Co-host (2:43)

Yeah, yeah, Scott. Scott Wu is licking his chop. She's like, what are you going to, what are you going to leave out in the wreckage?

Host (2:50)

He really is going to.

Co-host (2:51)

I mean, I also think we need to, we need to take one moment.

Host (2:55)

Yeah.

Co-host (2:55)

And just send some thoughts and prayers to sbf. Oh, yeah, imagine, I don't know how this works in whatever prison he's in, but I imagine, you know, hopefully every few days he can go and like talk to the outside world.

Host (3:10)

Yeah.

Co-host (3:11)

And you can imagine him going, you know, making the call and he says, you know, sir, what would the mark be? How's Anthropic doing? How's my baby doing? And it's like, sir, it's traded up north of 800 secondary markets and it's quite possibly going north of a trillion. And then he's like, thank you, hangs up, comes back the next day. I haven't checked in with Cursor a little bit. How are they doing? Sir, you may not want to hear

Host (3:40)

this, but there's a $50 billion acquisition

Co-host (3:42)

on the table, Dave. They've agreed to sell for 60 billion.

Guest (3:45)

60.

Co-host (3:46)

And if they don't sell, they're going to get 10 billion of non dilutive capital.

Host (3:50)

Absolutely wild.

Co-host (3:51)

Anyways. What a.

Host (3:52)

What a. What a wild, wild turn of events. Anyway, let's go through the timeline because it's interesting to revisit the flurry of news that has come out of Elon Inc. Over the past just four years when this all started. April 14, 2022. It's April 22 now. So we're talking four years to go from just proposing buying Twitter. He made an unsolicited offer to acquire the company. He closed that acquisition after a bunch of back and forth saying, hey, maybe I don't want it. It was very clear that the stock would have traded down significantly from that $44 billion because this was when the interest rate hike happened and the end of zirp and basically all software companies sold off significantly. And so we saw declines in Snap and Pinterest and basically anything that was even meta sold off like 40, 50% post, although that was like an anomaly and they built back up. But the question about like, okay, well reality Labs is a what 10 billion tens of billions dollar bet on, on revenues that might come in like 10 years. Like it was so far away and the revenue ramp on VR and Metaverse projects was so slow that the market just had to discount those future revenues. Even if they were still bullish on the idea of Meta winning the VR race, winning the Met at some point, it just wasn't going to happen anytime soon. So you got to discount that back at 6% instead of 3% or whatever your risk free rate is in your DCF. And so everything sold off. And Elon had locked in that pre end of ZURP price. And there was a big question about could he get out of it? Were they going to twist his arm? There was a little bit on twist.

Co-host (5:34)

The arm was twisted.

Host (5:35)

The arm was a little bit twisted. But Morgan Stanley on board and a

Co-host (5:39)

bunch of other things, it was almost broken.

Host (5:41)

But the people whose arms were twisted, Morgan Stanley and all the BC backers who came in, they wound up with SpaceX stock. And so they wound up doing very well because they wound up with X stock and then SpaceX stock. And so it's all looking like, you know, as crazy. It was. It was never bet against Elon. Like that was. The thing was like, surely this is the time to bet against Elon. He's buying Twitter for $44 billion. It's a crazy idea based on the market and where things are, but everything sort of penciled out. So he closed the Twitter acquisition on October 27, 2022, and he took control of the platform at the end of that month. That was sink day. Of course. He comes in with a sink. Something about. What was the joke about the kitchen sink?

Guest (6:16)

Let that sink in.

Host (6:17)

Oh, let that sink in. Okay. It wasn't. It wasn't like, I'm doing the whole. The whole. Isn't the whole kitchen sink another phrase as well?

Guest (6:23)

Yeah. Like throw the whole kitchen sink at it.

Host (6:25)

Okay. Yeah. Well, he did that because he threw everything together. Yes. Good job. Yeah. So XAI came later. He publicly announced Xai on July 12, 2023. And that's only nine months after ChatGPT, maybe eight months after ChatGPT. Google Quick followed with Gemini. And it was like, it was a very fast following, I think, to get to Xai off the ground.

Co-host (6:50)

And that was like new. Just for context, that was right around the time you first publicly talked about the potential for a tech live stream, right?

Host (6:58)

Oh, yes, yes.

Co-host (6:58)

I 2023.

Host (6:59)

I think that was. I think that was actually very close to the date. Yeah. I was making YouTube videos. I made a whole YouTube video about the Elon Twitter acquisition. And I was sort of trying to justify it as a desire for free speech than anything else. Like you shouldn't look at it in financial terms. I think that's still probably holds. But there wound up being a whole bunch of other knock on effects for Elon strategy. He was coming out on July 12, 2023 saying I'm back in the AI horse race, I'm competing directly with the big labs. I'm going to go up against DeepMind still. Remember that's why he founded OpenAI. He wanted to push back against DeepMind. I'm going to go up against Anthropic going and go up against OpenAI. And so the first major product milestone came just a couple months later. November 3rd. That's when they introduced Grok. November 3rd, 2023. So it's been almost three years. The first real integration with Twitter happened on December 7th, 2023 when Grok started rolling out inside of X for premium plus subscribers, which was a new tier. It was, it's actually crazy.

Co-host (7:57)

Everyone got verified, remember?

Host (7:59)

I mean that year on Twitter was insane. Like just product feature, product feature and they were shipping stuff that had been clearly developed beforehand. Like I think the community notes idea had been workshopped and even like engineered in the pre Elon era. But he just got there and was like ship that tomorrow. And like there were a lot of things like that that happened and there were other things that got pulled back and review and like there were other pieces of the puzzle that were like not doing so well and he was just a cut, cut, cut. And so he sort of like put it back in startup mode and it felt a lot more agile and it still does. That was the moment GROK finally became a part of the X product experience. In early 2024, XAI started shipping updates quickly. March 17, 2024 it open Grok 1. March 26, 2024 Grok access expanded to X premium subscribers. Two days later they announced 1.5. Then on April 12, 2024 they announced 1.5V which added multimodal capabilities. Then Grok 2 Grok 2 mini. By the end of 2024, Grok was available to all X users. And so 2025, XAI moved from being connected to X to absorbing it at the product level. On February 19, 2025, XAI announced Grok 3 beta. Then March 28, 2025. So over a year ago, for some reason this feels more more recent than that, Xai acquired X in an all stock deal. So 3-28-2025 effectively merging the AI company with a social platform. After that X kept releasing faster model updates. They did Grok 4 fast Grok 4.1. Then came the SpaceX deal that was February 2, 2026. So the clean sequence is that Musk first proposed the Twitter acquisition, then founded xai, then brought GROK into X, then merged XAI with x, and then SpaceX bought Xai. And so now Cursor is joining the team.

Co-host (9:48)

It makes so much sense, right? Cursor needs compute, they need the resources, they need the capital to train a frontier coding model.

Host (9:55)

They've also never done a pre training, whereas the XAI team has. Right, correct.

Co-host (10:00)

And the big, big thing is that the GROK brand has, you know, been through so much. There was an idea being thrown around last year that it had been banned in more workplaces than it had been adopted.

Host (10:13)

Yeah, yeah.

Co-host (10:14)

So more people had said, like, you cannot use this product in the workplace, then we're actually using it in the workplace. Cursor's a great brand. Right. It's a brand that I think can probably expand outside of. Outside of coding. Right. Say in the announcement. Best to create the world's best coding and knowledge work. AI. So we're at a point right now where everyone is building the exact same thing. You got everyone on Earth building a box that you can tell to do things and does things.

Host (10:44)

Oh, so you just want one company to do it all communist?

Co-host (10:47)

No, no, I don't. I think the competition. I think the competition is great.

Host (10:51)

You want the government to have it.

Co-host (10:52)

It's bringing out the best in. It's bringing out the best in it. But I think Cursor's like, out, drag, out, fight. Cursor's always had a great brand.

Host (10:58)

I saw someone else, SBF replied to SpaceX's tweet saying, that's me. Pull up the first post here and then scroll down. The SpaceX and cursor are now working closely. Yeah, there we go. Look. SBF is somehow on Twitter. How can you be on Twitter from jail?

Co-host (11:16)

All these people in jail on X? I don't understand. No, it says it in his bio. Is it in his bio? It's managed to. We can use BOP approved phone calls, emails to tell others what to post on our social. I think it would be a free speech violation to say, like, if you are in jail, you cannot distribute information in the outside world in any capacity. But it feels like this was maybe some legislation that was created pre Internet because it seems like having like a ghostwriter on your account is a really good way to like start, you know, kind of like influencing public perception. Right. I think this is Elizabeth Holmes has had enough kind of moments where it was like she, you know, her proxy posted something that was mildly kind of entertaining and over time that just wears on people and eventually people are like, maybe, maybe she isn't so bad after all. Right, so.

Host (12:10)

Well, Richard Wu broke down the structure of the deal. He says the structure of the deal is pretty interesting here. I think what's happening is one XAI is having trouble training a state of the art coding model. Hence co founder departures. They might have a bunch of idle GPUs. Cursor doesn't have capital to blow on a $5 billion training run to compete with Codex and Claude Xai. Three Xai says to Cursor, Use all the GPUs you want at cost and get to a state of the art coding model. As long as we have the option to buy you four Cursor also gets a free option. Train a model better than Opus and get bought out for 60 billion or get 10 billion. That pays for all the GPUs you. You rented. Win Win. And I was reflecting on Michael Truell's, I mean, fantastic entrepreneur, remarkably young, but his esthetic is, is very much in like the stripe world, I imagine because I feel like the one really cinematic podcast he's done is that one with. Was it Patrick Collison? Is that the one I'm thinking of? And it's like them at the coffee shop and it's so welcoming and warming. It's like that is welcome in every corporate entity in America. Right? Like, and to your point, about like, you know, oh, like if your corporation is like, oh, what's going on with Elon and politics, blah, blah, blah, do we really want Grok running around with Mecca and Annie and all this crazy stuff? But if it's just like Michael True from Cursor, he's so reassuring. Like I, if I'm like Coke or GE or Ford, I'm like, yeah, of course. Like, we love Cursor. That's great. Yeah, very. Esthetics do matter, vibes do matter, and I think makes a lot of sense.

Co-host (13:46)

Matt Slotnick says he loves math.

Host (13:50)

Okay, what is the math here?

Co-host (13:51)

He's talking about Julian. He's so Julian says at a 30x revenue multiple, at first glance it appears that SpaceX is overpaying for Cursor. However, the deal is wildly accretive for SpaceX given it is expected to go public at more than 100x revenue. A 70 term multiple expansion on 2 billion of revenue adds up. Wow.

Host (14:10)

Yeah, this is a notorious thing in corporate M and A. And, and occasionally it's gone poorly. But there is like an old adage that if you can acquire earnings at a lower earnings multiple and maintain your current multiple that is accretive to the stock. And so there's a whole philosophy around that. But the smart investors should price each earnings stream differently and having like a monopoly on launch capacity should be a higher multiple than super competitive oligopolistic coding market, if that's what this winds up being. It's a tricky, tricky situation.

Co-host (14:44)

Well, Brown, Wow. Cursor just hit a $10 billion run rate.

Host (14:48)

They did. It's guaranteed, right? There's no way that they won't make 10 billion this year. That's not even run rate. That's just like it's locked in. It's more than contracted.

Guest (14:55)

I don't know.

Co-host (14:55)

Yeah, and, and it's very meaningful because it is effectively an exit and that it's, you know, by it, by itself they can, you know, they'll be in a position to actually reinvest that. It's like a nice little Neo lab kind of series A. Basically.

Host (15:13)

Ken says, no, you got to multiply that 10 billion by 12 because in that month when they get the $10 billion check from SpaceX, it will be 120 billion run rate. They will be the largest AI company in the world that month. And then they just have to figure out they don't collect until end of year if they're still independent. Otherwise it's more like 25 billion. Okay.

Co-host (15:34)

Patrick is quoting Scott Wu.

Host (15:36)

Oh yeah, Last of the Mohicans. Scott Wu. I love it. Because despite this does not look see.

Co-host (15:41)

Without images too. Without images too. We just. This kind of asset. I actually think this might have been done the old fashioned way.

Host (15:48)

No, this is Nano Banana. This is Nano Banana.

Co-host (15:50)

There we go.

Host (15:51)

It's good at cutting out.

Co-host (15:52)

Thank you.

Host (15:52)

Watermark, he says. Here we go again. Last of the Mohicans. Yeah, Scott Woo's the last one standing in this particular category. And yeah, he's licking his chops thinking about who might want to hop over to Cognition. Cursor. Cognition Windsurf, Devon Cursor, Zombie Corp. As the, as the ghost ships continue to line up on the shores of Scott

Co-host (16:16)

wu's territory, some news from Space News Inc.

Host (16:20)

This is very interesting.

Co-host (16:21)

China backs Orbital data center startup with 8.4 billion in credit lines.

Host (16:25)

They're pilled. They're pilled.

Co-host (16:26)

Elon is interested.

Host (16:27)

8.4 billion in credit lines, that is a lot of money. A Beijing based space Startup has secured early stage funding. Early stage funding to the tune of 8.4 billion. What are we doing here? And extensive credit backing is part of a broader Chinese push towards space based computing infrastructure. Beijing Orbital Twilight Technology Co. Ltd. We don't know how to name companies like that in this country. Seriously.

Co-host (16:51)

This is the new meta?

Host (16:52)

Yeah. What is, what is Cursor's real name? Any Sphere. This is a pretty good name. I like, I like any sphere and I like Cursor, but doesn't hold a candle, so. Beijing Orbital Twilight Technology Co. Ltd. Also known as Orbital Chengguang, announced the completion of a pre A1 funding round April 20th. The round saw participation from venture and industrial investors including Hison Capital, CITIC Construction Investment Capital, Cathay Capital. They got everybody. It's a murderer's row over there. At the same time, Orbital Estate said that it has obtained strategic credit lines totaling 8.4 billion from 12 major financial institutions including the bank of China. Are they going to build rockets with this? I mean, I don't, I don't understand why this would be so capital intensive if they're not going to fab the chips and they're not going to launch the rockets.

Co-host (17:42)

Well, they're going to put a lot of GPUs in space.

Host (17:44)

I guess they're just going to buy a lot of Huawei chips or something. Are they going to go to Huawei and get some special stuff?

Guest (17:49)

Yeah, I mean this is pretty interesting because I feel like, you know, generally the main bull case for space data centers is that the like regulatory environment in the US is going to be so hard to build data centers. Yeah, like supercomputers, but yeah, normal land. Oh yeah, yeah, supercomputers. So you got to send supercomputers to space because there's less.

Host (18:04)

Now we can do data centers in space. We just, we, we. If it's on the ground, it's a supercomputer.

Guest (18:09)

Okay, yeah, that makes sense because, because

Host (18:10)

we don't want any more data centers on Earth. It's Earth day, by the way. Congratulations, Earth, you've done fantastically.

Guest (18:16)

Yeah, but the whole thing like in China is like they, you know, you can just like build things there.

Host (18:21)

Right.

Guest (18:21)

There's like very little regulatory overhead. So it's like, I feel like the space data centers makes a lot more sense for the U.S. yeah. If the, if the bull case is regulatory, which seems to be, that's like generally consensus.

Host (18:31)

I think I was laughing about how, you know, how there's all this fear about like data centers using water In America. But over in China, they have the Three Gorges Dam, which generates electricity from water. And it technically uses a lot of water. The water's not destroyed or anything. It just passes through the dam, generates electricity. But they're using, they're using an ocean of water. Exactly. The Hoover Dam. That's a nightmare. If you just like there's one frame where you don't want the water to be destroyed or made unpotable so you can't drink it anymore. But there's another one where you think like water has individual rights and should not be used at all. Like it should not be used, it should not flow through a water wheel. It should not flow through a dam and generate electricity at all. It should be left to its own devices still and just chill maybe. Anyway, ORBITAL has incubated is incubated by the Beijing Astro Future Institute of Space Technology, which itself is backed by Beijing's Municipal Science and and Technology Commission and the Science Park Administration. The institute leads a consortium of 24 organizations. The rationale for the constellation in November briefing so large scale data centers have expanded rapidly worldwide. But further growth faces major obstacles including heavy land use, weird soaring energy consumption, weird limits on atmospheric cooling. These things usually don't apply in China. But maybe they are skating where the pucky's going and maybe they're thinking that they will need to change their direction. They're planning a dawn dusk orbit about 700800 km above the Earth, aiming to achieve a large scale space data center to support space based computing by 2035. Wow. Thinking in decades over there. An initial phase spanning 2025 and 2027. Wait, why are they talking about last year? We'll focus on core technology changes in a first computing.

Co-host (20:12)

They're manipulating time.

Host (20:14)

The experimental satellite was slated for launch in late 2025 or early 26, but it does not appear to have launched. They have. They have like decent launch capacity with the Long March rocket. I think that they just are not amazing at landing it. But you got more money, you can just yolo more rockets up there. I guess problem solved. Although I would be surprised if there's as much pressure to not build supercomputers next to the Three Gorges Dam. Moving on. More Images out of ChatGPT Images 2 Image Gen 2 Pull these up Images V2 these are crazy. Has anyone done that rune test of the. Of the guy driving the car into the whole thing where he was like, it's AGI if it can understand this meme. I guess you can't because like that particular meme has been saturated on the Internet, and so it no longer is a challenge.

Co-host (21:07)

I'm gonna have it make an.

Host (21:07)

This is a crazy image.

Co-host (21:09)

I am a tiny man.

Host (21:11)

What is this, MySpace?

Co-host (21:14)

My son was born. This is truly handed me to him.

Host (21:19)

Never forget where you came from. Blink 182. It really packed so much stuff in here, it's almost too much. I have been noticing Gabriel over there is pushing the model into chaos and seeing what happens. Cows are flying, horses are flying, Trampolines are flying.

Guest (21:32)

The next one by Ethan Mollick has, like, every image benchmark in one. You were.

Host (21:36)

You were asking about this. You said, and explain the history of this.

Guest (21:40)

So originally, like, when, like, Dall E first came out, the, like, image that everyone was like, oh, this is crazy. It was an astronaut riding a horse on the moon.

Host (21:48)

Yeah.

Guest (21:48)

So then it's like, okay, that's, like, very easy. And then it became.

Host (21:51)

Well, it's very hard to Photoshop that. It's very hard to go get an actual picture. Because if someone's just like, make a picture of a dog and it's photoreal, everyone's like, oh, who cares? We have a picture of a dog. We don't have any pictures of astronauts riding horses on the moon.

Guest (22:04)

There's people riding horses.

Host (22:05)

Right. So, like, it should be able to

Guest (22:07)

process where it's like, maybe it's not. Doesn't need to fully understand, like, everything that's going on because there's a lot of, like, references that can pull from.

Host (22:13)

Totally.

Guest (22:14)

So then it became, can a horse ride an astronaut?

Host (22:17)

Yes.

Guest (22:18)

Right. It's like the reverse. Yes. And early image models would always just do the flip. They would just put the. On the horse.

Host (22:23)

Yep. Because that's more logical.

Co-host (22:24)

Yeah.

Guest (22:25)

So there's a numbers of a number of these things where, like, if you ask a person to draw it out, it's like, okay, you just think logically, like, this is how it would look. But there's just, like, no reference images online. So the. Another one was like, a full wine glass.

Host (22:34)

Yeah.

Guest (22:35)

So you think of a full wine glass as, like, it's only, like, technically, you know, halfway. Three, four.

Host (22:39)

I never understood why that one didn't work.

Guest (22:41)

I saw the whole video images online of a full wine glass being like,

Host (22:45)

oh, full to the brim. Because people typically fill them halfway. And so in the training date. Okay, got it. Yeah.

Co-host (22:50)

Yes.

Guest (22:50)

And then there was the, you know,

Host (22:52)

what is this image? This is not the one.

Co-host (22:55)

This is not the one.

Host (22:56)

This is not the one. For the timeline, that one's way more aggressive than the. This is the one. This one looks aesthetic and it still looks weird.

Co-host (23:04)

The only thing is, would a horse's belly really look like that?

Host (23:07)

It is sort of like a humidifier.

Co-host (23:09)

It kind of looks like a human,

Host (23:12)

but it does have the wine glass completely filled. And. And then explain what you call.

Guest (23:17)

It was grok, I think.

Host (23:19)

Okay, explain the. Explain the clock. What's going on with the clock?

Guest (23:22)

Yeah, that one's just another like understanding thing where if you give it a time, can it do the. The clock. Yeah, like the correct time. There's also one where you do a bunch of clocks on different time zones.

Host (23:31)

Yeah. And can do the clock. It couldn't do the clock. It has two hour hands.

Co-host (23:37)

Yeah.

Guest (23:37)

This one.

Host (23:37)

Do you know what that means? Removing the goal post.

Co-host (23:39)

Do it.

Host (23:40)

Moving the goal post.

Co-host (23:44)

Do it. It's time. It's time.

Host (23:47)

It's time. It's not complete yet. It's not complete.

Co-host (23:58)

You guys have more work to do.

Host (23:59)

No, no. Sam was talking about this with Ashley Vance. He was saying that like, you know, he thought. He thought job was finished with like chat GPT images because it was really good and then they worked a lot harder and they realized that there was more to do. And this is like the carpathy thing about like yeah, you get the self driving cars to 99% and then takes another year to get add another nine and then it takes another year to add another nine and then another nine. And it just takes forever to improve these things because we demand perfection. We do not accept two hands on a clock. Keep grinding folks. Keep grinding. Anyway, there are a lot of other fun posts. Semi analysis. I thought this was just a real image of Darkesh taking a selfie and then it was recontextualized via a meme. It is in fact an AI image and it is.

Co-host (24:43)

This doesn't even look like the new model though.

Host (24:45)

Hi, I'm Dorkesh. I grew up all over the US and now SF based and always down to nerd out about AI science and history. A little about me. I host the Darkash podcast study at UT Austin. Just published a book on the history of AI scaling. Let's grab coffee or do a fun activity this summer because of course this is a meme template that is very popular and has gone viral with a lot of new people that have been hired and moved to.

Co-host (25:10)

So the other thing I've noticed with images too is that I think it has fully. The new model actually has taste.

Host (25:17)

I agree.

Co-host (25:18)

And it has fully democratized like high quality lifestyle and product imagery. And I'm shedding a tear just a little bit because you used to be able to tell somebody who's working on a CPG company you could kind of clock their ability as a founder based on the quality of their images. Because maybe they're not super creative themselves, maybe they haven't raised a bunch of money, but if they're scrappy, they can meet the right footprint photographer, they can put stuff together. And now it's like everyone just has a great product photography.

Host (25:50)

Yep.

Co-host (25:51)

And I saw it this morning with. There's that Andreessenbach company that does like electric scooters.

Host (25:57)

Oh yeah.

Co-host (25:57)

They were just like ripping out a bunch of images that look like they spent tens of thousands of dollars doing them. But they're clearly like images too, which is cool. It's just like funny that we've entered

Host (26:07)

a world where, yeah, I've seen, I've seen some people. I think that the, the end result will be like, you will see more opinionated and creative and more people. There will be a collapsing around. Like everyone will copy Apple or Linear. But then on the flip side, you will see people that are doing things that are really unexpected and those things will be copied. But if the brand can run through and actually establish itself as like, oh, it has this unique aesthetic, it won't matter that somebody can recreate it. Because plenty of people did that with the red antler stuff. It was like that. Like there were brands that really owned that and carved that out as like their aesthetic. And then there were a bunch of copycats and no one really liked those. I was reflecting on the fact that like for a long time, midjourney, felt like it had a very unique aesthetic. Like at like ArtStation and like Painterly and sci fi really well. And then ChatGPT images v1 and some of the other image models just felt like stock photography. And now I feel like I'm starting to see more stuff out of images with ChatGPT. That feels more opinionated and has a stronger aesthetic and it can do more of like the sci fi stuff. Although sometimes it leans in a little bit too much to the photo realism. I think you gotta get kind of crazy with the prompts to actually get something that's abstract.

Co-host (27:20)

Post from Ben Hylak.

Host (27:21)

What do you say?

Co-host (27:23)

Nightmare? Blunt rotation.

Host (27:26)

Oh yeah, it can do, I didn't know 360 images. It can do 360 images, which is really cool.

Co-host (27:31)

You got Sam Jensen.

Host (27:33)

So it generates a full equirectangular image. Which is something you could view in VR and then you can load that into a panoramic stereoscopic image generator. The big question is people are going to want to animate these. What's the downstream tool chain for actually turning this into video? Are we going back into video at some point? We will see. Anyway. People are having a lot of fun with it and it should help with front end and a lot of other stuff. It seems like it's done very well on design and layouts and all this stuff. Well. Oh, I wanted to get your take on this. Imagine if codecs existed in 2005 and it's this very retro people are doing. Imagine if codecs existed in 2012 and it's the Apple design cues from the early Mac OS X and then the Windows XP aesthetic. Do you think the Windows XP aesthetic is overdue for a comeback? This is in the middle of the GPT Image two feed right there. This aesthetic, it's gotta come back. This is a Mountain Dew.

Co-host (28:44)

It would fix you.

Host (28:45)

This would fix me. No. You know, I have some fond memories of xp. John.

Guest (28:50)

John.

Co-host (28:51)

Imagine playing Halo while you just look over and this is just running there. I don't know, drinking Mountain Dew.

Host (28:59)

There are a couple other important warnings in here. One of them, I know you had thought about potentially putting on a bear costume and trying to defraud your car insurer. And if you in the audience were thinking about dressing up like a bear and attacking your car in order to collect an insurance payout that's up to $141,000. Think again. Think again. Because humans, this is in the New York Times, humans who used a bear suit to defraud car insurers are sentenced to jail. You might be thinking, I'll just throw on this bear suit and I'll attack my car. And then I'll call my insurer. I'll collect a check and I'll collect a check and it'll be easy. Easy money. Easy money. Get rich quick scheme.

Co-host (29:43)

No.

Host (29:43)

No.

Co-host (29:44)

3 Southern California residents were sentenced to jail after masterminding a scheme in which they staged fake bear attacks on their luxury cars, then collecting more than 141,000 in insurance payouts to carry out the attacks. The residents had a person in a bear suit climb into the cars and use claw like kitchen essentials to leave scratch marks. The Los Angeles residents then filed claims to defraud three different insurance companies. So I don't understand why they had to be in a bear suit. Like, were they filming? Were they filming?

Guest (30:12)

Yes, There is security footage it's okay.

Host (30:15)

Okay.

Co-host (30:15)

No way.

Host (30:16)

Yeah. Yeah. We're gonna pull up the security footage.

Guest (30:18)

Yeah. Rolls Royce Ghost.

Host (30:20)

Yeah, a 2010 Rolls Royce Ghost. I know someone who has one of those. I don't think he's responsible for this. But they are dressing up like a bear to get into the car and rip everything and destroy it so that you can file an insurance claim.

Co-host (30:40)

Hey, I'm just a bear. I'm gonna just get in this car.

Host (30:43)

The schemes are really out of control these days. That is a wild, wild one. The California Department of Insurance began its investigation called Operation Bear Claw after an insurance company flagged a suspicious claim about a. About a bear rifling through a 2010 Rolls Royce Ghost in Lake Arrowhead, California, where there are, in fact, bears. So it's not that unreasonable. The defendants claimed that a. That the bear had damaged the interior of their Rolls Royce with photos they submitted to the insurance company showing scratched seats and doors. Video footage submitted with the claim and released by the department shows what appears to be a bear crawling around in the backseat of the Rolls Royce and swatting at the dashboard. Investigators later discovered fraudulent claims submitted to two other insurance companies that claimed a bear had damaged the same interior. They were just two Mercedes Benz's just scratching everything. That is like the most perfect scratch line. Like, it's so suspicious. Like, it's so clearly, like, I feel like a bear's claws would be way more organic and like, also hopefully doing more damage.

Co-host (31:44)

That looks like the weakest bear ever.

Host (31:47)

Yeah, because it's not a bear. It's a human. The department concluded that the culprit was not, in fact, a particularly nimble bear. The defendants were arrested in November of 2020.

Co-host (31:56)

So I would. My first thought is not super believable, that the bear walks up to the Rolls Royce ghost, opens the door, just goes around. But a few weekends ago, I was hanging out at former guest of the show's house. He has goats. Friend drives up in his car, parks, and leaves a door open a few minutes later. What's in the car?

Host (32:18)

A bear.

Co-host (32:18)

A goat.

Host (32:19)

People do odd things with animals. People dress up as bears. Scientists also apparently have been giving salmon cocaine. I have no idea why, but the New York Times has a post. These salmon got high on cocaine. That wasn't the craziest part. Scientists in Sweden made an unexpected discovery. I think Tyler read this piece and can spoil the ending because what are

Co-host (32:44)

they doing over there?

Guest (32:46)

I think they tested, like, what happens when you give the fish cocaine.

Host (32:49)

Okay.

Guest (32:49)

And I think the answer was that they Swim much faster and they can swim for longer.

Host (32:53)

Okay. And that was unexpected.

Co-host (32:55)

Imagine being the scientists that, like, didn't get a grant for their research.

Host (32:59)

Yeah.

Co-host (32:59)

You know, and they were working on

Host (33:00)

something I'm really close to breaking, and

Co-host (33:03)

they're reading this article and they're like, wait, like, I was going to do Alzheimer's research. And then these scientists just wanted to give hard drugs to fish.

Guest (33:12)

Nearly.

Co-host (33:13)

What happened?

Host (33:14)

Nearly twice as fast. I guess that's somewhat interesting. But this does feel like something that could be one shot at interesting discovery if you just.

Co-host (33:20)

No way. There's just no way you could have.

Host (33:22)

You had to prove it.

Co-host (33:23)

You had to prove it.

Host (33:23)

You had to prove it.

Guest (33:24)

This is a good quote. While it's unclear if swimming faster and further while under the influences harm these fish, experts say it's probably not great.

Co-host (33:33)

Speaking of things under the sea, Red Lobster brings back endless shrimp for a limited time starting April 20th. Luke Metro says this is an EA cause area. Hostile takeover of Red Lobster. Make it vegan.

Host (33:50)

Make it vegan.

Co-host (33:51)

Make it vegan.

Host (33:53)

No, they gotta make a play to make it come back. And this seems like something that customers were clamoring for. So I don't. Have you ever been to a Red Lobster?

Co-host (34:01)

Nope.

Host (34:01)

I don't think I've ever been to a Red Lobster. I've done the Outback Steakhouse.

Co-host (34:04)

There are things in life that I don't think I will ever do.

Host (34:07)

No.

Co-host (34:07)

Red Lobster, I believe, is one of them. Ben, have you been to Red Lobster?

Host (34:11)

I've been there, yeah.

Co-host (34:13)

What's your.

Host (34:14)

They're big in Minnesota.

Co-host (34:15)

One to ten. It's fine. I think they're all gone now.

Host (34:19)

One to ten. What are you rating it, like a five?

Co-host (34:21)

Like a five, I think before it was no. 5. No five. So you gotta pick a side.

Host (34:26)

Four. Four.

Co-host (34:27)

Four. Okay.

Host (34:28)

Subpar. It's sub five, in fact.

Co-host (34:32)

We love you.

Host (34:33)

Goodbye.

Co-host (34:34)

See you tomorrow.