E37: NYC rejects far-left mayoral candidates, new developments in lab leak theory, Apple's App Store breakup potential & more
01:19:49 Share

As you guys know, I get panic attack dentist, but he was able to navigate me through where I didn't. I only sweat through half. Measure your .

panic attack at the dentist.

No, but I sweat profusely and I .

get very nervous.

What is that about? We all have weaknesses. Jason kis.

I like the denis either.

Now the dentist really breaks. I don't know why IT freaks me out. sex. Well.

why have you thought about bad experience?

A, tell more about your child to drama.

I've ever seen the movie marathon .

man and was kind like that is IT safe, is IT safe. But here.

We go.

Rain man, give.

we.

The and. Hey everybody hey everybody, welcome again to another episode of the all in podcast episode thirty seven with us today on his novel crusade conquering europe to mah poli hop. Tia calls us from uh, a castle somewhere I don't know, I can tell by the light switches you are in europe and joining us again. The two A I, A I number one David sax and A I number two, David freeburg here ah and of course i'm jack hell do we want to get rain to the show or I don't know your mother if you want to talk about the the doing a is in the group chat, debating the nature of the pod.

I mean, one guy told the other guy, or one robot told the other robot to fuck off.

This is what we know. It's a singularity when the robots .

are arguing .

with each other.

See, you even know because you don't have any any emotions. You told freeway to fuck off.

That's kind of true.

Fairness is he was drinking a beverage with fourteen percent alcohol content. No.

no, no. I just think that we I think the form out of the pot is working and I don't think we need to turn them on, IT said.

That's all I think my so just to do I so tired and out of IT right now. But but let's do IT um are just for the listeners um benefit on our little group text where we do are incredibly well prepped to rehearsal for the show by testing each other maybe for four minutes a week but .

the date night before each other.

mostly the other stuff is covered over the group chat. But we were um cut of debating, maybe throwing in a spin and you know doing a little group q and a kind of format tax does not like IT. And we were kind of joke with sax that he loves getting his sound bite in and then turning them into little short sound by video clipsed with his B F, F.

Henry belfast ter. And putting on twitter and promoting around the internet. And my point of view was, I don't think that this show should be about getting to the sound by that this show should be about something very different, which is elevating a conversation and creating the context for people to make decisions on their own.

And that is to give people multiple points of view and all of the data and consideration when there is a big topic or big debate underway. And it's too easy for us to take a sound bite and then use that as the narrative to try and influence people to do things are to have a point of view. And I think that is largely the problem we've broadly had in the twitter media era. As we are very reductiones, we bring things down to cut of a one sentence or hundred and forty character statement, and then we use that as an emotional pivot point for people to get them to go on one side or the other side as recognizing that many of the topics we dress are called. That is the way things you're done I get.

And is this response that is a valid free? However, humans all need to be LED. They are shit. We need to tell the shep what you think. And to get to go into office.

Jason, I would like to cut to uh, a segment, the new segment that I called him off the dramatic reading.

Free now, a dramatic rating from the group jet.

I will be playing all characters starting with myself. Free freeburg grants, up to which I say, i'm down with that. David, sex, you keep trying to fuck with the format of the show.

If you go, don't fix IT. Fuck off. fuckyou. fucker.

You are there and .

you have my my .

response. I'm done with that.

Oh no, going be able to respond here.

Yes.

the ends for office.

No.

no, no. I think that um the freeburg position on many issues often comes down to to the idea that this this issue is so complicated, it's so nuance. We can have a definitive take, and I just reject that.

I think it's true for some issues. I think it's greatest of the conversation, but I think there are many issues where IT is possible to have a definitive take to come down strongly on one side of IT. And I think the audience wants to do that. I think it's a little bit of a copout to say, oh, where is gonna all the issues so the office said, no, the office wants to hear us give our point of view and I didn't like see Harry hundred belfast ter out, he found out.

But you just talk to him seven times a day .

and direct every frame of the animation let Henry Henry, you know, is one of our superfans started making these videos. Okay, I ignored like the first ten. And then finally I was like, okay, I ve got to like, see what this guy is too right? You too.

What is this about is like, I hope, is business or something, because he's this running way too much time on this anyway. So now Henry does run that. He is like videos by us as a curacy, but he comes up with them. He chooses what takes he wants to run with, and he puts IT all together. Sometimes i'll have a note for him.

I'll say.

oh my god, I H he's never sent me .

anything .

going to hold to you. He keeps coming a min, Jason, on a three. If Jason don't .

process.

But then David like, well, actually if he could change this and cut this word and David like, all, you don't need any editing, just let the chip for they may and then he's like, mccovey liam back there, like he score sesc changing every box and frame over rebel caster. Ada.

a gift made. I just think it's a courteous that he is running.

And are you paying him? no. Have you given him any compensation?

okay. no. Separately, separately, separately.

I after finding out .

that Henry and then his partner dill and they've got like a IT is a business to them. Okay, so I said, listen, you guys are doing great work.

this great work. But yes.

I said, listen, won't you guys start doing like product videos or videos for startups? You can do the first one for calling. So they are working on a video for that.

I think we're going to pay like five grand. And if if it's good, I will be great for their business. I want that to be successful.

no. But let's get to the point. Let's get to the point about you know reducing the the conversation to sound bites.

And I want to respond to your point about not taking a position on things. But the okay. So I feel like um first of all, within this group there are hard tags within this group of four people. So there are hard takes already in the show. And um I I think that it's important in many debates and many of the topics we cover, there is more than one side to the story and we can have our formed opinion.

But I think understanding what the other counter points uh and and counter arguments might be is critical to get people to actually get to that opinion themselves as opposed to just telling them this is the single point that you should believe nothing else matters. And so I I really think also many of these conversations are generally to the two sides of the same coin and many more often than not, if you zoom out, there are shared values and many of the things that we all argue about broadly a society. And i'm not trying to get two kind of files off go here um but if you kind of do still things down to different points of view with the same set of values or recognized that they're actually different values, you can come to a point that allows people to think more progressively and um you know achieve a point of view on their own.

And I think that's critically missing today, broadly in society that so much is all about like the good and the evil, good and bad, them and us. And we don't recognize that in moments where there are shared values, we're just sitting on you know a both sides of the same coin or recognizing that sometimes having different values doesn't necessarily make someone evil IT makes them different. Um and and that's why I try and kind of elevate the conversation little bit and why I care so much about this point because I really think it's worth everyone getting a broader perspective on everything that they are dressing so that they can kind of go into these eyes wide open.

Now sex, I will say on nearly everything, I actually fundamentally agree with you on many of the points on the show. And so it's a little bit of get a little echo chAmber for me to kind of to agree with sex like that. Did I think it's so we're highlighting why there are other points of view and why there are other arguments to be made out there. And for me, I certainly have strongly held opinions. Um and uh you know I I just don't think that it's worth getting to my opinion without taking the broader contact of the conversation.

Did you notice that freezer got a little emotion out there? I think it's.

A little I was .

confused. I am my life OK let try .

for one question because this is .

getting we're kind in the dog out right now. I don't know this is fabulous ly boring to be able or not um but do you frequently hold back your opinions on the show because you don't want to influence people or you're afraid of being cancelled or are having an adverse effect to your business as IT has today of its business?

I don't .

give .

a here about now I care more about uh the uh the path to an opinion and o and I A process no and I care more about like a achieving the objective so what I mean by that is if you just say this is my opinion, take IT or leave IT. The other half that has a different opinion doesn't change their opinion.

If you if you zoom out for people and you say, here's the broad set of facts and circumstances and why different groups have different opinions, IT ends up being a lot easier to actually get people to see what may be the Better path forward you want to get. Man, you to, I, I have formed my opinion, are many these matters. I don't think stating my opinion changes anyone's mind. I think zoom ing out and giving people the .

broader perspectives. Get there themselves. I O, I walk and time.

Here's the point. I think that David sax has opinions. They are strong opinions. But as i've known him for twenty years, there are also weekly held any changes his mind. And I think that's powerful. David friedberg, and i've known newfiles long time as well, is great at explaining things. All of IT is additive, so 不 着急。

Yeah and of course of course um you know I support having a new once conversation that gets all point of views out on the table of the point of the part is not to you know engage and sort of soundbites IT is that what henri creates is the result of a conversation he boils IT down from thirty minutes into one minute. I think that performs a service for the audience, maybe gets some r takes out there in a way that um that more people can hear them.

So I think that's no. But do you understand freeburg? I like i'm a couple therapy, but do you understand freeburg position, David?

Yeah he doesn't .

want people to look at the podcast as reg reduction down to a sixty second clip or a thirty second clip of something. You want something to hear the full discuss?

Yeah well, let's great. Then they can listen to do that. But I mean, realistically, a lot of people don't have time to listen the full sixty minutes a mates on to the clip. But look, I think if there's a meat purpose to me being on the pod, I think it's to expand the parameters of what people think they can say because I actually I agree with freeze that the debate is shut down in a lot of context and we want to open IT back up over turn window needs .

to be real yeah like look .

at what has the whole Frank slotman thing last week where he puts out a pretty mild statement about supporting diversity, but not to the point where IT jeopardizes merit. You know, there was a giant upper over that he has to walk back in issue an apology there no. O snowfall.

yeah. There no. There is no discussion or debate there that was a shutting down on the conversation because one side of the debate is basically engaging in moral and detection against the other side. They're not really interested having a serious debate about the issues. I think my meta purpose in speaking on the pot about all these issues that I think you're just common sense, you know, is just a kind of reopen the debate.

Yeah I think this is that merit versus diversity and what is the point of a business and should the business be compromised or throttle, I think that's a very hard thing for what to say. Should we throw at this business so that we have diversity? Should we slow down in order to have more diversity? We can find the right candidate, but we have a candidate here who's a White man. But yeah, we have talked this right. We've talked about that.

My point, giving that example this to show how shut down the debate is because the day after slotman said ceos are having this conversation in private, they're telling me this and they're afraid to say a publicly the very next day he walks back in issues and apology, kind of buttering his original point that people can say what they really think.

So in my view, like part of the reason why the all in pois successful is where getting issues on the table that people want to talk about the field, they can't. And I think freeburg brings a very viable perspective to that conversation. But my goal is kind of, if I have a medical besides, is expressing my point of view, IT is to expand, like you said.

the over to the window all right. So speaking of the over to the window, new york city um has voted uh for a basically univerSally both on the on the democratic side and on the uh republican side for a tough on crime mayor. Seventy percent of san Francesco feels worse about crime and a separate poll um and eric atoms is the current borrow president, a former N Y P D uh officer and he is looking like he because of this a stack voting uh which can take a little time to figure out who uh will become the mayor of new york but he has thirty two percent of first place votes among eight hundred thousand .

democratic voters this guy is A A really decent centers moderate human being um grew up um where he was affected and touched by crime decided to fight through that wasn't me know complaining became a police officer did that eventually borrow president has done that runs for mayor he goes on television he gives an interview where they say, what is your perspectives on stop and risk and the answer he gives was pretty specific which is that you know I believe in stopping um and investigating potential crimes or some such right h jc you can probably find the exact well .

I mean having been in the um you know a new york city police department family um the and living in new york during stop in risk. They left out a keyword IT would stop questioned in risk so in high crime areas where there were a lot of shootings or guns um they would do a stop question and then possibly fresh e obviously uh all policing techniques can be abuse.

But his feeling on IT was when deployed correctly, stopping question is a great technique. And I can tell you, when I lived in, you are previously seventy, eighty percent of people, including people of color, including people from the toughness neighborhoods, were in favor of this. This was univerSally ally, seen as a huge success at the time because they were taking guns off the street, illegal guns constantly because somebody would hop a turn style um or there be people hanging out on a street corner and cost to say, hey, you're hanging out here three in the morning was going on.

But the problem the problem is that he gave a pretty reasonable answer, yes, and then they tried to cancel them.

Yep, and he would not allow himself to be cancelled. He went on the breakfast club and all kinds of other media outlets and explained this position, and they couldn't cancel him, which is that really.

I thought was an incredible testimony to what we're going through right now, which is right now nobody knows what to do to solve the things we feel. We've tried the radical right version of a candidate. IT didn't work.

We're now wondering to ourselves, while we have a custody in the White house, whether we go to the radical left. That's probably not going to work either because unfortunately, I I mean unfortunately IT looks like the the the progressive left the radical left is really, really judgmental um and none of these folks have really done anything. And so they they are easy to complain.

It's almost as if they know that they what they want won't work. So they don't want anything else to work and so they just want everything to devolve in the chaos. That's a shame. And so you know people try to literally lie about what this guy said on television that was taped.

Five times and clarify.

I am people just I I saw that the are the video link that there were people holding a press conference in front of his office literally screaming about stop and risk. When he never said stop in risk, he said stop in question is a reasonable strategy. If somebody, if we think the there's the potential of a crime and the fact that people could not have that conversation and had to go to basically this guy needs to either quit or be completely removed from his ability to run from me ah .

it's insanity yeah and um you could not people seem to have lost the ability to hold two conflicting ideas in their mind uh which is you could be for criminal justice reform. You could be against police violence um and you could be for strong policing of violent crimes at law in order. And what seems to be happening in both city y's new york sempre cisco and other places where a crime is getting acute is um that they uh people are voting.

Here's here's two other two supper here's here's another conflicting thoughts you can believe that you know uh asians are awesome but you can also believe that the corona virus may have come from the wu hann lab and believing the latter .

doesn't .

mean that your supporting asian hate i'm just going to put that out right.

Okay, can I try me on this um on this um on on the on on the Adams win because I think this is this is huge news.

Do you have your notes from Harry to make? Okay go look I mean area I .

am give me the next mayor of new york city um and I think there's like three big takeaway from this. Number one crime is the issue that i've been saying on this pot that IT for at least six months IT is the number one issue when people do not feel safe in their homes and in their negoro ods a nothing else matters. And here comes a this really underdog candidate.

He is despise by the sort of the progressive left and sort of the elites of the democratic party. And he wins. I mean, he, this is a huge underdog Victory.

He's, he's only a former cop. He still Carries a gun. I mean, he is packing. And that sent a message, the electorate, I am going to be tough on crime.

I'm not standing for finding the police and the prosecution and decoration ation, which are the hobby horses right now, the progressive left I am gna protect you and the city and the voters. We're eating IT up even in the democratic party. So number one, crime is a huge issue, and I think it's gna reverberate throughout amErica for the next few years.

Number two, IT showed how out of touch these sort of progressives, these I say phenomenon tly White progressives are how to touch. They are with the constituencies they claim to represent. Um you know the mostly black and latino neighbors ods who voted in large numbers for eric atoms were having none of this sort of elite wo progressive thinking around the corporation d prosecution. They are interested in real solutions for the problems that they see, not engaging in this sort of like socialism.

There's actually interesting nuggets what you're saying, which I think you can brought now, which is the radical left. I don't even call them the progressive left because that would mean they were making progress and they're thinking, I think it's just this radical left. They seem to be White, rich, affluent people, yes, and they seem to be super .

didn't they're guilty about something.

but tom disconnected from what actual people of color want, but they're speaking for a group of people who maybe are like, that's not actually my position. I want my kids to be safe on the way to school. I want guns off the street if somebody you know.

And I think that I wanna read the quote that he had, because this is really important, is to go to the source material, not the headlines from let's face IT. The radical left is running these news, uh, publications and they're determining how they frame him. And here is the question, uh, from vanity fair so you think there is a way to you stop at risk that isn't abusive reasonable question.

And his answer, well, there's a word that's missing in there. It's called stop question and frisk. So two o'clock in the morning, you look at your door, you see a person standing in front your house.

He places a gun in his waste. An, you go to call the police. I hope that police officer responds. He needs to be able to question that person.

What are you doing with that gun? If we're telling police officers you can question people, we are jeopardizing the safety of the city. I mean, this is the most common sense, logical right framing of the discussion. It's not like they're saying, just pick a random person on the subway and say, empty your pockets and get up against the wall like the a snapper, you know, somebody called something and you question people in the area.

We've seen this insurances go that you've got these social justice cruciate ors who claim that they are helping minority communities and you see an increase in the number of of victims from those communities. And what eric adam said is, listen, we can't just care about the cops abusing their power. We also have to care about violence against these communities, what is perpetrated by criminals.

And people responded to that to that message. And I think the final point that I think the area gats when represents is that twitter is not likely win, likely win. Okay, fair enough, is that twitter is not real life.

okay? Eric atoms has fourteen thousand twitter followers. Yang has two million. okay? Young came in fourth.

okay? And you know, Young was sort of the darling of the sort of the twitter elites he sort of, I mean, look at when he first got into the democrat primary for president. He was a little of breath, fresh air.

But ultimately, he kind of adopted the generic progressive positions on things that did not resonate with the people of new york. They want to someone tough on crime and so I think, you know, eric Adams had another great quote, I think on election I said social media does not pick a candidate. People on social security pick a candidate okay, great line.

And and I mean, so here's the thing is I think we all are distorted in our thinking based on what this like very loud but ultimately small number of voices on social media says and I think it's not just politicians, by the way. I mean, it's it's not just erik Adams who won because he ignored twitter. I mean, in one because is he igor twitter, right? I mean, biden was not on twitter, and he was able to win the democratic mary for president. So, you know, I think there's a lesson here for politicians.

which is a greates twitter mother. Moderates can win anything and everything as long as they show up and they do the work. But if you, to your point, spend all your time trying to curate your twitter image, all you're gna do is validate a bunch of people that really, at the end of the day, are trying to punch up, right? If you think about all the people that are spouting off trying to cancel, trying to judge, there's a there's a great there's a great quote in in many drag songs, which is like these people have more followers than dollars. And what he's trying to say is like you make them important when they don't need to be important total.

Now do you ceos, right? You've got ceos of some the biggest companies in the world, like tim cook, like frame slotman, who are making their company policy based on what this small number of loud voice on twitter are saying. It's ridiculous.

I mean, I think the eric atoms win is a watershed because IT shows the emperor wears no close. These these very loud, progressive, woke voices ultimately do not have that many supporters. And all people .

have to .

do when you do not.

when he goes into the privacy of the ballot box. You have a lot of people against similar to the to to the to what we saw in the in the trump the election in two thousand sixteen, where all these people quietly said out, I cannot support trump and then one in two people went into that ballot box and said, fuck you to everybody and this is the exact same thing that's playing out, except the opposite, which is now, if you are not completely progressive, at least in your posture, in your vocabulary, there's this thread of being cancelled.

And so you adopt this stuff almost to make your life easy. But when push comes to shop and we see IT here in new york city and we'll probably see IT all over the country, you get into the ballot box, you're onna go for somebody moderate and reasonable. That does the simple things that you want to get up.

And by the way, they tried to cancel uh the new york times tried to cancel Andrew yang because he um had made uh very he basically said, you know that uh mentally ill men uh who are addicted to drugs basically are um punching people on the face and you know we need to address that and the new york times framed IT really interestingly and i'll read at the tweet watch and reya ng's response to a question about how he would handle mental health during the day wednesay y's new york city mayor debate, uh drew fire on social media from people who said IT lacked empathy or understanding and when you look at that framing, he said how he would handle mental health.

He wasn't talking about mental health generally and broadly. He was talking about people suffer from mental health on the streets who were homeless, who are dictation drugs and who punched people on the face. Massive subset.

yeah. But they they framed this to tack. Then let me just find the other way. They framed IT IT drew fire on social media. So instead of saying this person said this, they literally the new york times is trying to get Andrew yang cancelled and to get more people to subscribe uh, by being part of the work mob, literally their twitter handle does I could find ten times as many people who said, yeah, we can have people who are mentally ill and violent on the street punching people.

IT was under Young IT was under Young's single best moment of the campaign as he talked honestly about the risk to the public of mentally ill people living on the streets and attacking people. IT was a single best moment. The reason he did IT is because he saw the traction that air garden was getting on the safety issue. And if yang had done up from the beginning of the campaign, he might be the next mayor.

He let .

let he again care too much. Ultimately, his A K heal was caring too much about the very online voices on twitter like the neuro times. And we've just seen that erick Adams has proved as all a house of cards, nobody really cares what they think.

Here's here's the quote from america. S if the democratic party. Fails to recognize what we did here in new york.

They're going to have a problem in the military elections, and they're going to have a problem in the presidential election, the brooklin burgh president said. AmErica is saying we want to have justice and safety and end in inequality. And we don't want fancy candidates.

We want candidates. Their nails are not polished. They have called sis on their hands, and they are blue collar people.

Sense turn to to common sense freeburg, I had A C C G on um this um thread where somebody said they found missing sequencing of the cover genes that were submit to a database. Did you have a chance to review that at all?

Um I did. And since you sent that to become a little bit of a story and a lot of people have kind of picked IT up and followed up on IT because I did ignite quite a bit of interest. So the story is a guy named Jessie balloon who's a researcher at the and cancer center in seattle and has been studying um you know cove IT as a lot of scientists have kind of shifted their attention over the past year, has A A background and myrover gy.

He was uh trying to pull some early um genomic examples that uh um that may have been taken from patients early in china. Uh so what this means is you know when patients kind of um in the early days, we're emerging as potentially having sarce cov too. They were swapping them and then doing a genomic read of the the R N A they find from the virus in that swab.

And uh around the world a lot of scientists contributed this openly available genomic database um and they contribute their whole genome saplings uh when they when they run studies and so on to other scientists can use IT in the future for research. And what the sky found was that there were a few dozens of these samples that had been on this genomic database that were now missing, and they had been pulled down as using a little technical su thing, he realized they had been pulled down from the directory. But the Roger omy example re.

Data was still available on the google cloud. So he used the google cloud, A, P, I, to pull that actual data down from the servers, and then ran a study on, and that turns out that the interesting kind of intrigue around the story is, why did that data get get deleted? Who deleted IT IT? Turns out the only way gets deleted is if the original kind of authors go in and make a request to have IT removed.

And these are some random scientists in china who had sumitra say, and so a in the days following this publication, uh, of this guy, so the sky publishes on a preprint server called biologies so it's not a pear review journal. Uh IT basically a place for biology. Ve is a place where uh biology scientists can submit uh early versions of the research papers or to get uh a new finding out really quickly and then the world can kind of study IT and you have to wait for the journalist kind of cycle of getting things approve the uh which is which is common now um and so he put this thing out there and everyone's kind of questioning, well, okay, where do these saplings go?

Turns out that these chinese scientists had submitted them and now in his shown uh or has come out that apparently some um U S. Officials made the request to have a taken down after being asked to do so by some chinese officials to take them. And so there's a really weird kind of in try going on right now around this whole story now.

So so so that kind of thread number one, which is why was this request made to pull this data down? What was the motivation? And etta read number two, is what is the data show us and what the data shows us? Unfortunate, a little bit inconclusive.

So a guy travel bedford just put out a tweet um earlier today uh analyzing this is a is a world class myo logic also worked the french function in seattle um and he basically highlights that in the early days of the SARS coffee to explosion in china you can really identify from a genomic very and perspective two lines ages of the virus that means you we're trying to get back to origin locations zero and IT turns out there were kind of like these two families of the virus that were emerging and even with that new data, you can kind of reconstruct the family treat in such a way that the wuhan meat market could have been the origin, meaning the root virus could have come out of that woh and market or the woh and meat market could have been one of the two branches of the tree that emerged early on. So there may have been even earlier. Origin and wu hand market was just one place where I started to take off.

So, you know, he said, look, he still thinks that it's about a fifty fifty. There's no clear evidence one way the other based on these newly uh uncovered samples uh but uh you know there is still this question of the woh and market kind of paint the patient zero story or is that one of the places where the explosion happened in patient zero was in fact much earlier than we had market? I will say a couple episodes ago, I kind of made a comment, you know with respect to the origin of this virus that I don't know, don't care and and I just want to clarify cause I know that some people kind of reach out to me about that. I didn't really uh my my intention with that statement was that this was really meant to be um I think a little bit more of a canarian a coal mine for us broadly about you know hey, what we should be looking forward to, it's what's happened.

Let's move on to the next thing is what you're saying not being called that IT doesn't matter.

yeah. I think I think what's more important that we need to get prepared for how do we prevent these things happening in the future and and what are the um you know the key out of checkpoints we have uh around this in the future because one thing I am most concerned about this a huge step back, but i'm concerned about our Normalization of cancel. Um you know we kind of have started to cancel people, but we also you know these shutdown have been Normalized and the Normalization where shut down is the response to an emerging area into emerging virus is really scary because you know, how is society going to function properly when there is going to be a prolific of these virus? As a proliferation of of risks uh, with new technologies is being made available to us and then shutting down becomes our immediate response.

Well, how do you feel about shutting down border sheet berg as the first course of action, if everybody in unison on had shut down the borders in fabricate, said no intercountry travel, you know, I would have obviously been devastating for the airlines. IT might have stop the pandemic in its tracks.

There was no way to stop the the pandemic one. Once the genes out of the bottle, the genie out of the bottle, and we saw this in states that had lockdowns and states .

that didn't have locked down, where we saw equi, those kind of places that are islands that locked down, why were they spared?

I don't know if you can really say that they were spared um and I don't know if you can really say that people are happy with the the life that they LED for that year, right? I I think what we need to solve for is how do we have these vaccines come to market much faster and be much more variable in their efficaciously because we are going to a have a lot more these kind of emerging variants over the next couple years. Would starts cov two. But also with potentially question for you mother .

sax then um in freeburg sort of analysis there um and what was explained uh on the web about the these new sequences, the us was allegedly involved in taking this down with the chinese if the USA and i'm just creating a hypotheses here just to do a little game there. If the us was allowing china to take this down, what would the game theory be? If the us. Was involved in there S.

A, A cover up, or being OPEC like the chinese have already been proven to be, why would the U. S. Do that tramp? What would be the possible series?

A exacts why did why did the NBA shut down to a mori?

But that may not be um that may sorry, that may not be national policy, jaco write so like a scientist and american scientist or american officials made that request IT doesn't mean that IT was conspiratorial processed to remove this.

Yeah no, I want to jump the gun. I wanted jump the fans and say if in fact the some U. S. People were involved so to your point, IT could be an individual covering that up or I could be an organization in amErica where could be, you know, some set of organizations.

But actually you wanted to look, I don't believe the web market theory precisely because there is a cover up. I mean, the wet market theory was the official C C P W H O party line about where the virus came from. If that was the case, why went they just thrown the gates to investigators, let them go into you on intuit biology? Know why? Why all the cover up?

Why and when they shut down all wet markets?

Maybe, I mean.

but I made the gal.

but but why? Why have struck the investigation? Why um ask these american researchers to delete these sequences of um DNA or whatever and why would the researchers do IT?

Because they were ask to and y've got a relation.

Why would americans be if in fact they were why why W H O been .

Carrying water .

for the news? The wh, stupid. I mean.

let's all got all these institutional centers. They all work together. And you know, there's money involved, their sort of relatives involved, there's bureaucracy involved.

and then there's a level of incompetence.

So, so IT .

could be incompetence. Could he also not be that, uh, we funded that laboratory in some way, right? We had given .

some .

money towards IT. That's a thing .

established yeah in doing this. So we want to look or we don't want to be in conflict with them because the americans in the .

west might demand we be in conflict, which is like only a low level request is made to basically delete an entry in a table. You do IT, you know, not thinking anything of IT um IT. I think it's pretty clear that this was something that leaked out, that lab.

The thing that we will never, ever know is how and why and whether IT was purely accidental or something more nefarious than that. And I think this is why the freeburg point we just have to put a pin. In all of that and move on and try to figure out away where we set ourselves up so that the the next time, for example, the like you know, we we hear about the delta variant, we're going to hear about other variants in the fall. It's gonna a tough winter. We cannot shut down.

I think we need to know what .

happened here in order to inform our plan for the future. So I think, to your point, walking and chewing come at the same time.

Why can we do both? Yeah, well, I mean, think about IT if the so i've never i've never heard anyone seriously argued that the lab leak was intentional. I mean, I think because that would oppose, I think, a risk to china itself.

But bt, let's say I wasn't exxon al lab. Um what what that suggests is, look, the chinese knew everything about this virus for months while we were all here pulling out our here trying to figure this thing out. What is IT? Who does IT effect know? What are the risks? We're all having these debates in the united states and trying to get to the bomb of this. And they knew everything about IT .

they were telling us. But freeburg, I mean, I I think I read this somewhere, but moderna had character is the vaccine forty eight hours after getting an email .

of the DNA sequence of the anyone can do 4。 So this was done in january as soon as we got yes.

they did make IT to dave. It's point, what do they tell us how they made IT?

IT took months to understand the pathology of the ah .

it's that's not what matters. J, K, L, you can read the code. It's very readable. You can read the code within a day, and then you can pick the area of the spy protein, which we are ring you about, and you can say, let's go build, you know, target.

So how they got there doesn't matter, is where you saying fleeing yg, how they created IT, how they got to .

the chinese you're say you're asking how the chinese edited the virus in a lab is what you're saying yeah.

how they was this like a three year project? Is this the seventeen version they worked on or the second? You know, like there are so many things.

Jason, you're speaking about your characterising this as if I was a designed weapon.

Is that what you're saying? What i'm saying, he was designed not as a weapon, but they were doing what evolutionary .

unction research?

Yes.

gain of function means that there was the gain of function in plane english reburning.

So so when they say ology biology, they're onna study, what changes in the genome might do to biology, to to an animal, to a biological system. And that study gives them insights into how a virus may evolve or how certain part of a virus may affect humans, ultimately in different ways. And so understanding viruses and and really important when you're studying viruses, as you can understand where they're headed, not just where they're coming from. And so just understand whether y're headed, you may make genomic changes and study how those genomic changes can I .

use the word enhances or you could say that.

you say evolve, you could say enhance, you could say engineered, but um but very much it's about understanding where the changes in the proteins and the virus can affect biology in different ways in the future so that we can Better understand, you know what these viruses are capable. Love and prepare .

ourselves once out the implications of covered nineteen thank god we didn't have to find that out for seventeen, sixteen, fifteen, fourteen, thirteen, twelve, twenty nine. You know, I mean, like.

yes, so that's my point. Freeburg would IT not be helpful to open corona look at every single enhancement they made and what the results of those were like. They did something in that lab for the last couple of years.

Who's got that in? They knew the name is the same.

Is the same.

they. Know what this database thing represents is, look, there was a cover up here and that cover up has fingerprints and the information is leaking out. And we are seeing more and more information is going to come out.

I actually disagree you guys that we're not going to learn more about what happened. I lear. We're going to earn a lot more, get worse and .

worse is what IT head. So say we discover that was .

my horigan al question.

Let's say we discovered that there's an accidental lab lake out of the wuhan institute biology. A scientists got infected, left the lab, gave IT to her boyfriend. People spread IT in the street.

Sudenly became a whole pandemic. What do we do? What do you think? The responses? You think americans basically now impose sanctions on china.

We and we lead to a cold war. Like where is this all headed? What are the motivating principles of politicians who are going to respond? That comes out.

Yes.

that's what I want to know OK. One of before pharmaceutical industry cannot be dependent on china for our pharmaceutical supply chain or any biotics or ppe that is insane. Um second of all, I think we got be more realistic about the nature, the regime that we're dealing with. They knew everything about this virus .

for months while we are trying to figure IT out what is that to be to what what ens pling here.

And here's another thing that I think needs to happen.

which is that t couple, but I guess that is just once. But doesn't t coupling happen either way? Like why do we need all this? Because there is such a motivating principle on on both sides of the I, O, to decouple from china. And there is a pro no there.

There is a reason to native couple. It's called money. There is a group of elite who do not want the decoupling to happen for the a to iphone a, and I want A D couple. They want to integrate these two societies so that we can make money. And decoupling is my area of what people are scared of, all of a decoupling.

I just want to say two things. I don't think that there's like a group of elites that want that to happen necessarily because I think that their lives are complicated. And what they would love to have, I think, is actually two.

And markets. You have to remember, if you go from one global market to a do open market and you're a cellular of services, you actually have more pricing power and a do open than you do in a monopoly into a monopoly. So you know, if you're disney theoretically and you have the ability to differently Price two different pieces of content, you're going to do that. So I I I tend to think, in general, it's Better for economic systems to have this by vacation. So the I just want to go back to the the thing that I wanted .

to define by vacation. You're seeing two different markets. But what if there is, hey, we're going to sanctions. We're not going to send disney movies where they're gona let disney and NBA and like they don't like google and twitter and where iphones .

are not going to be in. That is accelerating acy because again, you have an enormous ly difficult Anthony issue inside of china, which is they have a chemic demographic bomb shell going on. Yes, they have.

We have the average age in china. First of the average age in the united states is now the same. Yeah, which is an unbelievable thing. Because china was policy.

China was fifteen or twenty years Younger in the early nineties when all of this offshoring started to happen in full scale by the end of twenty ones. By the end of this century, china's population, I think, is projected to shrink to about seven hundred million people. So they are in a hugely difficult demographic situation where there is no Young people. People are getting older and older, older. And so there's just gonna a lot of upheaval.

You just have a of money to much.

china. China just relaxed one child policy to two. Then within a month, they were the two child policy to three.

and now they paying people to have kids. So I mean, we just like the tax and .

sentence well and now they are uh they are floating a policy which is unlimited kids. okay. So so that I just want to go back to what uh, one of the practical things we can do coming out of wu hand is all this new data comes out is instead of vilifying china or trying to enter some cold war, which is stupid, we should just go and reassure everything, is sax suggested.

One thing that you can say is, wherever there is this kind of research happening in the world, every single version needs to go to some basically open source repository that Violet gist all around the world can basically watch what's happening in lockstep. So that what what what was going on here then? yeah.

What are they going?

That is exactly the principle and that is exactly what goes on within the academic and research communities worldwide is very open and CoOperative dialogue with academic around the world about these matters. And generally, that is absolutely true in the way things are done, because scientists don't care about politics. They care about, you know.

human health and progress. Answer this question, please. Is every single variant of covet that LED up to cove IT nineteen, well characterized and well understood by a broad classic of scientists and raw legists all over .

the .

world or yeah or a small subset of people, the the plurality of which were working at the wu hang lab of erotic gy.

We didn't know the argument goes, you don't know that you have SARS coffee two in those early days and so you see some people getting sick and .

suddenly you put your head up and you my point.

you not your not running a genomic sequent on all people no.

on, I think something else. You have this original virus that you've been testing and muting and you reprogramming your testing, you're basically doing a massive bound coral simulation on the original virus. Are all the intreat dial instantiation of that virus well characterised that? Okay, that's my point.

So yeah, okay.

If they were probably available.

would that be super dangerous also.

by the way, like wouldn't IT make sense? And if if you were doing these iterations of these viruses, that that the DNA sequences should go to places like five, the journal where you are Mandates to create vaccines just in case. Well, we are going to .

enter a state chair in the next decade where we will have vaccine printers around the world. There are going to be small buyer. Reactors are going effectively ship code to them. They're going .

to print .

vaccines. They're several companies .

pursuing this just to go. And I think that's something that we can fix.

That's why what matters most, in my opinion, and based on the the commons I made a few episodes ago, is that we need to focus on how to get there versus are trying to trace back the origins because I think honestly, tracing back the origins is just going to put kindling on a fire that's already burning. And so this has been my point about this whole like, you know, blame china.

We want to get to a point where we can court and CD blame china for this. But the decoupling in the onshore, there is already enough motivation there. And there is already on both sides of the there is already kind of obvious projector that we're headed this way.

I'm not sure this is a catalyst maybe or it's a little bit more kindling. We're already had IT there. And IT doesn't actually answer our forward looking question, which is how do we secure our future. And how we secure our future is really more technology and industry .

and and some of these free let me, let me build on travel idea. What if the M. R. A vaccine creation and the research laboratory were the same facility and you had across disciplinary approach where .

they're making stuff .

and then they're curing IT next door in real time so that they can trade notes. Why would that be? A terrible idea. Seems like a brilliant idea.

You could just you can just transfer the date from the research and print the vaccines with the people that are really good at making vaccine, right? You don't need to have an interest in understanding of the biology to actually be effective at making vaccines, right? nobody.

There is something about scientists who are across disciplinary sharing space and having collisions, building relationships in that part of the science process. That's work. You talk about how, in synthetic biology in all this, you want the mathematicians, computer programmer, you know, and the biologists in the same area, in the chemists.

resolving to a world where we have very cheap, very fast and distributed production of vaccines is an engineering problem. And the the engineering work is what is kind of being undertaken now by several companies and and will be fuelled by this a this new um bill that bidens trying to get pass this infrastructure ture bill as a tonto money in air form.

And as that happens, that engineering process is effectively think about of my printers and they can take code, and that code allows the that printer and I print whatever you want to print. The question of what you want to print is gonna determined by the research that's being done over here, which is okay. Here's what we're discovering. Here's that we should print, here's that which you protect against and why. But I think that there's a separate engineering exercise, which let's build this distribution production system.

I'm not gonna lemon say these labs are immature, naive and unsophisticated in the checks and baLances that exist. And I think we've seen that and we need to fix that. And you need to do something more than just have a bunch of focus that are focused on science going ham in whatever way they want.

All right? So just a rap sex, this as we put a Cherry on IT.

Well, I just you ask the question, what do we do about china? I think that is a question that's a generator question we're going to asking that for for decades. This is an area we need freed burgee nuance because it's something that we're going to have to navigate as a country for for decades.

You are really good book about. This is the tui's trap um background. Ellison is a hard professor and he discusses different strategy we can take. He quotes leak on you who is the president of singapore, who has a great quote about this.

He said, leak on you said that the size of china's displacement of the world baLance is such as the world must find a new baLance IT is not possible to pretend that this is just another big player. This is the biggest player in the history of the world that that was the lead on you quote. So we were dealing with this issue even before cove IT, but I do think that covet has unmask this regime a little bit and um caused people across both sides of people spectrum to look at this regime I think more realistically .

uh all right. So um in somewhat related news, uh apple obviously building all their phones over there and now having servers and data over there um has LED to a lot of scrutiny of big tech. Um but the more pressing issue is the anti trust bills that seem to be fast tract.

On wednesday, U. S. Hoh judiciary committee discuss six six proposed entire trust spell. Ls uh one bill uh sponsored by h democrat from road island uh would call for apple to allow third party APP stores seems reasonable uh and provide iphone technologies to third party software makers. So I think that means may be opening up a message, uh which would be delightful and not sure exactly what they mean there. Um and so apple uh and tim cook is in a panic.

He apparently called Nancy policy and said, can you pump the brakes just to give you an idea of what's going on here um apples uh revenue even though it's a small percentage of just ten percent uh of their two hundred and seventy four billion dollars in a twenty twenty revenue, it's obviously pure profit. Profit margins gotto be in the note it's a seventy five percent. But how that is even more clearly, services and the APP store inside of apple is I think analogous to the A W S for amazon is the money printing machine that's growing or really fast. Uh, what do we think about apple being forced to put other APP stores on there following just like you can on your android phone?

I support IT. I've been blue piled on this issue actually that's the with the commenters on of the all in fans of set is that why start taking blue pills on this issue? And and look, the reality is because i'm not in the business of of helping two trillion dollar a market cap companies.

I'm in the underdog business. I'm in the business of helping the answer nor get started with a new company. And the fact the matter is, is that apple has the market power the same, market power greater that microsoft did in its heyday with the windows monopoly. They are total gatekeepers of what applications can be built on these IOS.

And windows, windows and windows .

and o and I was in, right? So this proposal by representative, right? So this proposal by representative, selling the democrat from road island would allow the sidelining. IT would basically loosen the grip that apple has over the apps that can be loaded onto apple devices. You would at least you create some degree tio .

competition and it's very easy to execute grah.

Uh I I I think you said I really well. I am also in the underdog business. So I think the the faster theyve RAM this thing through the Better off IT will be um the thing that is important to recognizes that apple will make this argument that will look there's always entry and also look there's the open one.

And that's structurally not true for a couple of reasons. The overwhelming amount of development, or at least in silicon valley and broadly speaking in tech, starts on the iphone. sure. And it's only then as an afterthought, almost.

I mean, you have remember IT took snaps chat three or four years of being a public company before they actually had a reasonable android APP, right? And so entries has always been sort of the low arpu after thought. Even though IT has meaningfully more users.

they're just not as value revenue per user.

And so exactly. And so you know, it's kind of a baseless argument. The overwhelming revenue the north star for developers where all of the venture capital money goes into is the funding and developing s apps.

And in that world view, I O S is a complete monopoly. And uh breaking up the ability for them to basically dictate or thirty percent take great. Um and also listening the technical garden. Als I think is a huge step. Ford, there is an only one thing that I would say, however, apple has done an incredible job at paraos y locking down the phone sand boxing instances and will have to find some technical alternative to fortifying.

Um oh h no actually they don't remove. Actually I think what they do is when you go to your settings, you say unlock iphone, you now are not protected. Apple is not responsible. You've decided to sid loads stuff and it's basic, like putting your your phone into jail break or dev mode where they are not going to support you. That's the way I think apple sheed executed is that would be like there, you know, if you want to load anything you want when you get viruses and your privacy attack, it's not on us. You essentially all the we have one warranty for people who are not jail broken and sid loaded, and one warranty for people who decide to jail break the funds.

What what's incredible to me, the the other point on this is how quickly these guys pass this bill and actually. All six and then how reasonably well they were written. I mean, this is one topic where sometimes, you know, politicians can really kind of get IT wrong, or they can get lobbied in one way or the other.

And these bills come out, they don't make sense. I mean, if you have to member where how far we've come, you know, wasn't the first anti trust thing. We're like some guy as suck a question about like a model tea ford or something. I mean, IT was just so stupid, they were so dumb and they've gone from there to this is really incredible how fast they've caught up.

I think this is just a terrible precedent. And I I think if you guys um weren't going to make money by weakening apple and alphabet, you guys put your free market hats on, you'd kind of acknowledge that visit we were .

not Angel investors. We did not do the series of either of those companies freeburg.

Yeah I I I recognize that and I think that you guys had a bunch of shares, an alphabet, amazon or apple. Your opinion would be a little bit different but um i'm just observing exactly .

what I ve I ve shared an amazon and facebook yeah well.

look, I think in this particular case.

in the process of selling.

the end of the day, if apple and alphabet didn't make incredible products for consumers and focus on consumer happiness, they wouldn't be as successful as they are. And much of, if you remember, kind of the early days of the apple apple store um ideology IT was about curating apps and curating the quality of those apps so that the quality of the overall iphone experience would be superior to anything else out there and consumers would love IT. IT wasn't about blocking out competitors and blocking out rivals and blocking out other platforms. IT was about making something that consumers are absolutely love.

And the by freedoms g they blocked third party uh book stores and a book readers. They blocked browsers. They want the c and open source players. They did that because they wanted to use their own products .

they set before they set standards on the APP store. And as long as you meet those standards, those apps got in there. So youtube in there, google chrome is in there. I've got chrome .

installed.

My had a Better brother took.

and they realized they had their back.

Now the only reason that cho is there is because of the amount of money that google pays apple for search.

Yeah, what 着？

And that was a quit procol in that search deal. I will bet you dollars to donors that that's the only reason from the support.

Yeah, I don't think apple I don't think apple is that done. I'm pretty sure that these guys recognized that if consumers want something, they Better give IT to them. And if consumers wanted a bunch of apps on the phone that didn't .

work and broke down all the time, then go through the process of a big, should you be able I break .

your phone and hacker freeburg, I don't think that I should be taking apple had make their frequent hardware. They should make the hardware. And I is a .

consumer in the free market.

should decide if I wanted buy IT or not. And if I want blackberry, I guess these guys, they are all that because there are products suck OK. At the end of the day, if there's an alternative out there, I will buy IT. And if you guys want to go fund a hardware, are company that builds a software platform on top of the hardware, not a .

monopole. Is that okay? barn? Now I know why you didn't want to say you're opinion. You're a good dam.

Robert is really interesting that free percent on this issue is actually the the free market um monster red pill no and and everybody .

else a sort of blue pill but red pill pill but no i'm speaking .

my book I .

completed I I really like .

creative .

destruction. I think it's Better for startups. I don't particularly have a lot of trust or faith that these big companies, when they get this big, are particularly well run or have the best interest of the broad uh, market in their minds.

And so yeah, i'll i'll be honest with you. I hope these companies get broken up. I think it's great for what we do. I think it's great for entrepreneurship. I think it's super, uh, phenomenal for the innovation cycle we could be a part of um and I would hope to participate in that make a bunch .

of the best way to destroy apply is to build Better technology that disrupts down. And that has always been the case throughout history. And any time government gets involved and tries to break up a monopoly in a way that is not natural to the way the market forces might demand you and declining an innovation standard, we have to disrupt apple, we have to disrupt amazon, we have to disrupt alphabet using technology. If we want to have an advantage to go in the market. And by having government come in an intervene, I feel like IT ends up being like like, like, you know, this crony is which which ultimately affects markets .

in an d here's the problem is that the development network effects around an Operating system in are insuperable they you cannot overthrow them.

There are now thousands and thousands yet in millions of apps have been developed on the IOS system, and no competition can ever get that kind of traction IT is the windows, not we all over again? And by the way, microsoft and windows might have dominated the internet if they warned for the government coming down with the whole netscape litigation. Nescafe didn't survive, but a kind of IT kind of froze microsoft its tracks and prevented them from dominating the naca internet.

And so now I think that turned out to be a good government intervention in terms of allowing innovation to move forward. And and by the way, just on the sistine proposals, I think part of the reason why they make so much sense is because we can't break up apple. How would you break up apple? right? I mean, apple sells one product which is IOS on different sizes.

To break up apple is to force them to use their outlet, their Operating system, be licensed to .

all the hardware that's breaking them up, breaking them up.

So IT would certainly create doward pressure on their margins if deal could make a compete able detox OK.

What i'm saying is there's no natural fault lines within apple like there are at amazon or google, right?

Amazon.

amazon could spend out a very easily. Google could spend out youtube or maybe enterprise. Apple, apple is not going to separate ipad in IOS.

Yes, of course. So so what that means is because you can't split the company if you want to address their power. The only way to do IT is with proposals like sidelining H.

I feel like you you you're either looking at a capitalist monopoly or you're looking at a government monopoly. So if you think about what's happened in financial services in the united states, that the regulatory burden on being a service provider in the financial services industry is so high that IT is very difficult for startups to comment and compete and look at what emerged bitcoin, right?

I feel like there is always going to be a consumer innovation model that will supplant the monopoly. And you can't just, hey, the governments get going to come in in sideline ad or or break up these big businesses. What ultimately happens to when you do that is you create a regulatory burden that makes IT equally difficult for competition to a rise over time or to reduce innovation .

that's gonna enter IT consumers. This is the princess laa. Uh you know basically theory the title you the more galaxy slipped through your fingers and maybe tiktok ah and snap chat or examples of that with facebook, but there aren't many and I don't know who's coming up to fight against amazon at this point. Um so choose fy and chaotic fies .

crushing IT and they're incredible and they're going to create this long tale of stores that ultimately couldn't up competing really effectively with amazon. And we've seen IT, right? And consumers choose IT.

And just because shop of I is making a lot from sah revenue does not mean that the .

majority of goods are not gonna mer experience on shop stores is fantastic. I don't realize IT, but we're buying IT, not stuff a fy stores. And IT has forced innovation, you know. And I will also highlight that one of the benefits of the scale businesses is that they end up having the resources to fund new and emerging businesses that otherwise won't be fundable. I don't think that A W S would have emerged and therefore google cloud and all these other other alternative would have have emerged if d body suggesting .

to have broken these thing up in two thousand and seven, but it's two thousand and twenty one and things have changed.

I don't know what's down the road that we're onna miss out on you, right? I M, I guess my point is, like now let the consumer make the decision as opposed to create regulatory burden that that over time has its time.

What is the downside to allowing somebody who wants to put an upstart on their iphone? What's the downside? freebody? What's the downside to letting me have maison's APP store or android APP store and me to pick that? I wanted just have one set of subscriptions, and I prefer .

the android Better. I'm not making IT personally. Apple argument is that the quality, quality of I think I just think it's a little bit short sighted for us to all jump to say let's break up big tech like the quality of no, no over, I think is incredible. And and the new products that have committed just mind blowing and know we all kind of miss the fact that these are the beneficiaries of scale businesses. And you know you can't really see .

a start of three break. We are not saying break up big tech. We're saying get rid of the thirty percent astor phy because that negatively impacts our portfolios.

Let's be clear here.

This is growing with the margins and a lot of the companies we invest, we want that take rate lowered. I mean, this if apple just made the take rate fifteen percent, this entire thing goes away. Epic games feels great.

Spotify feel great. That's what they should have done when you overplay your hand and then of the sun, you create a group of enemies from netflix to spotify, the epic games. That was apple's big mistake.

They should have given those people a lower rate and just slowly, the rate, which is what everybody he's doing now with creator um percentages. And I think that's what youtube should do now the forty five percent their taking just lower that to thirty. Just give up a little bit to take rate and and people will be feel more reasonable about .

what you're take. Can I bring .

in the .

I want, I wanted end the apple segment on on A G M. Article, which was called .

bad apple .

of the know how.

David. David, I think, is like ready to be in a full blown romance with antonia. I mean.

Which are you talking about?

I'm talking about u sax. Are you in love with antonia? A big pause.

We have a new zoom, and I have to have been. In love with his look.

That's the look of love.

of love I thought I was .

really well written to.

He's a good writer. He he's a really.

really good writer.

But here's the thing he is getting pay probably three hundred thousand to seven hundred thousand dollars to write on sub stack after getting fired and after getting a giant settled from apple, whatever that could be. So he is making out like abandon, but that I thought the fattest bar was like, i'm not being a silence here because i'm now being paid to talk about apple for the next sub um but he I thought his most salient point was Steve jobs .

would not have .

been able to exit hundred percent. David, you broke up when I yes, you're in love than tono you just you.

I thank you. I cut off. Yes, yeah, exactly.

no. Look, I think I don't agree everything A G M rights. But do you think he is a fantastic writer with a lot of interesting perspective and that ending of that article, the reason want to mention IT is a kind of goes to freeburg point about how much innovation, how much innovation is there really at apple now that that the genius who created IT is gone and he he ends his article by saying, when apple launched a mac computer in thousand and eight four, you they famously ran that super that featured a solitary figure flinging a sledge hammer into a big brother like face, spewing propaganda.

The hole ranks of some draft dsp, pia and then agm says the tech tightens nowadays resemble more and more the hiring figure on the screen, rather than the colorful rebel going against establish order, whether be hiring policy or free speech, silicon valley has to decide whether IT becomes what IT once vow to destroy. The reality is the great genius who founded apple is long gone. IT is run by hr people and wo supply run .

by a supply chain manager.

exactly. And and and so there is no more innovation there. They are just a gatekeeper collecting rents and favorite ga write to raise the issue of what's gone to create the most innovation. But the thing that's going to create the most innovation is letting anchor norse create new companies without needing apples for mission.

I will tell you something, I think that over the next decade, because of exactly what you I said, that apple is run by managers who don't want to see loss but aren't driven to gain, you're going to end up seeing amazon ticula and apple likely as well lose to the likes of shop fy and square and stripe, shop fy square and stripe, or all formidable threats to amazon over time.

And now that basotho actually going to step out, 嗯， and IT is gonna run by bunch of managers, and you have these founders of these three companies still running all three those businesses. And all three those businesses are going to be incredible competitive threats from different angles on amazon. Bad is where innovation win.

And you will see IT because leadership driven by founders, that those businesses could take them to compete directly with the guides and you don't need the government to come in the intervene. All three of them were building and are going to continue to build Better experiences for consumers. And for that could end up disrupting the .

give you you give you different take. I think that all four companies are going to win.

including every zone.

Yeah, they're going to continue to win. And uh, I think what IT shows is that shop, fy and stripe and square had to have very precise entry points and markets. And in many ways, the things that they are love to do is still quite constrained because amazon exists.

I think that that's fine. That should be allowed. But I don't think that's what's gonna legislated and then litigated over the next ten or fifteen years.

It's a handful of very specific practices that constrain what folks can do. I think the APP store is a constraint. The algorithmic nature of facebook news, sped and google search or constraints.

And people are going to test those things. And I think that in testing IT, you're probably going to do what the government was successful, as sax said in two thousand, which is just slow these guys down. You have remember at some point, there are probably more D, O J lawyers inside of microsoft product managers.

And everything, if I remember correctly, from a future perspective, had to go to the D O, J for approval for some time. That's probably the best thing that can happen to these companies, which is you completely come up the product infrastructure then you know, freeway, you right, the human capital equation changes. People leave.

It's not that fun to be there. They go to start. But again, you needed the government to step in and they're not going to necessarily solve IT, but they can really slow down the overreach of these companies for the next twenty years. And I think that, that's net additive for the world.

Here's here's my prediction. I think the pirates are assembling themselves, whether it's coin base saying when not going politics at work or antonia and um the end of council culture, the end of taking the historical left or the historic or the trolling right seriously, I feel like that is ending and this great like nightmare of hysteria a and is going to end and the over ten windows gonna lower them and open up and people are gonna uh, be more innovative and accepting of new ideas and be reasonable and not cancel people who wrote something .

five or ten or to go reasonable and well.

we are right, everybody. Uh, this has been another isole body. What my doing today?

Yeah.

what you are, you're inviting us .

somewhere just or always.

this, a flex. Are you go. Did you get an electric ctrip .

and thirty P. M. For me? So I gotta hang out with my family.

I've got the access in a board meeting and that's .

IT in the anian general.

Yes, covering europe.

I I again, I just want to say I go the dentist. My film pretty overcame .

you hearing people moving back from now.

Let's be, people are so happy here.

yeah. Do you think you're going to end up living there are?

no. I mean.

maybe no, maybe.

Did you do.

Did you get did you .

get orthopedic shoes when you thought that shirt.

But you join a golf club. Are you in a retirement in community right now?

Guys, on a diet I breaks by the end of the summer, i'll be Better than Jason.

Way, okay, let bring IT go to dex. I can desk, whatever, go to dex can. And let's go next episode show. Do.

do.

do I think about one ninety four o one ninety five, something like that?

小朋友。

five, 6， you do look. Finner.

you do look, yeah, I ve had lots, about five pounds already, about one eighty five right now.

And what your height for five.

nine.

how were the same height? And you wait tep out. You look good. Are you on any pharmaceuticals to this weight?

No, i'm doing, i'm doing intermet fasting. I'm doing no carps and i'm trying to be as play basis possible.

I so sexy. You do look Better. You feel good, more energy.

yeah. I mean, I yes, I was getting like just said exter five pounds. I kind of tip me over. I think I got like another fifteen to go, but you think .

you could be one seventy?

yeah.

Have you cut back on drinking? You can only take us so .

we had had some incredible wine last night.

so I thought you were a voca guy can just do like a voc and soda and be good.

I am, you know.

I can wait to be, play poker and drink some to mars .

line is so fun I can with .

other I love sex, love you Harry, love you Harry videos, love you all that batch. This has been the all in podcast brought you by nobody. And if you'd like to join the all in chat, you can join our eye message group.

The first ten people, at ten thousand dollars a month, we're going to monotoned by allowing ten people to be in the island, which change for ten thousand, to break chops. So we link three hundred box a day to be in. I got to figure a way to montibus this will see all next time, 拜拜 your。 Winter, man.

We open sources to .

the fans .

and crazy.

We should all just get a room, just have one big, huge, or because I like sexual attention.

Your be, we can .

get much.