population to engage in an issue to usually then change the outcome on it.

[B]

And that's that. That's a paper you're reading by Erica Chenoweth. Yeah, that's the one. So, yeah, three, 3.5% of.

[A]

And she was talking about like regime of overthrow, violence of authoritarian regime, stuff like that.

[B]

But does it apply to a. I

[A]

think so, because I've read other things that. That. That you suggest. Yes. So like, I think Klosterman's specific kind of buckets that he puts people into make sense, but I don't really understand the conclusion. Do you, do you agree with him?

[B]

Well, I think he's almost going for like a provocative flip at the end where he's like saying that they don't care about the idea itself. And I think that's not necessarily true.

[A]

Well, the other thing is, what do you make of some. Again, I like listening to Chuck Klosterman when he's on a podcast.

[B]

Right.

[A]

But a. His value in his mind and I guess economically is having this sort of hot take, counterintuitive take on things which sometimes might be accurate, but a lot of times is not. And second, he's, you know, he's a smart guy, but he's just a guy that like observes shit and write about it. He doesn't do anything. He has no experience in the world. He's never like done anything other than what I'm aware of than just like look at stuff and then have, you know.

[B]

But there's a whole industry of people

[A]

like that for sure. So the question is, how seriously should we take any of their opinions or how much time should we give them? To me, when it's something trivial like sports, great. But when it comes to real stuff that actually matters, like, I don't know, like this guy doesn't, you know, it's. He's. Is he that different than the 18 year old kid? I don't know.

[B]

Yeah, well, he might be able to. I guess the point is he might be able to show us things. Right? Because he does. I think one of, one of Chuck's really.

[A]

But it's not based on deep research.

[B]

Well, it depends on what it is. I don't know this idea particularly, I mean when he starts talking about things about, you know, rock music or, or sports, he seems to like have a really deep understanding of like, you know, deep research into some of those things. Like he knows. I remember reading like a. His ranking of like the top. I mean he ranked every single Van Halen song once. Like, I don't know, there's like 300 of them.

[A]

Well, but is the ranking based on anything more than his opinion?

[B]

Well, but it's based on his opinion and popularity and the song sort of legacy and history.

[A]

But is he looking at empirical data or is he just.

[B]

There's no empirical data.

[A]

Here's what I. Well, no, you could, you could say the Van. This Van Halen song. So, you know, reach this on the charts of that one.

[B]

Yeah, but it's not popularity, it's sort of. It's cultural sort of.

[A]

Yeah. So it's just him making up.

[B]

Yeah.

[A]

But, well, like, again, I enjoy him in some ways, but I do wonder.

[B]

But when he trays you to politics, it gets.

[A]

Let me. This is me both somewhat arrogantly and somewhat, I think, accurately saying that people who have opinions, that their job is to broadcast those opinions, but that is the entirety of what they've ever done or do I think those opinions are frequently, unless they are grounded in like major empirical research, less credible and useful than people who have real world experience in doing the thing itself, in whatever it is. It's why students always say, like, they always love their adjunct professors that are actually practitioners of whatever it is that they're studying more than the people in the ivory tower who've never actually done the thing. They just sort of like, you know, study. They, they just, you know, whatever.

[B]

Project 2029, have you read about that at all? Those are controversy about it. I mean, I don't even know what it is. So it's just the idea that the Democrats need a kind of like policy statement along the lines of, of The Republicans Project 2025.

[A]

So Project 25, as I understand it, and what I read is, is like a very doctrinaire, very conservative.

[B]

Yeah.

[A]

Think how is it good for the Democrats to come up with the ultra left wing version of that?

[B]

Well, let's say it's not the ultra left wing version, but is in fact a clear statement of like what a Democratic regime would do in 2020 to see it.

[A]

But you know what's interesting is, is

[B]

that a good idea generally or like if they.

[A]

Yeah, I mean, it's absolutely needed. I just. The question is, what will they produce? Right. So Trump's numbers are, you know, kind of basically 40, 60. Right. And it, it's kind of always been that he's much more unpopular than he is popular. But the problem is no one has any particular confidence in the Democrats either. So they're not any more popular. And even though in theory I think they'll do well in the midterms. But overall, I can't tell you what the Democratic Party really stands for. I can tell you what the far left stands for, but I can also tell you that 90% of the country doesn't agree with that. Right. So that's not good. And I think the problem is, and especially when you have people like. I like Hakeem Jeffries a lot, but he's a very cautious guy. I don't really know exactly what he believes in. And I think, you know, he might be a successful speaker because he is able to sort of, you know, manage a coalition of different views and balance them and everything else and that might be what's needed. But like if Project 2029, if it's either a, an ultra left wing screed, if it's the DSA manifesto, harmful for them, if it is a mealy mouthed white paper from CAP or some Washington think tank that's poll tested a million times and has to mention a name check every group and every this and well, we can't offend this one. We can't say that also not only useless but reinforces the notion that these are a bunch of like, just annoying, like, like sissies, you know. And so like I am in theory. Yes. I'd love to see it that somehow

[B]

you need people to see the good version of it.

[A]

Well, I would say it cannot be written by anybody who lives or works in Washington D.C. nor can it be written by or Chuck Klosterman or Chuck Klosterman, nor could it be written by anybody associated with the dsa. Right. So I don't even know who that. I guess it's, you know, those sort of mainstream Democratic governors running for president. I don't know.

[B]

Okay. Empire Report, you read that every day or look at it for a second. Right. I love it. It's like it's so entertaining. The upstate stuff.

[A]

I always love it. Some crazy. Yeah. I also like. Yeah, they do JP Miller, who runs it, does a really good job of condensing a headline into a way that makes you want to learn more.

[B]

Yeah. So you know, they do the little headline thing at the top of it, the major, the major stuff of the day. And there were two that were right next to each other. One was Governor Hochul is the most popular she's ever been to edit. You know, her 17% positive approval or 17% margin of approval versus disapproval. And then right below that was to one out of three residents of New York State wants to leave.

[A]

Yeah.

[B]

So how do those things, two things coexist? A very popular governor and one out of three people wants to leave the state.

[A]

I. Well, first of all, you know, her, her approval rating is the best it's ever been. And I do think she's doing a good job. Yeah. But it's still not like she's got an 80% approval rating. Like there's still, if you look at the disapprove or people who think it seems to me to be logically consistent, said this person is doing a good job with what they have to work with.

[B]

Right.

[A]

With, you know, and we have very limited expectations of what anyone can achieve in government anyway, combined with do I like being here. And, you know, if you believe that the taxes are too high, which they are, and if you believe the weather sucks, which it does, and especially if you don't live in New York City and it's an upstate town with very limited economic mobility and opportunity, then it, you know, would make sense to put that a third of people would feel that way. So I don't know, they don't seem bothered, they don't seem inconsistent to me.

[B]

What were the numbers when we were kids about New York City? Was it like 2/3 of new Yorkers, New York City residents want to leave? Like, wasn't that like a post something crazy?

[A]

Yeah, I mean, always look, and in some ways with New York City, it's meant to have a turn. Right? So you have, you have people who live here because they're New York born here, live here, and they're either here because they're poor and they're trapped. Right. Or they're very wealthy and they can sort of afford to deal with all the hassles of living here. And then everyone else is often people who come from around America and around the world because this is where they want to be. And they think that, you know, they're highly ambitious and they want to make it in their field, and some of them do so and stay. And a lot of them, you know, ultimately kind of say, okay, I've had that experience, I'm ready to move on, or they don't make it on Broadway or whatever it is, and they go back to wherever they're from and then more people come in. And so I think the nature of New York City is such that there is a natural churn. And I'm not sure that's even a bad thing. Yeah, the problem, the bad thing is if the people who pay the taxes leave because then the poor people don't have money for the things that they need. And I do think that we have had significant departure of high income earners, high income taxpayers in the past decade. And if that continues to happen, then the city is in a really bad spot.

[B]

So chip maker Nvidia.

[A]

Yeah.

[B]

Got smacked by the markets this week, even though it came out with a report that could not have been more fantastic.

[A]

Yeah.

[B]

Does that make sense to you?

[A]

Yes, because one, it never should have been a $5 trillion company. That's ridiculous. But two, it's this totally circular economy where all the various hyperscalers, whether it's, you know, anthropic and OpenAI and Grok or whoever, and then ADM and Nvidia and intel and all the different pieces of the puzzle, just reaching deals to invest in each other, buy each other's products, finance each other's deals. But it's totally circular. It has to translate into actual revenue from consumers at some point or businesses at some point. And if it's just sort of moving numbers from one column to another, I'm not sure how real it is. And by the way, Nvidia might be getting more and more orders from the, from the hyperscalers because they feel like they need it. But if the data centers that have to be built in order for these companies to actually operate can't be built because politically politicians are not going to allow, I think rightfully so, in some cases, data centers that impose massive negative externalities on consumers, whether it's electricity prices or sucking up a lot of the water usage or anything else, then they can't actually build the fucking things. So, like, it's all theoretical. And yeah, you know, their orders may be up, but if all of a sudden seven major states say no data centers here for the next three years, five years, whatever it is, 30 say, yeah, you can't do it if you are going to impose major energy costs. And Nvidia's chips are incredibly energy intensive and they have a new platform now that's, you know, better. But compared to alternate compute companies that have chips that are 100 to 1,000 times more efficient, it doesn't mean anything. And so you have public sentiment against AI. You have significant limitations on the creation of data centers. And also, who the fuck's going to buy all the AI products? Everyone's out of work. So no, I just think, you know, the market tends to run on frequently on narratives and then eventually reality sets in if you're like, oh yeah, things are. The magic dust isn't actually real. And that's what I think people are realizing here.

[B]

Two more questions. So spring training is on, is sort of here. It's happening. What's your level of hope and fear about the Mets pitching?

[A]

More optimistic. You know, I'm always optimistic at this time of year.

[B]

I know I had to talk you out of taking the Mets bet on the pretty.

[A]

Lyle and I had this conversation last night about the Mets rotation where he was pretty negative about it.

[B]

You took the other side.

[A]

Yeah, because, I mean, this is the listeners, unless you're A Mets fan are going to be totally bored by this. But. So Freddie Peralta is your number one. He's a very good pitcher, right? Noel McClain, maybe last year was a fluke, but it's not like he was good. He was outstanding. And he is supposed to be outstanding, right? He's considered the number one prospect in baseball and a lot of lists, so that makes sense to me. So then you're 3, 4, 5, 6 some. If you have a 6 some combination of Peterson, who had a great first half last year, made the all star team as a, you know, as a replacement, still made it and they had a terrible second half, but I think it was just over usage. So they've got to regulate that a bit. Mania, who may be done or they claim he was injured. So if he's healthy two years ago he was fantastic. Senga, who again in the first half of the year before he got hurt, had like a one, the lowest ERA in baseball and then fell apart. And he's kind of a head case too. And then Clay Holmes, who quite frankly I believe should be in the bullpen simply because it would make our bullpen meaningfully better. And we can't have a six man rotation. And I don't think he is as good as any of the guys that I just named. And he can't really get through the rotation more than through the lineup more than twice because his arm, he's a reliever arm, just doesn't have that, that kind of strength. So in a. If everything goes wrong, yes, it's a disaster. But every. But. But there's a world where Peralta is Peralta, this is who McClain is. Peterson is at least a solid pitcher. Sanga is healthy and producing. Maniah is, you know, it was an injury thing, not an age thing. And then in terms of depth, you do have Holmes, you have Tong, who needs more seasoning in the minors, but is ultra talented. You have Christian Scott who has, you know, recovered from Tommy John surgery. And usually oftentimes when those guys come back because their army's been rested for a year and a half, two years, they're really strong. And then they also got Tobias Meyers in the Peralta trade and he's pretty good pitcher, you know, I think he'll end up right now in the bullpen as kind of a long man. But so you got four legitimate backup guys and five, you know, potentially pretty good pitchers. People have all been successful.

[B]

So.

[A]

No. And then when it comes to the. I disagree with Lyle and then when it comes to the bullpen, Lucian Diaz was terrible, but hopefully Devin Williams will be good. And when you look at these, sort of.

[B]

I like Weaver, too, a lot.

[A]

Right. You have Weaver, you have Garcia, you have Rayleigh. Minter is coming back. I would love to see Holmes in the bullpen. And then some of the other potential starter. Backup starters I mentioned could be good. Bill. Bullpen guys, too. And so, you know, maybe I'm just sort of. You know, it's spring training, so I'm overly optimistic, but. No, I think it could be good.

[B]

One more question. How do you feel?

[A]

I mean, with that said, the Yankees rotation is crazy. Like, it's the best in baseball by. Other than maybe the Dodgers. I felt by a lot like you guys should be. Your pitching should be incredible.

[B]

I guess. I. I don't. I don't trust anything about the Yankees. I don't know what it is, but,

[A]

I mean, you have. Yeah, yeah. And you have run down and you have Slidler. Yup. And Gill. And Garrett Cole's coming back. Right. At some point, so, like.

[B]

Yeah, we'll see.

[A]

So seems like a great rotation.

[B]

Clark Schmidt coming back.

[A]

I would trade you our rotation for yours.

[B]

Yeah. Yeah.

[A]

Although.

[B]

Although there's. There is some upside in the. In the. In the. In the Mets, too. That. That is exciting. I mean, I think McLean is good and. And be. Whatever. There's. There's. I mean, the Yankees have some older guys whose arms could fly off.

[A]

Didn't the Yankees sign another picture this offseason? No, no, no.

[B]

They didn't bring in a big.

[A]

Okay.

[B]

Big starting picture. Okay. So I was talking to Jenna here at the store about the World Cup. You know, it's coming up, and we were talking about soccer books, and it occurred to me.

[A]

What?

[B]

You've never read a book on soccer, right?

[A]

Never.

[B]

And how do you think I could possibly convince you to read one? Like what?

[A]

It has to be a great novel that happens to be about soccer.

[B]

Okay, so it has to be a novel.

[A]

Yeah. I don't care enough about soccer to read a nonfiction book.

[B]

Have you. Do you like Nick Hornby, generally, as a writer?

[A]

Oh, I read Fever Pitch.

[B]

You read Fever Pitch. Okay, so that's a book about soccer.

[A]

I like that a lot.

[B]

Okay.

[A]

Yeah. All right.

[B]

So you've read a book about soccer?

[A]

I have.

[B]

Because I think if we did a top five soccer books, I'm pretty sure Fever Pitch would be on there. Sure.

[A]

So I love that.

[B]

Have you read among the Thugs?

[A]

Nope.

[B]

Okay. Do you know what that is?

[A]

Nope.

[B]

Okay. It's A book about soccer violence in the 80s.

[A]

But is it a novel or. It's a.

[B]

No, no, no, it's nonfiction, but it's an incredibly well written book.

[A]

I mean, look, I want. Lyle and are going to the World Cup. We have our tickets already for Brazil, Morocco. I'm gonna see if I can figure out a way to go to the finals because they're gonna be here as well, which I know is sort of a waste.

[B]

Yeah, I might have to like, mug you and take your tickets and.

[A]

No, I mean, I like the. I like big events. Right. Just like I like the Olympics. So, like, I'm excited about it. So I'm open to.

[B]

Open to maybe reading something else.

[A]

Correct.

[B]

Okay. All right. Well, I mean, among the thugs is good. It really has nothing at all. Maybe that's do with the World cup, but it is. Yeah, it's definitely soccer. Yeah.

[A]

Because I don't know really anything about soccer. Like, but how the USA team, you think can make what let's. What's their. What's their best case and worst case scenarios?

[B]

Well, I mean, the worst case scenario is that they don't literally don't make it out of group. Right. Which.

[A]

And we're only. We're automatically in it because we're the host. Right.

[B]

Yeah. Although I think.

[A]

Would we be in it no matter what?

[B]

Not no matter what? Because good teams don't make it every year. Although they expanded the field this year, so, yeah, we'd be in it.

[A]

Okay.

[B]

I mean, the team is.

[A]

Who's our best player?

[B]

I mean, that's the thing is that, like, it's.

[A]

There isn't really a best player on the team.

[B]

Yeah, I guess he's the best player

[A]

and he's like the guy that I would know.

[B]

Yeah, look, he's a really good player. They have really solid players throughout. They just don't have breakout talent. Really. And I saw. I went to the Korea game that was here at Red Bull Stadium.

[A]

And is that a good place to watch soccer?

[B]

Yeah, it is good. It's small, but it's definitely good. I enjoy it. I like it a lot.

[A]

And you get season tickets for the Queens Stadium when the nyfc.

[B]

No, I don't want to go to that many games. I don't like the MLS generally. Like, I really like. I love watching the national team. I mean, I don't think the team is that great, but like, they're, you know, the games are.

[A]

Are.

[B]

They're events. Like, they're in the way that you're describing. They're Fun to go to, like, cheer for the country. It's really. It is really great.

[A]

So what's our peak, do you think?

[B]

You know, I think making it out of group and then losing in the knockout round in the first probably, I guess the 16.

[A]

What is that, like, quarterfinals or something like that? Is that.

[B]

You know, I'd have to look with more teams this year before that.

[A]

Yeah. Quarterfinals Eight. Right. So.

[B]

Yeah, no, it's more than that. At least 16 teams make out of the group. I have to. It's funny.

[A]

So that would be the kind of. The goal.

[B]

Well, I think they. I think it would be considered disappointing if they lose in the round of 16. Oh, wood. Okay. I think. I think they got to get to the quarters for people not to think that it was a disappointment.

[A]

How much better.

[B]

But that'll. That's a heave.

[A]

You know, going into the Olympics, they're

[B]

not a top eight team in the world.

[A]

USA Men's hockey team.

[B]

Yeah.

[A]

Were they. Because you're a hockey fan, they. Were they considered a legitimate threat to win the.

[B]

Oh, for sure. I mean, everybody thought it would be

[A]

united in Canada and always NHL and

[B]

they would have a chance for sure against Canada. I mean, Canada is a better team. But the.

[A]

Yeah. Although it is. I was listening to Matt Keller and Bill Simmons at the. On a podcast this morning, and they made a good point. They're like, in 1980, the US wins the gold medal and hockey. And, like, people are excited about it for a long time.

[B]

Yeah. Still.

[A]

Still right here, like, after like a day or two. Whatever. He's like, in Canada, they'll be mourning this for like a year.

[B]

Oh, yeah. Longer. Longer.

[A]

No, in the U.S. people are, like, excited for a day, and then they kind of moved on.

[B]

Yeah. Although, you know, they did get a big. A big. You know, I mean, I.

[A]

And plus, it became politicized in a

[B]

really stupid way, too. I mean, embarrassing for people, like, trying to make a big stink about that.

[A]

Right. They should just be celebrated.

[B]

Yeah. And you know what? Inviting them to the White House and getting to go to the state of Union. You know what I mean? Like, they should be celebrated. They're great. I wish the women's team had been there, too. It was a stupid controversy that they weren't. I mean, not their fault at all, but.

[A]

Well, they chose not to, though, right?

[B]

They chose not to because the president said some demeaning thing which, you know, I think is a legitimate reason not to go. But. But again, it doesn't. It doesn't reflect on the men's team at all. And.

[A]

Well, I think he has a strong view that one gender is clearly better than another in his mind.

[B]

Yeah, no, obviously. And it's, it's not something I support.

[A]

At least he would say that. He would say one race is better than another one. One ethnicity, one religion, all of that.

[B]

Anyway, I think, I think if, I think it will be considered disappointing if they don't make the quarters, but I think they probably won't, so.

[A]

Got it. Okay. Well, I will.

[B]

I hope they do. I hope they do. I remember, I remember in, what was it the, the one that was in, in Korea and Japan, we, you know, the games are on the middle of the night. I remember going to the like places in soho to watch them and it was, the team played amazing. It was great. So if, if they have some little run, like, I think people get. Go crazy. So. Cool.

[A]

Well, I'm, I'm excited you have a recommendation or, you know, I'm like, you know, I'm writing a novel now that I'm enjoying, but I'm not far enough. I want to finish it and then if it still stays as good, I'll recommend it. But I'll tell you that it's sort of like a picture that blows out his arm and it has Tommy John surgery and can't pitch for two years. The reading 100 books last year it was like the equivalent of that. My arm reading arm.

[B]

Like.

[A]

Yeah, I just am really, you know, I mean, I'm reading but you know,

[B]

at the moment, you need a rest.

[A]

I don't think I'll read more than 60 books this year based on the pace I'm at right now. So. So anyway, as a result, I'm reading less and. Yeah. Although have you ever heard a TV show called the Dark? It's like a German. No, sci fi. Someone recommended it. I don't know, but I, I don't mind it necessarily. I've got some time this weekend to just kind of do nothing. So I might, I might start watching that.

[B]

All right, Bradley.

[A]

All right. Thank you. Later. Firewall is recorded in my bookstore, PNT Knitwear, located at 180 Orchard street on the lower east side of Manhattan. We'd love to hear from you with questions, feedbacks or idea for a guest. Just email me at Bradley Firewall Media or find me on LinkedIn. And to keep up with what's on my mind and my latest writing, please follow my new substack@bradleytus substack.com thanks again for me letting thing.